Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand there is a manager's amendment to the committee amendment at the desk offered by Senator Chafee. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate disagree to the amendment of the House, agree to the request for a conference, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on S. 1004, a bill to authorize appropriations for the U.S. Coast Guard, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1004) entitled ``An Act to authorize appropriations for the United States Coast Guard, and for other purposes'', do pass with the following amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert:

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 227, S. 640.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is apparent that the Senators from Nevada are trying to hold up the Department of Defense, the people who are in the field serving this country, and to delay the consideration of this bill, as I said, which is a critical bill, with Members wanting to go back to their States because of this hurricane. The rules of the Senate are the rules of the Senate, and there is not much this Senator can do about it. If the Senator from Nevada is going to persist to put us through the same gyrations we went through yesterday, I might say to my friend--he is my good friend--I am appalled at this, and I really am at a loss to consider what to do about it. Under the circumstances, it would be my intention to confer with the leadership to see what they would like to do. Mr. President, might I say for the information of the Senate, it was my intention, and that of the Senator from Hawaii, to proceed now to a series of amendments that have been cleared by all concerned, have been reviewed by Members on both sides and are prepared to be added to this bill. I do think that the problem is, how do we get this bill to a vote today. And I am still proceeding to try and find out how to do that. Mr. President, let me outline these amendments that I am trying to get considered. Let me point out to the Senate we have an amendment by Senator Bingaman which would reduce the amount for the Pentagon renovation fund by $100 million. We have cleared that. We have an amendment by Senator Chafee for the Defense Technical Transfer Pilot Program that has been cleared. Senators Kempthorne and Craig have an amendment related to the Army's mobile munition assessment system that has been cleared, Senator Lieberman's amendment adjusting funding levels for the Corps SAM and Other Theater Missile Defense/Follow-On TMD Activities Program. Those have been cleared. I have an amendment to make available $11.5 million for B-52 bomber modifications. I have an amendment regarding the CAMP Program and an amendment to provide moneys for P-3 aircraft personnel offset by a reduction in defense health and also provides additional money for B-52 squadron personnel. We have a series of other amendments that we are in the process of clearing. I tell the Senate that there are some 20 other amendments ready to go to be debated now. We have an additional series here that I believe will be cleared, and the amendment that is pending has been cleared. I hope we will be able to proceed with those. It does seem to me however, it is just an exercise in futility to have a filibuster on a defense bill. I intend to do what I can to thwart that. Mr. President, in my judgment, this bill is the key to our being able to complete action on appropriations bills and get the whole subject cleared by the end of the fiscal year. My good friend and our chairman, Senator Hatfield, is retiring this year. I want to do my best to assure that the key bills that we have, all the appropriations bills, are sent to conference before the August recess. In my judgment, if we have to give up the August recess to do that, we should do it. If we are going to have filibusters on every bill, then so be it. We will have to break them. It seems this is an unfortunate circumstance. Let me describe, for instance, this B-52 modification amendment. It provides $11.5 million within the account that is already outlined in the bill to modify the B-52 aircraft. These are required to maintain the combat effectiveness of the aircraft, should they be called upon once again to fly combat missions. They are going to be offset by a decrease in funds available to the F-15 fighter in the same account. I think we can do that because we can still proceed with the F-15. There has been a delay in the projected contract award, and the fighter data link program will remain fully funded for 1997, according to the maximum amount that can be spent. We believe we should provide these moneys. There is an initiative by the Senators from North Dakota to assure the current floor structure be preserved, and we are trying to prevent attrition of these aircraft. That is one of the amendments I have, and I am seeking to get approval today at this time. We are also going to add $4.9 million to the Navy's personnel account and $4.4 million to the Air Force personnel account to allow the Navy to maintain an end-strength support of the P-3 squadron, and the Air Force to maintain the personnel necessary to carry out the B-52 mission as outlined by the Senators from North Dakota. We are trying to cooperate as much as possible with many people on the other side of the aisle. I might say, all of these pending amendments are to make sure that amendments to the authorization bill by Members of the minority would be fully funded. Our leader is here, and I want to yield to the leader, Mr. President.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Yes.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call the Senate to order, under the previous order, pursuant to the provisions of rule 19, paragraph 1(b), and ask that the proceedings be in accordance thereof for the purposes of consideration of the appropriations bill.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have been asked to perform a couple of tasks for the leader.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent it be in order for the Senator from Florida to proceed as in morning business for 15 minutes, with the provision be allowed to recover the floor when he is completed.

Mr. STEVENS. If I can inquire of the Senator from Florida how much time he would like to have to make the statement he wishes to make?

Mr. STEVENS. There are others coming, from specific Members. I would like permission to add those.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following persons assisting the defense subcommittee be afford the privilege of access to Senate floor during consideration of this bill, S. 1894: Susan Hogan, Darryl Roberson, Candice Rogers, Mike Gilmore. There will be another list I will submit. If I can get consent for all of those, too?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, with the passage of Senate bill 1745 yesterday, the National Defense Authorization Act for 1997, we are now turning to the consideration of the defense appropriations bill for next year. As I said, I believe the Senate can quickly dispose of this bill, which is Senate bill 1894. We have, in nearly every case, followed the initiatives that have been adopted by the Senate in the authorization bill. I know there are some individual objections to portions of the bill, but as in the case last year when Senator Inouye and I presented an original bill to the Senate due to the need to complete preparations on this bill prior to the July 4th recess, we could not be sure that the House version of the bill would pass in time for the Defense Subcommittee to take up that bill. This Senate bill passed the subcommittee and full Appropriations Committee with only one minor adjustment, and reflects bipartisan work effort and total support by our Appropriations Committee. Before turning to some of the details of the bill, I want to once again this year express my appreciation to my good friend from Hawaii, Senator Inouye. We have been partners in bringing this bill to the floor of the Senate for many years. And, as I said, this bill again reflects our joint judgment. In total, the bill accommodates the 602(b) allocations provided pursuant to the joint budget resolution. The amount is $244.74 billion in new budget authority and $242.98 billion in outlays. Our bill before the Senate, Mr. President, exactly meets those limits. The bill provides for about $1 billion more than the level of appropriations for 1996. But I call to the attention of the Senate that this bill includes all estimated funding for contingency operations such as Bosnia. Again, that is another footnote to this bill. We have men and women in the field. We cannot afford to not get this bill passed by the deadline of September 30. In order to get this bill through conference and back to the Senate in time that it can be presented to the President and hopefully have him sign it, and then have time to act before September 30 in the event that he does not decide to sign it, we have to get this bill done. We have to get it to conference before the August recess. We have worked to accommodate many of the priorities presented in the Armed Services bill. As I said, there are a few differences, however, that I should note. The bill provides $475 million for shortfalls in defense health programs. Our subcommittee conducted a hearing in May on this subject. The additions we have made fully cover the failure of the administration to fully budget for health care for our military personnel, their families and retirees. Second, we provide an additional $180 million for the Bosnia operation through December 20 of this year. As I said, that is the estimate that reflects the DOD's current best estimate for the charges which will be incurred through the Presidential deadline for withdrawal of those troops. Third, we provide $150 million for the Army's peer review breast cancer research program and $100 million for a new peer review prostate cancer research program. In both instances, we have substantial involvement of military personnel in those two dread diseases, and we propose to commit some of the Defense Department's money to proceed with research to try to deal with those scourges. We have proposed to continue the Department's support for the defense missions of the Coast Guard and propose to transfer $300 million of the funds involved, or at least the services that would be funded by that money, to the Coast Guard. This is the same level as is the case under this current year, 1996. The transfer was $300 million. We have included an additional $119 million in the counterdrug program. This was specifically requested by Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the new administration coordinator of the counterdrug program. We have considered closely as well the statement of administration policy concerning the House bill. The House bill was reviewed by the administration. They have given us their comments, and this bill reflects a genuine effort on the part of our committee to address the concerns raised by the President's senior advisers concerning provisions of the House bill. We worked in preparing this bill to assess the real funding problems of the military and have sought to allocate the increase afforded by the congressional budget resolution to the most urgent personnel and operational requirements. We next worked to fund the priorities identified by each of the service chiefs. We took their counsel seriously, and this bill reflects their input. The statement of administration policy on this bill which we received last night is really from the OMB, and it notes that some of the items in the bill are not included in the President's defense plan, and that is correct. Congress rejected for 1996 and again in 1997 the reductions to defense spending proposed by the administration. The resolution adopted by Congress earlier this year provides $30 billion more than President Clinton's budget for the fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. In testimony before our subcommittee, each of the service chiefs highlighted the shortfalls in their budget and provided the committee with their priorities at our request. While not every item in this bill is included in the Clinton 5-year plan, virtually every major increase specifically funds priorities identified by one of the service chiefs. Again, I want to point out that was our request. It was not a volunteered statement by the service chiefs, but we asked them to identify their priorities, and we have funded, to the best of our ability, the priorities identified by each of the service chiefs. There are two specific increases not in the President's 5-year plan that I want to highlight. First, we provided an additional $759 million to continue the modernization of the National Guard and Reserve. This annual bipartisan effort to meet the needs of the Reserve components should be in this budget. It is right to do so. We need these funds to assure that we have an active Guard and Reserve component. We rely very heavily, more than at any time in the past, on our Guard and Reserves. Second, I joined Senator Dole, Senator Thurmond, Senator Lott, and many others in recommending a significant increase in spending for national missile defense. Now, the proposed increase in this bill reflects a balanced effort to accelerate these systems to counter the theater and national threats, threats that our military and our Nation face today. For my State of Alaska, and I believe Hawaii also, deploying a capable defense missile system is a pressing and immediate priority. A recent national intelligence estimate exempted Alaska and Hawaii from its consideration of a national missile defense requirement and specifically stated that their estimate concerning the threat to the United States could not be applied to Alaska and Hawaii. We are within the threat from existing systems now. Senator Inouye and I have looked for opportunities to save the taxpayers money in this bill, and let me point out that we have included new multiyear procurement authority for several systems, including the DTG-51 destroyer program. The Navy estimates that we will save nearly $1 billion over the next 4 years on that destroyer alone. We fully funded the C-17 multiyear contract which was authorized earlier this year. Those and many more details of the bill are explained in our report which has been available to every Member of the Senate since June 21. These were our objectives, and I hope the bill will enjoy support of a large bipartisan majority. Again, I urge the Senate to proceed expeditiously on this bill. Let us finish it today. We have a series of amendments we are prepared to accept, and I think we can move along very quickly if we have the cooperation of the Senate to do so. Let me turn now, Mr. President, to my good friend. I might state for the information of the Senate that Senator Graham of Florida wished to make a statement to introduce a bill. We wanted to lay down our bill as indicated under the agreement, but it is my intention to yield such time, following the comments of the Senator from Hawaii, to Senator Graham so he might make a statement, introduce a bill, on the condition we recover the floor as soon he has completed his statement. Let me, if I may, yield the floor to the Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be temporarily laid aside so that we can proceed with our opening statements.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. STEVENS. I, at this time, Mr. President, send to the desk a technical amendment to realign funds from the Army and Defense operation maintenance account, and ask that it be reported.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am saddened that this bill has been delayed so far. There are inquiries now coming from Members who are in the area affected by Hurricane Bertha. So I am quite hopeful that the Senate will proceed to consider this bill expeditiously. I think Senator Inouye, who is the cochairman managing this bill, agrees with me that we could finish this bill today with the cooperation of the Senate. It is going to be my intention to urge the Senate to do that. Amendment No. 4439 (Purpose: A technical amendment to realign funds from Army and Defense Wide Operations and Maintenance accounts to the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund)

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Yes, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. I perceive none once we get into the cloture motion and vote.

Mr. STEVENS. Yes.

Mr. STEVENS. Yes.

Mr. STEVENS. Yes.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Yes.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I simply say to my friend from Nevada that we can either proceed with the Defense bill and finish it today, or if he wishes to try to filibuster this bill, if he will not agree to a time agreement, it is my recommendation to the leader that we recess until Monday and have the votes on the cloture. That means we will take up the nuclear waste bill first and when we get cloture on that, we will vote on it, and when we are finished with that, we will finish the Defense appropriation bill.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a motion to invoke cloture on the passage of the pending bill.