• Forum
• SITREP
• Military
• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security

• Space

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Public Eye

SACRIFICES FOR DEFENSE

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want to congratulate my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, on their efforts to complete action on the Fiscal Year 1997 Defense Appropriations bill. Their management of this complex bill is masterful and executed with their customary efficiency. The bill is within the 602(b) allocations and it is consistent with the amount recommended by the budget resolution.

This bill addresses legitimate defense needs and provides support for the men and women in our military. It contains a 3-percent raise in pay for military personnel and a 4-percent raise in the basic allowance for quarters, both effective January 1, 1997.

It fully funds the initiative included in the fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization bill to support the operations of, and enhanced modifications for, the SR-71 reconnaissance aircraft. The rationale for including this system in the fiscal year 1997 budget is that it is an invulnerable proven system, available day or night, in all-weather, regardless of cloud cover. It is available for our commanders in the theater, on an on-call basis, to provide near-real-time imagery of the battlefield or area of interest to those Commanders. As such, it is now available as America's premier tactical reconnaissance airborne system. Furthermore, it is inexpensive, compared to the costs incurred for the development of our unmanned aerial vehicles now being funded. I am a strong supporter of developing UAV's as rapidly as prudent development schedules allow, but it will still be years before a proven system can be fielded. When that occurs, I would support retiring the Blackbird aircraft, but it would be foolish to throw away this unique system before it is fully replaced. Therefore, I congratulate the managers for their support of continuing the SR-71 in service. The funding includes $30 million for 1 year of operations, and $9 million in modification costs which enhance the real-time downlink from the aircraft directly to our commanders on the ground. I hope and certainly expect that our commanders in the field, in Korea, in Bosnia, and in other regions of interest will call upon the system frequently to provide the unique data for them that is now available.

My concern regarding this bill is not with the many worthy provisions contained with it. I do not want a weak military, unable to defend our legitimate and vital national security interests. But neither do I want a weak nation, sapped of its vitality, worn down and shabby because legitimate domestic needs have been neglected in favor of greater spending on defense . I do not want to see in America a street person, dirty, dressed in rags, but carrying a shiny new pistol. I want to see in America a hard-working, educated, prosperous homeowner, with a well-kept yard where bright-eyed and well-fed children play.

I know that this bill is within its allocation and consistent with the budget resolution guidelines, but I believe that the budget resolution guidelines are out of balance with American priorities, skewed toward military spending at the expense of education, infrastructure, and other domestic necessities. I would rather rebuild bridges over mighty rivers than build bridges on unneeded ships. I would rather spend funds on domestic airline safety measures than on unrequested fighter aircraft. I would rather support more police on our city streets stopping bullets than futuristic missile -stopping missiles aimed at a flimsy threat.

This bill is $10.2 billion over the administration's request for defense . Some have argued that defense spending has declined in real terms over the last 10 years, and that buying weapons now rather than later in the decade saves money. But the funding for domestic programs has also declined, and continues to decline. If we are to make good on our promises to reduce the deficit and to bring spending in line with reality, every program, domestic and defense alike, must share in the sacrifice.

Right now, domestic programs are being cut more deeply in order to support defense spending that is above the administration's request. For instance, the Department of Agriculture, as part of its Water 2000 initiative to provide safe, affordable drinking water to every home in the United States by the turn of the century, estimates that $9.8 billion is needed to accomplish that goal. This $9.8 billion is needed to provide nearly 3 million U.S. households--176,114 of them in my own State of West Virginia--with clean drinking water. For less than the amount added to the Department of Defense for 1 year, we could provide clean, safe, drinking water to 8 million suffering Americans.

The budget resolution, which passed without my support, deliberately chose to sacrifice safe drinking water, education, highways, medical research, police, children's programs, and other peaceful domestic programs, in order to spend more on weapons and war. I regret the choice and the path that we have taken. This defense appropriations bill is the result of that decision, and reflects the largess bestowed upon the Defense Department at the expense of the Departments of Education, Labor, Agriculture, Environment, Health and Human Services, Interior, and others. It reflects the decisions taken in the defense authorization bill, which I voted against. Therefore, I must regretfully vote against this bill.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to S. 1894, the Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. This bill suffers from the same fundamental defect as S. 1745, the national defense authorization bill, a bill I also opposed.

The appropriations bill adds $10.2 billion to the President's budget request. The $10.2 billion is spent partially funding programs not requested by the administration for which we will pay billions in the outyears. For example, the bill adds $856 million for ballistic missile defense research, of which $300 million is added to the national missile defense account. The bill also adds $525 million in unrequested funds for the DDG-51, $701 million in unrequested funds for the new attack submarine, $300 million in unrequested funds for the V-22, $489 million in unrequested funds for the F/A-18 C/D, $760 million in unrequested funds for National Guard and Reserve equipment, $204.5 million in unrequested funds for the C-130, $107.4 million in unrequested funds for the F-16, and $210 million in unrequested funds for the JSTARS program.

I have been a long time supporter of our efforts to ensure our national security. However, Mr. President, this is the second time in my Senate career that I have felt that I must oppose a Defense Appropriations bill. I cannot support adding billions and billions of dollars for programs that I am not convinced and the Pentagon does not believe we need. It is true that I would support additional funding for some of these programs but adding $10.2 billion in unrequested funding is simply too much particularly when we are cutting funding for critical programs elsewhere in the budget.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, which is responsible for recommending sound, fiscally responsible funding legislation to the Senate, I am deeply disturbed about the spending levels contained in the fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense appropriation bill.

This bill provides over $244 billion in budget authority for the coming year. This reflects the recently passed national defense authorization bill, which authorized nearly $11.3 billion more than the administration requested for military spending for 1997. Included in this legislation are billions of dollars worth of weapons the Pentagon says it does not want and cannot afford to maintain in the future. Meanwhile, vital domestic programs are being critically underfunded or terminated. Fiscally, this is unwise; morally, it is unconscionable.

Despite all the debate about balancing the Federal budget, it is apparent to me that we are not yet ready to break off our addiction to excessive military spending. Of even more concern, is the continued failure of this body to define national security in a truly comprehensive and meaningful way. As I have stated many times before, true national security consists of more than our arsenal of military weapons, it also includes the health and welfare of our population.

Many years ago, the cabinet agency tasked with protecting the national security of the United States was renamed from the Department of War to the Department of Defense . This is an important distinction. The definition of war is a state of open and hostile conflict between states or nations. The definitions of defense and security carry with them much broader connotations. Defense , or to defend, is to drive danger or attack away from. While security means freedom from danger, freedom from fear or anxiety, freedom from want or deprivation.

The mission of the Department of Defense is to protect the citizens of the United States against threats to our security. Let us recognize that these threats can take many forms, that they are internal as well as external. The American people are under attack today. The attacks are not as obvious as tanks rolling down Constitution Avenue or nuclear submarines sailing up the Potomac River. The enemies aren't as easily identifiable as a soldier pointing a gun, rather they are often subtle and insidious. But, make no mistake, we do have formidable enemies threatening our population. The enemies I speak of are disease and disability.

In one year, more Americans will die from disease than from all the military battles fought in the twentieth century. The number of Americans killed in battle during World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, the Persian Gulf, and Somalia total 426,175. Certainly a horrendous number and a tragic loss of life. In contrast, however, approximately 500,000 people will die of cancer this year alone. Lung cancer will kill 115,000 Americans, breast cancer 48,000, and prostate cancer 41,000. I could go on and on. Heart disease will kill over 743,000 people, diabetes 53,000, and AIDS 37,000. The list of casualties from disease is endless.

Make no mistake, there are thousands of tiny wars being fought in America today. The battleground is the human body. The command centers are clinical research laboratories and our weapons are test tubes and microscopes. The Generals and Admirals leading the fight are the medical researchers, physicians, and nurses all around the country searching for new treatments and cures for disease.

But in this war, the front line troops are civilians as well as soldiers. This battle is as ugly and painful as any military conflict. Every day men, women, and children are being killed, maimed, and ravaged by disease. No mortars are being launched, but limbs are being amputated as a result of diabetes. No napalm has been dropped, but skin is destroyed and bodies are disfigured by EB. No nerve gas has been released, but brains and central nervous systems are disabled by Alzheimers and Parkinsons diseases. It is time to declare war on disease and disability. This is a battle which is worthy of the full commitment and resources of our Federal Government, including the Department of Defense . In fact, this is one war which I fully support.

The Department of Defense also has the responsibility to care for the men and women who sacrifice to serve and protect our country. In devoting a small portion of its considerable resources to medical research and treatment, the Pentagon invests in the health and welfare of our troops, as well as our military retirees, veterans, and family members.

Several years ago, Congress appropriated funds for and directed the Department of Defense to establish a peer-reviewed breast cancer research program. This program has been a tremendous success and is a vital component in the effort to find a cure for breast cancer. We have continued funding for that program in 1997. In this bill, we have also provided $100 million to establish a similar program for prostate cancer research.

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among men. Yet, it has largely been overlooked by the general public and research has been grievously underfunded by the Federal Government. In 1996, over 317,000 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer and 41,400 will die from it. Yet, with early detection, 9 out of 10 men can be successfully treated for prostate cancer. Clearly, an investment in research to improve detection and treatment of this disease will yield a tremendous return.

Medical research is the key to winning the war against disease and disability. I am pleased that the Senate has included some funding for this critical effort in this legislation. In my view, however, the amount of resources devoted to life-destroying technologies compared to life-sustaining endeavors is still critically out of balance. The health and well-being of our population is every bit as vital to the Nation's security as our arsenal of military weapons. Until this imbalance is recognized and corrected, the people of our Nation will continue to be vulnerable to these destructive enemies and true national security will not be achieved, no matter what our level of military might.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the bill, S. 1894, will be read for the third time.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate shall proceed immediately to the House companion bill, H.R. 3610; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1894, as amended, if amended, be inserted, and that H.R. 3610 be read for the third time.

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time.

The bill was read for the third time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from North Dakota is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss briefly today's vote on the defense appropriations bill. I will be voting for this bill, because it includes provisions that do support our national defense . But I have some serious concerns about the overall level of spending, as well as some other issues that I feel should be addressed in negotiations during the conference.

On the positive side, this bill contains $150 million to fund the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici amendment, which will strengthen the Nunn-Lugar program. As I have said a number of times on this floor, Nunn-Lugar is exactly the kind of investment in our security that we should be making. It is far cheaper to destroy Russian missiles and bombers now than to make new expenditures on a strategic deterrent or a missile defense system against them later.

The strengthened Nunn-Lugar program will also help us prevent the spread and use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists. A terrorist nuclear, chemical, or biological attack is perhaps our worst security nightmare today.

Moreover, this defense bill contains $69 million for operating, maintaining, and upgrading the Nation's full fleet of B-52 bombers. The defense authorization bill rightly prohibited retirement of B-52's before Russia ratifies the START II Treaty. I am hopeful that the House will agree to the Senate's very modest investment. It will enable the Air Force to abide by the authorization bill's directive to retain this combat-proven force of long-range bombers.

On the other hand, given our bipartisan commitment to a balanced budget, the overall funding level in this bill is not sustainable. It exceeds the President's budget request by $10 billion. The $6 billion downpayment for unrequested ships and aircraft alone in the bill will create a funding crunch in the years to come. To make expansive procurement decisions as if they have no consequences for deficit reduction is not responsible.

Second, my colleagues will not be surprised to learn that I am troubled by the bill's commitment of $808 million for national missile defense , $300 million above the administration's request. This additional funding is unwanted, unneeded, unfrugal, and unwise.

So I will reluctantly vote for this bill in order to move the appropriations process forward. Yet I will closely examine the conference report on the bill. I urge the conferees to make it more fiscally responsible than the versions passed by either the Senate or the House of Representatives.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.