[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 8 (Thursday, February 3, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of William J. 
Perry of California to be the Secretary of Defense.
  The Senate proceeded to consider the nomination.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate of the United 
States is considering the nomination of William J. Perry, to be 
Secretary of Defense. Earlier today the Armed Services Committee voted 
unanimously to report this nomination to the Senate recommending our 
approval of the nomination. President Clinton announced his intent to 
nominate Dr. Perry to be Secretary of Defense on January 24, and the 
Senate received Dr. Perry's nomination on January 26.
  The Armed Services Committee considered Dr. Perry's nomination in the 
same way we consider all other nominations of this importance. We sent 
our standard committee questionnaire to Dr. Perry on January 24, the 
same day the President made his announcement.
  The following day, January 25, after consulting with the minority, I 
sent Dr. Perry a lengthy series of policy questions for his answers to 
be received in writing prior to the hearing. Dr. Perry returned the 
committee questionnaire on January 28. He also provided the committee 
his written responses to the policy questions on the same day, and 
those responses were provided immediately to all members of the 
committee.
  The committee received the required opinions from the General Counsel 
of the Defense Department and from the Office of Government Ethics 
certifying the nominee is in compliance with all applicable laws and 
regulations regarding conflict of interest.
  We also reviewed the report of the FBI background investigation of 
Dr. Perry. Yesterday, the committee held a public hearing with Dr. 
Perry. Nineteen of the committee's 22 members attended the hearing, 
which lasted about 4 hours.
  Dr. Perry's testimony was comprehensive from my point of view and, I 
think, most members'; it was impressive and it was straightforward.
  Madam President, the record clearly shows that Bill Perry is highly 
qualified to serve as Secretary of Defense. He has had distinguished 
careers in Government service and academia and in the private sector. 
Dr. Perry has substantial expertise on national security issues and has 
consistently demonstrated the high standards of personal conduct and 
integrity.
  Last year, he was confirmed by the Senate to serve as Deputy 
Secretary of Defense, the number two position in the Department of 
Defense. It is my hope, Madam President, the Senate can act promptly on 
Dr. Perry's nomination, hopefully today.
  Dr. Perry will be delivering a major address on national security 
policy at the Wehrkunde Conference in Munich, Germany, this weekend. 
The President's fiscal 1995 budget will be released on Monday of next 
week, and the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff are scheduled to present the fiscal 1995 budget as well as the 
5-year defense plan to the Armed Services panel next Tuesday.
  Before closing, I wish to acknowledge the tremendous contributions 
that Secretary Aspin has made to our national security. As Secretary of 
Defense for the past year, Secretary Aspin established a foundation for 
the restructuring of our defense establishment through his Bottom-Up 
Review and made important strides in integrating women more fully into 
the military services. As a member of the House Armed Services 
Committee for 22 years and chairman of that committee for 8 years, Les 
Aspin was a vigorous leader in the Congress for a strong and effective 
national defense. I am grateful to Les Aspin for his service to the 
Nation, and I believe I speak for all of us on the Armed Services 
Committee in wishing him continued success in whatever he undertakes in 
the future.
  Madam President, Dr. Perry is highly qualified and suited to serve 
the Nation as Secretary of Defense. He has the strong and unanimous 
support and endorsement of the Armed Services Committee. I urge all of 
our colleagues to support his nomination.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I am pleased to join the distinguished 
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Nunn, in 
recommending the confirmation of Dr. William Perry to be the 19th 
Secretary of Defense.
  Dr. Perry has a long and distinguished career in the public and 
private sectors. As the Deputy Secretary of Defense, he was at the 
forefront of acquisition reform and the modernization of our Armed 
Forces. As the Secretary of Defense, I believe he will distinguish 
himself by maintaining our defense interests while streamlining the 
Department of Defense. In my opinion he will continue to insure a 
strong and well-trained military and provide for the welfare of the men 
and women who proudly wear the uniforms of our great Nation.
  Madam President, I am optimistic that Dr. Perry's confirmation as 
Secretary of Defense will begin a new era of consultation and 
cooperation between the Department of Defense, the White House and the 
Congress. I look forward to working with him and urge my colleagues, 
Republican and Democrat, to give him their unanimous support.
  I yield to the distinguished Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, Dr. William Perry will, undoubtedly, 
bring a fine mind and extensive knowledge of the Pentagon and our 
Nation's military establishment to the job of Secretary of Defense. 
During his 10 months as Deputy Secretary, he has done an admirable job 
in running the day-to-day operation of the Pentagon, and his abilities 
in the areas of research, analysis, and defense procurement are well 
known. I will support his nomination as Secretary of Defense, and I 
certainly wish him success in his new role.
  Today's post-cold-war world, however, will require more than 
technical and administrative excellence. Dr. Perry's considerable 
abilities will be significantly challenged.
  While many believe that domestic agendas and budget shortfalls should 
now be America's top priorities, the fact remains that the world today 
is probably less stable than it has been at any other time in the last 
45 years.
  The pressure to divert already scarce defense dollars to pay for what 
might seem like more immediate domestic concerns will be great. The 
temptation to defer to louder or stronger voices may at times be 
overwhelming. But America's military establishment needs decisive 
leadership; our military men and women need a strong advocate; and the 
Nation needs a strategic thinker with America's national security 
interests at heart.
  I truly hope that Dr. Perry is that person to address those important 
concerns.
  As evidenced by Somalia, Bosnia, the former Soviet Republics, Central 
Europe, the Middle East, and the Korean Peninsula, the world still 
holds the potential for threats that we may not yet even recognize. At 
the same time, our allies have every right to expect us to uphold the 
commitments we have already made.
  We must maintain a high level of military readiness. We must, at all 
cost, take pains to ensure that our haunting memories of the hollow 
force of the 1970's does not become a painful reality in the 1990's and 
beyond.
  And finally, we must ensure that our policy with regard to 
homosexuals in the military--a policy that goes to the very heart of 
our ability to maintain a combat-effective military force--is not 
undermined by the implementation of regulations that significantly 
undercut that effectiveness or erode Congress' clear intent in drafting 
and passing that law.
  All of these concerns will be difficult enough to meet without 
adequate resources, but they will be absolutely impossible to meet 
without the right leadership. The President's recent rhetoric regarding 
his commitment to a strong military is somewhat reassuring. Bill Perry 
is a man with the talent and experience to translate that rhetoric into 
policy. Whether or not he is backed up by an administration with the 
determination to accomplish the job remains to be seen.
  Madam President, we have heard some reassuring rhetoric from the 
President recently, particularly in his address to the Congress about 
his commitment to a strong military. We will need more than rhetoric . 
We will need a man with the talent and experience to translate that 
rhetoric into policy. Whether or not he is backed up by an 
administration, we need someone with the determination to get this job 
done.
  I sincerely hope and trust that Dr. Perry is this individual.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Michigan 2 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Georgia.
  Madam President, Dr. Perry is the right person to run the Department 
of Defense. He has the experience and he has the temperament. He has a 
balanced view of the world. He is thoughtful.
  Some people have said that he is not charismatic; that you need 
somebody who is charismatic to run the Pentagon. I disagree. We need 
somebody who has the experience to change the culture there when it 
comes to the procurement practices of the Pentagon. We need reform in 
the way we operate the Pentagon in terms of management and in terms of 
the way that we buy things. There are billions of dollars to be saved. 
Dr. Perry said so yesterday.
  It seems to me that if we are going to do what we must today, which 
is meet those future threats--and they are real--and if we are going to 
give the support to our fighting men and women--and we need to do 
that--we must manage our budget a lot better. And we can do that with 
Dr. Perry as Secretary of Defense.
  So I think he does have the vision we need. He surely has the 
thoughtful approaches that we need. He is totally committed to the 
security of this country.
  I am proud to support him by voting for his confirmation this 
afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, does the Senator from South Carolina need 
any time?
  I will be glad to yield the Senator from Virginia 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I wish to compliment the distinguished 
chairman of the committee and the ranking member, the senior Senator 
from South Carolina, for the very swift yet thorough manner of this 
nomination. It is important that there be continuity in our defense 
leadership.
  I wish to compliment President Clinton in handling a different and a 
difficult situation in the retirement of Secretary Aspin, for whom we 
have great respect and gratitude for his service, and the very swift 
selection of an absolutely well-qualified individual in Dr. Perry.
  I have always taken an interest in this particular nomination, having 
been privileged to serve in the Department under three Secretaries of 
Defense, and during my tenure in the Senate having worked with five 
other Secretaries.
  Dr. Perry will rank at the very top among the finest of those 
Secretaries of Defense in the history of the United States.
  We saw yesterday in his testimony responses to the most difficult of 
questions, such as North Korea--complex, unanswerable in many ways. 
Yet, he went to the very heart of that serious problem consistently and 
explicitly, and sent a message to this Nation.
  Then he shifted to the mundane yet no less important battle of 
dealing with waste, fraud, and abuse, primarily in the procurement 
process in the Department of Defense.
  The American taxpayer is totally intolerant, totally intolerant of 
the waste, fraud, and abuse which has plagued that Department no matter 
how strenuously previous Secretaries have fought that battle. Dr. Perry 
is imminently qualified to deal with that problem.
  Madam President, it is a privilege to have the opportunity to speak 
on behalf of the nomination of Dr. William J. (Bill) Perry to become 
the next Secretary of Defense. The unanimous vote for Dr. Perry by the 
Armed Services Committee says a great deal about this gentleman, and he 
is a true gentleman, in every sense of the word. This unanimous vote 
attests to the confidence and trust the members of this committee have 
in Bill Perry.
  I have known Bill Perry for many years and have served with him in 
many different circumstances and capacities. He has always 
distinguished himself with the utmost intelligence, reason, and 
integrity. He has been recognized for a long time by Senators on both 
sides of the aisle as one of the most knowledgeable and respected 
authorities on national security issues.
  Madam President, I was particularly moved by Dr. Perry's statement 
before the Armed Services Committee yesterday in his nomination hearing 
and I ask unanimous consent that his statement be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Statement by William J. Perry Before the Senate Armed Services 
                      Committee, February 2, 1994

       Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am proud to be 
     before you today, and humbled by President Clinton's decision 
     to nominate me as Secretary of Defense.
       We welcome the end of the Cold War, but in the past year we 
     have learned to be less sanguine about the benefits we hoped 
     for. Many argued that with the end of the Soviet Empire there 
     would be little need for military forces. The ending of the 
     Cold War has not brought about, as Professor Fukuyama has 
     suggested, ``the end of history.'' History continues to be 
     made every day, in the hills of Bosnia, in the dusty streets 
     of Somalia and in the underground bunkers of North Korea.
       In the past year a diverse set of national security 
     problems has demonstrated a critical need for strong, 
     flexible and ready military forces.
       Today they are deployed around the globe in a variety of 
     postures--peacekeeping, peacemaking, border monitoring, 
     humanitarian relief, and deterrence through presence. Some 
     troops overseas are in garrisons, some are deployed for 
     training, but more than 80,000 are this day involved in 
     active operations, daily engaged in difficult duties that 
     only they have the skills and training to accomplish.
       This past year has reemphasized that old threats can still 
     pose new dangers to peace and security--I refer to the 
     potential for conflict on the Korean Peninsula. The prospect 
     of the rogue regime of North Korea acquiring a nuclear 
     weapons capability to add to their massive conventional 
     forces is emblematic of proliferation problems we face. We 
     are continuing aggressive diplomatic efforts to deal with 
     this nightmare scenario, but the presence of 100,000 US 
     soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in the Western Pacific 
     is a major factor in our deterrence planning.
       We also have seen that the road to democracy and stability 
     in Russia is going to be rocky and twisted. The emergence of 
     powerful reactionary forces is challenging progress toward 
     the building of democratic institutions and traditions. No 
     national security issue is more important to us and to our 
     children than a stable government in Russia dedicated to 
     democracy.
       Of course we cannot control the outcome of events in 
     Russia--only the Russian people can; but we can have a 
     significant positive influence. President Clinton has made 
     assisting Russian democratic reform a top national security 
     priority. And the Department of Defense has played a key role 
     in this effort.
       We have initiated actions to facilitate a safe and speedy 
     reduction in nuclear forces. The trilateral nuclear agreement 
     recently signed by Presidents Clinton, Yeltsin and Kravchuk 
     is a concrete result of these actions.
       We have initiated actions to assist US businesses in the 
     effort to convert Russian defense enterprises to the 
     production of commercial products.
       We have promoted military-to-military contacts at every 
     level. Whatever happens in Russia, the military will continue 
     to be an influential institution, and we want to do what we 
     can to encourage the Russian military to be a force for 
     reform, not an opponent of reform.
       And President Clinton's leadership has been instrumental in 
     launching the Partnership for Peace initiative with NATO. The 
     Department will have the key US role in carrying out the 
     practical implementation steps.
       All of these efforts are dedicated to supporting the 
     Administration's efforts to integrate Russia with the rest of 
     the world and lock in democratic reforms. These efforts are 
     conditioned on progress. We must stay engaged with our Allies 
     in case the process is reversed, but we must be patient and 
     not be deterred by temporary setbacks.
       These are just several examples of the important and 
     diverse missions that the US military is performing and will 
     continue to perform in the post-Cold War era.
       All of these missions are occurring in a period of 
     declining defense budgets. The decline is consistent with the 
     reduced threat to the United States and US interests. But it 
     does present us with the difficult problem of managing these 
     assets and forces during the transition.
       Historically we have not managed well such budget declines 
     and attendant downsizing. The experiences are will known and 
     well documented. The rapid contraction after World War II 
     gave us forces which were inadequate to the challenge of the 
     onset of the Korean War. The post-Vietnam downsizing gave us 
     the ``hollow force'' of the mid-70's. This time we must get 
     it right, or we will pay the cost later either in blood or 
     treasure or both.
       This is the daunting challenge facing the Secretary of 
     Defense today, and I understand the difficulty of the 
     problems I will face if I am confirmed. I am proud of the 
     confidence shown in me by President Clinton in asking me to 
     undertake the responsibilities of the US Secretary of 
     Defense.
       Broadly summarized, I see those responsibilities falling 
     into six areas.
       First, the Secretary of Defense has the responsibility to 
     oversee the Joint Staff and the CINCs in their direction of 
     military operations. If I am confirmed as Secretary, I pledge 
     to give first priority to reviewing and assessing war plans 
     and deployment orders, and I pledge to provide the required 
     support to CINCs as they direct our forces in the field.
       Second, the Secretary of Defense has the responsibility to 
     ensure readiness through oversight of the services as they 
     equip and train our forces. They are right now, as President 
     Clinton said: ``they will remain the best equipped, the best 
     trained, and the best prepared fighting force on the face of 
     the earth.''
       Third, the Secretary of Defense must be a key member of our 
     national security team. President Clinton, in his recent 
     summit meetings, demonstrated the vision we need. But the 
     waters are uncharted, and we owe the President our best 
     advice and counsel in planning strategy as we maneuver 
     through the shoals of the post-Cold War era. If confirmed, I 
     pledge to work constructively and with the best of my ability 
     as an active member of that team, fully engaged on all issues 
     of national security significance.
       Fourth, the Secretary of Defense is responsible for the 
     military component of our national security strategy. This 
     requires strong relations with the respect for the military 
     leadership so we can make full use of their talents and 
     expertise to get the best ideas and options. Secretary Aspin 
     left us an excellent legacy in his Bottom Up Review. We will 
     build on that excellent base. If confirmed, I pledge to lead 
     a strong team effort, of military and civilians alike, in the 
     Department to prepare the military strategy and options we 
     need.
       Fifth, the Secretary of Defense must prepare for approval 
     by the President and congress the annual defense budgets 
     which make difficult resource allocations and program 
     decisions. If confirmed, I pledge to work with the military 
     and the Congress in that effort. But I will not shirk from 
     making the tough choices necessary to ensure we provide the 
     nation with the ready forces necessary to carry out our 
     strategy.
       Sixth, the Secretary of Defense must manage resources, 
     particularly during this difficult drawdown period. If 
     confirmed, I pledge to institute innovative management 
     techniques, to vigorously foster acquisition reform and to 
     preserve the necessary industrial base. I also pledge to tell 
     you what help I need from Congress to allow me to fulfill 
     this responsibility.
       Finally, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I 
     pledge myself to the service of the men and women who today 
     wear the uniform of the United States military, and to those 
     men and women who will wear it in the future.
       In the Pentagon, in the stairwell near my office, is a 
     painting of a soldier in church praying with his family, 
     perhaps before a deployment overseas. Below it are inscribed 
     the words from Isaiah: ``Whom shall I send and who will go 
     for us?'' The men and women in uniform have responded to the 
     nation's call with, ``Here am I: Send me.'' We owe them, I 
     owe them, my best possible effort, and they shall have it.
       Thank you very much.

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, Dr. Perry spoke eloquently about the 
challenges which face our Nation and which he, in particular, will face 
if he is confirmed by this body as the Secretary of Defense. He also 
pledged his best possible effort to the men and women in uniform who 
serve our Nation.
  Dr. Perry has demonstrated the highest standards of professionalism 
and experienced success in positions of great responsibility in both 
the Government as well as the private sector. His knowledge of 
Government acquisition is without equal and will continue to be of 
great value to the Department of Defense as we strive to achieve more 
and more defense out of each dollar we spend.
  I was impressed, by the way Dr. Perry considered the impact on his 
family prior to accepting the President's nomination to this demanding 
position. Having met his family, I understand clearly why they would be 
a factor in his decision-making, but his taking the time to consider 
the impact of his decision on his family says a great deal about this 
man.
  One of Virginia's greatest statesmen, Thomas Jefferson, once said, 
``God grant that men of principle shall be our principal men.'' Bill 
Perry is such a man.
  The President has chosen wisely by sending forward a nominee of such 
stature and character and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of his 
nomination.
  Madam President, in closing, I would also like to say a few words 
about my good friend and colleague, Les Aspin with whom I worked many 
years on national security issues here in the Congress and during his 
tenure as the Secretary of Defense. Les Aspin has given greatly and 
unselfishly of himself to the Nation and has had a great impact on this 
Nation's military forces and the successful outcome of the cold war. He 
was also one of the first and most steadfast supporters of President 
Bush's stand against Iraq in the war in the Persian Gulf.
  I am sure that all my colleagues join me in thanking Les for his 
great service to the Nation and in wishing him success in all his 
future endeavors. I hope that we will not lose his great expertise in 
national security issues and that he will continue to contribute in 
some way to those matters that affect the security of this Nation.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I inquire if there are any more 
Republicans who wish to speak on this nomination. If not that is all we 
have.


statement on the nomination of dr. william j. perry to be secretary of 
                                defense

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I am very pleased to see that the 
nomination of Dr. William J. Perry--to be Secretary of Defense--was 
reported out of the Armed Services Committee by a unanimous vote today. 
Dr. Perry has been the number two official at the Pentagon for the past 
year. Prior to his Pentagon experience, he was recognized for his 
brilliant work in Silicon Valley. Because of his work on the stealth 
fighter, which we saw so effectively used in the Persian Gulf war, he 
has been called the father of stealth technology.
  At his confirmation hearings this week, he addressed all questions 
posed to him in a remarkable fashion. During the committee hearing, 
Secretary-designate Perry talked about the possible tragic quagmire we 
may yet face in North Korea. He feels that we should use a ``carrot and 
stick'' approach in North Korea. I would agree with him, but I feel we 
should be more coherent than we have been to date.
  North Korea must realize that they must conform with international 
law and the International Atomic Energy Agency's ruling regarding the 
inspection of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this administration has 
sent mixed signals to North Korea, and I would hope that policy does 
not continue under William Perry.
  I know this man. I met him when he was serving in the Carter 
administration. I have high personal regard for him. He will do us 
proud. My wife Ann and I wish him and his fine and capable wife Lee, 
our very best in their new endeavors for our country.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this nomination.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I know that in just a few moments the 
Senate will be voting on Bill Perry to be the Secretary of Defense. I 
look forward to voting for Bill Perry for that position. Many of us 
know of the very effective work he has done in the Defense Department a 
number of years ago and during these recent months as Deputy Secretary 
of Defense.
  All of us who have watched Bill Perry, have been impressed by the 
contributions he has made to public policy, even when he has not been 
in the Defense Department--even when he was not serving in any 
administration. This was true at Stanford University; true at the 
National Academy of Sciences. He worked as one of our most important 
and distinguished advisers in the Office of Technology Assessment, at a 
time when the OTA had become one of the most invaluable institutions 
available to this Congress in making tough and difficult decisions on 
matters of technology. His life has been associated with public 
service, and all of us who know him and who have worked with him know 
that we are extremely fortunate to have his continued service as the 
Secretary of Defense.
  I applaud the work of a very valued and dear former colleague of 
mine, Les Aspin, and pay tribute to his very distinguished life and 
service as a Congressman, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee 
in the House, and as Secretary of Defense. I look forward to his 
continued involvement in public policy, and I look forward to voting 
for Bill Perry.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish to express my wholehearted support 
for the nomination of William J. Perry to be the next Secretary of 
Defense. Mr. Perry's eminent career both with the Government and in the 
private sector demonstrates that he is the man that the Department of 
Defense needs at this critical juncture. The country is indeed 
fortunate that the President of the United States has tapped this very 
capable man to lead the Defense Department.
  Mr. Perry's distinguished career is part of the public record, so I 
will not reiterate his many accomplishments now. Nevertheless, his 
career shows an individual who is highly qualified to manage the needed 
reductions in the Defense Department while at the same time ensuring 
that the United States remains capable of defending freedom and 
protecting democracy around the world. His initiatives to streamline 
the defense acquisition process, while saving the taxpayers a great 
deal of money, will cut needless bureaucratic red tape and make the 
process more responsive to our operational commanders. Furthermore, his 
understanding of the defense industrial base will ensure that much 
needed capabilities in the industrial base are retained and that 
needless duplication is eliminated. We should all be optimistic about 
the future of the defense establishment while it is in the hands of 
this very capable individual.
  I would like to add that, from my personal experience, I have found 
Mr. Perry to be very helpful when dealing with the Congress and to be 
sensitive to local needs. In Livingston, MT, it appeared that a 
contentious issue was developing over the construction of a tower for a 
relay node of the Ground Wave Emergency Network. Mr. Perry's personal 
intervention as the Deputy Secretary of Defense quickly averted any 
chance for continued controversy, and as a result, the interests of 
national security and the local community were served equally well. Mr. 
Perry's sound and sensitive judgment made the difference.
  So, Mr. President, I add my strong support in favor of Mr. Perry's 
nomination to be the next Secretary of Defense. His capable leadership 
and sound judgment will successfully take the Department through the 
interesting challenges that lie ahead. I look forward to working with 
him on the many important defense issues that are in front of us.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for the 
nomination of Dr. William Perry to be Secretary of Defense. During this 
period of continued uncertainly in the world, it is essential that the 
Pentagon have a strong and steady voice in the formulation of our 
national security policy. I hope that his counsel will be taken 
seriously.
  I am very concerned about both the size and the pace of defense 
reductions. Since 1985, the national defense budget has declined by 34 
percent, and if we continue down the track laid out last year by the 
Clinton administration, we will have reduced real defense spending by 
43 percent by 1998. The devastating impact of the planned future cuts 
will greatly exceed the level of pain experienced by defense industry 
and the Armed Forces in the drawdown to date.
  One of the greatest responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense is 
to ensure that adequate resources are available to maintain the 
capability and readiness of our Armed Forces to ensure our security, 
respond to future crises, and support our international commitments. I 
seriously question whether this administration's Defense budget is 
adequate to sustain the force levels required to carry out the stated 
strategy.
  And one of the greatest challenges facing the new Secretary of 
Defense, regardless of the budget topline, will be to manage the 
ongoing builddown of our military forces. Some hard decisions are 
required to ensure that scarce defense dollars are wisely spent.
  I am very concerned about the deleterious impact of steadily 
declining Defense budgets on the All Volunteer Force, on the men and 
women in uniform, especially minorities, and on military families. The 
current drawdown of over 400,000 military personnel and another 100,000 
civilians has created severe hardships for those involuntarily 
separated from the force, even though transition benefits are in place. 
We will need to watch carefully how many service members voluntarily 
accept transition benefits as we continue to draw down the force, and 
we may want to consider fine tuning this program if the results are not 
as beneficial as expected.
  In addition, the negative impact on recruiting, as well as morale and 
unit cohesion in the Active Force, is becoming more serious. These 
factors, if ignored, will seriously impair our Nation's ability to deal 
effectively with any future national security threats.
  Within this body, I intend to pursue the elimination of unnecessary 
and wasteful pork-barrel spending and earmarking, which could save as 
much as $5 or $6 billion every year for important military 
requirements. And this figure does not even include the cost of the 
Seawolf submarine program--a high-technology boondoggle--which is the 
largest single pork-barrel item in the Defense budget today. Funds set 
aside for these programs could instead be used to minimize further end 
strength cuts and for other validated military requirements. I hope 
that Dr. Perry will act decisively to propose rescission of 
unauthorized appropriations and congressionally earmarked funds.

  Another place to look for funds that could be better used to fund 
military requirements is in the defense conversion accounts. I applaud 
the impetus behind allocating defense funds to convert defense 
industries to commercially viable enterprises. However, my fears have 
been realized: Defense conversion has become a slush fund for Congress 
to earmark dollars for noncompetitive university or institutional 
grants with little or no benefit for either the military or commercial 
enterprise. We should look carefully at the Technology Reinvestment 
Program and other accounts to ensure that the billions of dollars set 
aside for conversion are used for their intended purpose.
  Mr. President, I know that Dr. Perry shares my goal of maintaining a 
high level of readiness of our much smaller military force. As early as 
last July, when I asked for information from the Service Chiefs, I 
found that serious indications of declining readiness had already 
emerged in many areas. Again, dollars wasted on pork-barrel projects 
could be spent for training, depot maintenance, spare parts, and other 
areas where the readiness trends are declining. I look forward to 
reviewing the fiscal year 1995 budget request with an eye toward 
rectifying these problems, and I trust Dr. Perry will work with the 
Congress to ensure that these shortcomings are addressed quickly.
  Finally, on the issue of defense industrial base requirements, the 
Congress anxiously awaits the Department's recommendations on this 
urgent issue. It has become a popular political tool to claim that any 
program which may be cut or reduced is somehow vital to the defense 
industrial base. That claim helped defeat my amendment last year to 
reassess the Seawolf Program. Industrial base concerns have been 
invoked for everything from ammunition plants to manufacturers of 
chemical protective clothing. We need the input of the Department of 
Defense in order to properly assess these statements. I am confident 
Dr. Perry will do everything possible to submit the Department's views 
to Congress as quickly as possible.
  Mr. President, I must also note that I intend to pursue with Dr. 
Perry an area of serious disagreement on a policy matter. I have had 
the opportunity to review a Brookings publication entitled ``A New 
Concept of Cooperative Security,'' which Dr. Perry coauthored. To my 
dismay, this publication appears to set forth a premise which is a 
matter of some concern to me; namely, that multilateral cooperative 
engagement is the new strategic imperative which should take precedence 
over actions based on unilateral national security concerns. In 
addition, many of the statements made in the paper appear to endorse 
the establishment of a standing U.S. military force--a prospect with 
which I strongly disagree. I have not had an opportunity to raise these 
issues with Dr. Perry, and I hope that he will be able to clarify his 
views on these matters.
  Mr. President, Dr. Perry's qualifications are impressive, and he has 
an excellent record of public service. I support his nomination and 
look forward to working with him during a very challenging period for 
the Pentagon and for U.S. national security overall.

                          ____________________