THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

I fear that using Kosovo and also some vaguely defined set of ``threats'' will end up--and I want to talk about some of the doctrines that undergird this budget--giving a blank check to the Pentagon this year and in the years ahead. This budget accounts for a little over half of the discretionary spending in the annual budget. That is what troubles me. If you look at the peak of the cold war, currently we are spending, roughly speaking, just thinking about real dollar terms, close to 90 percent--about 86--of the cold war budget, and that is during the height of the cold war.

[Page: S6668]  GPO's PDF

   Now, most of the funds in this budget go to maintaining a force structure that is shaped by the requirement to fight two simultaneous, major conflicts and to counter what defense analysts refer to as ``uncertainty scenarios.''

   I recognize that the United States faces a number of threats around the world and that those threats have changed during the cold war period--in particular, the threat of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. If we look carefully at those threats, we can see that in this budget too much of the spending is not directly related to meeting those threats but, rather, continues with what I define as cold war priorities.

   We continue to pour billions of dollars into unnecessary cold war era weapons programs. We continue to maintain a nuclear arsenal that is completely disproportionate to the arsenals maintained by our potential adversaries--an arsenal that could be substantially cut, resulting in dramatic savings, still providing for as strong a defense as we could ever need.

   Congress has also skewed spending priorities by refusing to close military bases that the Pentagon acknowledges are unneeded and obsolete and which the Pentagon itself has pressed to close.

   What is especially troubling about the spending in this budget is the Strategic Concepts--the two major regional conflicts concept and other uncertain scenarios--that are, I think, implausible and unlikely. I want to draw here on some excellent work done by analyst Carl Conetta and Charles Knight of the Project on Defense Alternatives in Cambridge, MA.

   Beginning in the 1980s, the focus of defense planners moved away from ``clear and present danger'' of the Soviet power to the intractable problem of ``uncertainty.'' Along with the shift has come a new kind of Pentagon partisan--the ``uncertainty hawk.'' The uncertainty hawks are engaged in worst-case thinking. Among the sort of nonstandard scenarios, worst-case scenarios that are, for example, talked about with this kind of doctrine are defending the Ukraine or the Baltics against Russia, civil wars in Russia and Algeria, a variety of wars in China, contention with Germany, and wars aligning Iraq and Syria against Turkey, and Iraq and Iran against Saudi Arabia. The Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, QDR, uses unnamed ``wild card'' scenarios to help define these requirements.

   Now, although both the 1993 and 1997 Defense Reviews link the two-war requirements to the Korean and Persian Gulf scenarios, these were also described merely as examples of possible wars. Officially, the two-war requirement--that we have to be able to fight two wars simultaneously--is generic. It is not tied directly to Korea or the gulf. As the Quadrennial Defense Review puts it, ``We can never know with certainty when or where the next major theater war will occur'' or ``who our next adversary will be.''

   It is important to recognize, as opposed to appropriating moneys based upon this kind of strategic doctrine, that since 1945 the United States has fought only three major regional conflicts--one every 15 or 20 years. The regional great powers and peer competitors that currently enthrall planners are only hypothetical constructs, and the world changes all of the time.

   I will give an example of a little bit more of this doctrine. The prime candidates, in addition to these uncertainty scenarios, worst-case scenarios, for future peer rival status, given current doctrine, are Russia and China. A dozen years of dedicated investment might resuscitate a significant portion of the Russian Armed Forces, but that certainly is not what we are looking at right now--a major military competitor, Russia. The Chinese ``threat,'' even given all of the developments we have been talking about over the last several weeks, is even more iffy. If China's economy holds out, in 30 years it might be able to mount a ``Soviet-style'' challenge.

   Surveying the prospects worldwide, a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst concludes that ``no military or technical peer competitor to the United States is on the horizon for at least a couple of decades.''

   As I have said, I believe we should maintain a strong defense. We face a number of credible threats in the world, including terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. But let's make sure we carefully identify the threats we face and tailor our defense spending to meet them. Let's not continue to maintain military spending based on hypothetical threats that may not arise for decades--if at all.

   I will argue as we look at this budget, which again makes up about one-half of our discretionary spending, that we ought to consider this vote in the context of where we are heading with these budget caps. I say yes to a strong defense but no to some of the unnecessary spending that is in this budget; no to some of the scenarios that are laid out in this budget and some of the doctrines that undergird the spending in this budget, especially when we are talking about over 50 percent of discretionary spending going into this area.

   Whatever happened to the discussions we once had about national security at home? If we are going to spend 50 percent of our discretionary budget on the Pentagon--and we are not going to do anything about these budget caps, and we will have to, in my view, take these caps off; there is no question about it. But on current course within this context of the budget we now have before us, we are going to spend over 50 percent of discretionary spending on the Pentagon. And, as a result, what are we not doing? We are not looking at the other part of our national defense. I argue that part of our real national security is the security of our local communities.

   Whatever happened to the idea that we were going to focus on early childhood development? Whatever happened to the priority that we were talking about as being so important to our country that we had to invest in the health , skills, intellect, and character of our children? Whatever happened to the importance of affordable child care? Whatever happened to the importance of decent health care coverage for people?

   In my State of Minnesota, 35 percent of senior citizens--that is it, 35 percent of senior citizens--have some prescription drug coverage . The other 65 percent have no coverage at all. Many of them are spending up to 40 percent of their budget just on these costs. Where is the funding going to be for that? Where is the funding going to be for the 44 million people who have no health insurance at all?

   Yesterday, we had a White House conference dealing with mental health . I would add substance abuse. I have been doing work with Senator DOMENICI--and proud to do so--on trying to deal with some discrimination and making sure that people get decent mental health coverage .

   How are we going to move forward to make sure there is decent health care coverage for people? How are we going to make sure there is affordable child care? What about affordable housing? How are we going to take the steps in our communities to reduce the violence and to be able to get to the kids--I think of the juvenile justice bill that we passed not more than a couple of weeks ago--before they get into trouble in the first place? How are we going to make sure that higher education is affordable? How are we going to make sure we have the best education for every child?

   I just simply want to say I am going to vote against this bill, and I am going to vote against this bill for two reasons, neither of which has anything to do with the two very distinguished Senators who are managing this bill.

   First of all, as I said, I think much of it goes beyond Kosovo. Much of it goes beyond our real national defense. I think too much of it is still based upon a cold war doctrine. I believe we can make cuts in the Pentagon budget and still have a strong defense. I have tried to lay out that case.

   Second of all, I am going to vote against this bill--I don't think too many Senators are--because I view the vote on

   this appropriations bill in the context of the overall budget and where these appropriations bills are going. I view some of the dollars spent on the Pentagon as being dollars that we are not going to spend for affordable child care, that we are not going to spend to make sure there is decent education for our children, that we are not going to spend to make sure there is affordable housing.

   I argue that somewhere in the debate in the Senate we have to also look at

[Page: S6669]  GPO's PDF

   I think that has to be part of the definition of our real national security. I think we have to make more decisive investments in these areas of public life in our Nation.

   I believe this appropriations bill, in the context of the budget, where these appropriations bills are going to, subtracts from that very important agenda as well.

   Let me finish one more time by being one of the Members of the Senate--I don't know whether others will say--I think others will say this eventually--who says that right now we are in a fiscal straitjacket. We will not be able to live with these caps. We will be making a huge mistake if we don't make some of the decisive investments I am talking about on the floor today. This will be a very shortsighted vision. We need to do much better as a nation going into the next century. And it can't be just Pentagon spending; it always has to be to make sure that there is a peaceful opportunity for every child in our country.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is about time to vote on the McCain amendment. We thought we would have another amendment offered by this time. But it has not been offered. I believe it is time we start voting on these amendments.

   I will state for the Chair that it is my intention to find some way to call up these amendments in the order they were presented and dispose of them now as quickly as we can. There is a vote on cloture tomorrow on the Y2K proposition. I assume that will carry. We certainly do not want to have this defense bill waiting around for the completion of a long process that is related to cloture.

   I urge Members to cooperate with us. I will inquire of Members as they come to the floor now on this vote as to when they will be able to present their amendments to see if we can find some way to get some time limitations. It is possible, I believe, to finish this bill tonight with the cooperation of Members of the Senate.

   I suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   AMENDMENT NO. 589, AS MODIFIED

   Mr. STEVENS. I call up amendment No. 589.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. STEVENS. I send to the desk a second-degree amendment. It will modify this amendment in a way that is acceptable to both sides. I ask that this amendment, as modified, be agreed to.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

   Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.

   The amendment (No. 589), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

   At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

   SEC. . Of the funds made available in Title IV of this Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test And Evaluation, Navy'', up to $3,000,000 may be made available to continue research and development on polymer cased ammunition.

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

   Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.

   The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   AMENDMENTS NOS. 588 AND 591, EN BLOC

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate amendments Nos. 588 and 591, and I ask they be considered en bloc.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   The question is on agreeing to the amendments.

   The amendments (Nos. 588 and 591) were agreed to.

   Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.

   Mr. INOUYE. I move to table the motion.

   The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

   Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

   Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   AMENDMENT NO. 584

   Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, the chairman and ranking member spoke eloquently about the merits of several projects in this bill that affect their States. As I have said before, I don't pretend to judge the merit of each and every project on the list of objectionable materials. I do, however, object to the process by which these projects were added to this bill, the process that circumvented the normal and appropriate merit-based review for determining the highest priority not only in defense but across all appropriations bills.

   I want to clarify something the chairman said: In this list, it does not--repeat, does not--include funding for the SBIRS program on the Israeli arrow missile defense program. There is no reduction in funding for those programs.

   Finally, my colleagues know the military service chiefs testified to Congress earlier this year that they need more than $17 billion every year in order to redress several readiness shortfalls. This bill falls about $6 billion short of that goal. This amendment would restore $13 billion in high-priority readiness and modernization funds to help meet the services' needs, offsetting every time with low-priority spending cuts.

   I emphasize they came over and said they needed $17 billion. We are not meeting that minimal request.

   I yield the floor.

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I must oppose the Senator's amendment. I think it will change the direction we are going in terms of how to meet the pressing needs of the Department of Defense and, at the same time, balance those needs against the rest of the needs of the country.

   I urge that this amendment be defeated.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered.

   The clerk will call the roll.

   The legislative clerk called the roll.

   Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. GREGG) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. CRAPO) are necessarily absent.

   Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. BIDEN) is absent due to a death in the family.

   The result was announced--yeas 16, nays 81, as follows:

   Allard

   Bayh

   Brownback

   Edwards

   Feingold

   Graham

   Gramm

   Grams

   Hagel

   Kerry

   Kyl

   Lugar

   McCain

   Robb

   Torricelli

   Wellstone

   Abraham

   Akaka

   Ashcroft

   Baucus

   Bennett

   Bingaman

   Bond

   Boxer

   Breaux

[Page: S6670]  GPO's PDF

   Bryan

   Bunning

   Burns

   Byrd

   Campbell

   Chafee

   Cleland

   Cochran

   Collins

   Conrad

   Coverdell

   Craig

   Daschle

   DeWine

   Dodd

   Domenici

   Dorgan

   Durbin

   Enzi

   Feinstein

   Fitzgerald

   Frist

   Gorton

   Grassley

   Harkin

   Hatch

   Helms

   Hollings

   Hutchinson

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents