[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 87 (Friday, July 1, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: July 1, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I call up the Brown-Simon amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator calling that amendment back
before the Senate?
Mr. BROWN. I am.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the regular order.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment and substitute a sense-of-the-Senate resolution dealing with
the same subject with wording that I believe is acceptable to both
sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendments Nos. 2152 and
2153 are withdrawn.
The amendments, Nos. 2152 and 2153, were withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2161
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown], for himself, Mr.
Simon, Mr. Roth, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Levin, proposes an
amendment numbered 2161.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill add the following new
section--
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING PARTICIPATION IN
ALLIED DEFENSE COOPERATION.
It is the Sense of the Senate that the President should use
existing authorities to the greatest extent possible to
authorize the provision of the following types of assistance
and cooperation to countries like Poland, Hungary and the
Czech Republic who are making significant progress in working
with NATO:
(a) Excess defense articles as defined in the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Control Export Act;
(b) Loan materials, supplies and equipment for research and
development purposes;
(c) Leases and loans of major defense equipment and other
defense articles;
(d) Cooperative military airlift agreements;
(e) The procurement of communications support and related
supplies and services;
(f) Actions to standardize equipment with North Atlantic
Treaty Organization members.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the amendment is offered in behalf of
myself and Senator Simon, Senator Roth, Senator Mikulski, and Senator
Levin.
It is basically a sense of the Senate and expresses our strong
interest in democracy and progress in those countries in Eastern
Europe, specifically Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic; and, it
also expresses our interest in developing further contacts with NATO.
My understanding is that it has been cleared by both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished
Senator to be listed as a cosponsor.
Mr. BROWN. I thank the Senator. I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Warner be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there further debate?
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for
sending this substitute amendment to the desk. This is a sense of the
Senate, as he has observed. It is different from the original amendment
that he submitted, and yet I think it carries out his overall objective
in setting forth the sense of the Senate that the President should use
existing authorities to the greatest extent possible to authorize the
provision of certain types of assistance and cooperation in countries
like Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic for making significant
progress in working with NATO.
The reason I suggest this amendment be adopted is that it does
express, I think, an important sense of the Senate relating to the
partnership from these. It makes it clear that Hungary, the Czech
Republic, and Poland are countries that are making significant
progress. But it does not single out these countries. It says countries
like these, because there are others also making progress. I think that
the best way for the Partnership for Peace to work is for the countries
within that partnership to all proceed in connection with NATO and not
to have those countries right here on the floor of the Senate selected
in terms of who is making the most progress. I think that has to be
determined within NATO and be determined by the United States as well
as our allies and determined in accordance with the criteria NATO and
the Partnership for Peace are working on. There is very strong
sentiment toward Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic here. We watch
them with great pride as they move toward democracy and toward a free
market. But we also are watching with pride other countries in terms of
the Partnership for Peace that are making progress.
I think this is an amendment we should accept. I thank the Senator.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could add a few words of endorsement.
I think the President and the others made a proper decision with
respect to the timing and hope for the eventual admission of these
countries and others to the Partnership for Peace. However, those
nations are at this point in time very short on resources with which to
create within their own structure and nations armed forces such that
they can become really full partners some day of the NATO alliance.
This would be an interim record. I would hope this type of materiel,
military equipment and so forth, would further strengthen the ability
of our Nation and other nations to work with them in training exercises
and to begin to recognize their inherent ability to create such
security forces as they feel are necessary for their respective
security and for eventual inclusion in NATO.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. BROWN. Let me add this: I deeply appreciate the support the sense
of the Senate received. It does not diminish in any way, my enthusiasm
for seeing that we reach out a hand of friendship and freedom to those
countries in Eastern Europe.
I want to emphasize something here as well. While it may have been an
inappropriate time to get a record vote on the original resolution, it
in no way indicates that we do not intend to pursue that option. I am
one that happens to believe that it is terribly important for us to not
let this moment in history pass by and not do everything humanly
possible to make sure they do not slip under the dark clouds of
totalitarianism. I think prompt action on our part can preclude that. A
delay on our part can encourage it. The last thing we want to do is see
their freedom which has been so desperately fought for in this century
slip under a cloud again.
To the extent we can move ahead with these measures, it is a step
forward. These countries are anxious to develop communication systems
compatible with us, equipment systems that are compatible with us,
contacts that are compatible with us. I think it is one of the bright
lights developing in world affairs.
Mr. NUNN. I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am sympathetic to the objectives of this
amendment--to encourage the President to use existing authorities to
provide excess defense articles and other benefits to our friends
participating in NATO's Partnership for Peace. This amendment
specifically mentions Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic as
examples of countries eligible to receive certain types of assistance
and cooperation. Each of those countries has made substantial progress
in working with NATO. Poland, for example, where President Clinton will
travel next week, will be the site of the first military exercise under
Partnership for Peace later this year.
While I agree that those countries, all three of which are members of
NATO's Partnership for Peace, are extremely deserving of military
cooperation and benefits, I would point out that many other countries
are actively working with NATO. This amendment does not limit the
provision of assistance to other countries that are members of
Partnership for Peace. In fact, it encourages the President to extend
the same benefits to each of those other countries.
I believe it is important not to draw unnecessary lines in a newly
undivided Europe. The administration has worked very hard to be
inclusive in developing NATO's Partnership for Peace. For example,
Russia joined the partnership with no special conditions--on the same
terms as other countries. If we begin to differentiate now, we
undermine the concept of a whole and free Europe. Accordingly, I
welcome the inclusive spirit of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2161) was agreed to.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Before the Senator from Colorado leaves the floor, is
this the NATO amendment that I had cosponsored with the Senator?
Mr. BROWN. Indeed, it is, and I ask unanimous consent that the
Senator's name be added as a cosponsor on the sense-of-the-Senate
measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to indicate that I totally
concur in the remarks made by the distinguished Senator from Colorado.
I think he is absolutely correct. I hope we move expeditiously in this
regard as a nation.
Mr. President, shortly, I am going to offer an amendment regarding
spousal and child abuse in the military. Before I do that, I want to
indicate that I previously had filed an amendment, an intent to offer
an amendment, with reference to the language in this bill on the single
stage rocket technology. I do not intend to do that.
I will say to the distinguished chairman and ranking member that,
obviously, the difference between the Senate bill on this and the House
bill on this subject and the appropriations bill in the House seemed to
be a different ends of the world, with the House clearly indicating
they want to continue the program for single stage rocket technology
within the Defense Department at a $40 to $50 million a year cost and
not transfer it to NASA.
In this bill before us there is language both saying we will not
spend the $40 million that is already appropriated for this program,
and the program will go to NASA. I am very hopeful when conference
ensues, between those two extremes, a reasonable compromise will ensue.
It seems to me, based on what I can find out from the House, that such
a compromise will have to be the case and concurrence somewhere in the
middle will have to result. Knowing that, I do not want to burden the
Senate with a vote. We would need one because I do not believe the
managers would accept it. That is my explanation on why I will not call
that amendment up on behalf of myself and Senator Bingaman.
Mr. President, our Nation's ability to use space for national
security, civil, and commercial purposes depends on the strength of our
national launch systems. Other nations are focused on developing their
own independent access to space, and they now lead in terms of
responsive, economical, and competitive launch systems.
But what about the United States? I believe it is in the Nation's
long-term national security and economic security interest to regain
preeminence in the area of space launch technology and operations.
There are widely divergent views on what to be done; however, there
seems to be a general consensus that reusable launch vehicle technology
will provide the cheapest and most reliable form of transportation.
We have reusable vehicles for traveling on land, sea, and air, and we
need them for traveling in space. Scientists and engineers all over
this great Nation tell me the technology is now available and that it
just needs to be demonstrated.
The Defense Department has already flown five successful test flights
of a reusable test vehicle, called the DC-X, and I think we need to
support this vitally important program with continued funding.
We are on the verge of opening a whole new frontier in the use of
space including the new emerging market for vast constellations of low
earth orbit communication satellites that will be an important part of
the new information highway. Its companion program, a cheap, reliable,
and reusable form of space transportation infrastructure, is an
essential part of this new frontier.
The Defense Department has done an outstanding job of managing the
single stage rocket technology program, and I believe they should
continue this effort. The Air Force says they need to do a core
technology program that includes unique technologies to single stage
rocket technology. I believe that we ought to let the Department of
Defense and the Air Force continue to manage this program.
The DC-X has given the United States a 3-year edge over our
international competitors. To retain this lead we must continue to move
ahead with this program of advanced technology flight demonstrators for
reusable single stage to orbit launch systems, and I encourage those
who want to regain American preeminence in space transportation to
support maintaining this program within the Department of Defense.
Mr. President, let me indicate that while a great deal is being said
in the United States these days by our citizens and our people about
spousal abuse, about violence in the families, I hope everybody
understands that the men and women in the military are not immune from
these kinds of difficult problems.
As a matter of fact, just for the record, I, once again, want to
speak to a serious situation we had in the military that is about two-
thirds fixed. We need to fix an additional one-third today, and we will
do that.
Frankly, until the fiscal year 1993 defense authorization bill, we
had a situation in the U.S. military where if a spouse was beaten by
her husband and she turned him in and he was found within the processes
of the military to be guilty of that, her husband could be--and in a
case I brought to the Senate floor--dishonorably discharged, and even
if they had served together as a family for 20 years, before that
dishonorable discharge, at the moment of the discharge, he is
consistent with the history of our military understanding of
dishonorable discharge, he is separated from any and all rights and
privileges with the defense and military of the United States, which,
incidentally, carried with it the situation where the spouse was thus
entitled to nothing. If she had been entitled with her two children in
a case I brought to the Senate, some kind of sharing in his pension
rights, to hospital rights, perhaps commissary rights, the dishonorable
discharge precluded her and her children from getting anything.
Frankly, that may have been years ago a good part of the military
desire to keep their people only tied to the military if they were
honorably discharged. But what actually is happening, and we knew it
was, is that spousal abuse was not being reported because you can
understand that if someone is abused and she knows that if she turns
the abuser in and he is discharged, she will get nothing.
So what we had was a situation where we were almost inviting domestic
violence to go unreported as to the children who might be abused or a
spouse who might be abused. So in due course, after a lot of arm
twisting, the Defense Department went along with language in the
defense authorization bill in 1993 that essentially covers 20-year
veterans and longer, such that if spousal abuse or violence occurs and
they are discharged, the spouses and the children are entitled to a
portion of the military members' retirement pay and other benefits.
That is good law.
I thank the committee for ultimately doing that in conference after a
long and difficult effort to get the military to acknowledge that we
ought to do this.
Now, in 1993 we also put in a study asking the Defense Department to
study in detail the issues and to also tell us what was happening with
reference to situations where the military member that is accused has
not been in the service for 20 years but rather from 1 to 20 years
because we do not have anybody covered there. In other words, at the
end of 14 years, abuse could occur, a spouse could turn in the
offending member who could be dishonorably discharged, and that 13-year
military relationship would be totally severed with the spouse being
entitled to absolutely nothing.
So what we are trying to do is to get the Defense Department to give
us a total evaluation of this, including the evaluation of whether we
should add health care and commissary and medical benefits to these 1-
to 20-year service members who might be discharged dishonorably for
child abuse or wife abuse.
I regret to tell the Senate that even though we have been urging the
Department of Defense to complete the report that we asked them to do
in the 1993 authorization bill, and I wrote Secretary Edwin Dorn, who
was in charge of Personnel and Readiness on February 25, 1994, the
indication was a followup letter. It took until May to get a followup
letter, and then he said it would be ready near the end of May.
I also asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs at a hearing if he
would expedite it, and I was told we would get it by May 27.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those letters be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, February 25, 1994.
Hon. Edwin Dorn,
Assistant Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness, the
Pentagon, Washington DC.
Dear Assistant Secretary Dorn: I commend you and your staff
on your efforts to comply with Public Law 102-484, which
requires a study to provide statistics on abuse-related
separations from military service and actions taken or
planned to be taken by the Department of Defense to reduce or
eliminate disincentives to report the abuse to the
appropriate authorities.
Last Friday, my staff had the opportunity to discuss the
status and direction of the study with Col. John Mollino of
Legislative Affairs and Col. Will Hatcher. My staff informs
me that they are well on their way to producing a meaningful
study that will greatly assist in illustrating where the
problems lie, what the disincentives are, and what can be
done to correct the current situation.
I have one concern that I bring to your personal attention.
The study, which is being prepared, will not be ready in its
final form until mid-to-late June. Unfortunately, this gives
us little time to adequately analyze the findings during the
fiscal year 1995 Defense Appropriations hearings process.
Anything that you might do to expedite this process would
be greatly appreciated. Once again, thank you for your
dedication and support on this issue. I look forward to
continuing our work together on the behalf of military
members, spouses and dependents.
Sincerely,
Pete V. Domenici,
U.S. Senator.
____
Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Washington, DC, 21 April 1994.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: Based on your recent inquiry to me
on the Secretary of Defense's report regarding benefits to
family members following the separation of the service member
for spouse or child abuse, my staff has been working with the
Department of Defense study director. Through allocation of
additional resources and speeding the coordination process,
we have been able to expedite delivery of a final report from
the original June 30 delivery date to May 27.
Because of your interest in this matter, my staff will
ensure that you get a personal copy of the report as soon as
it is available. Your continuing concern for our people and
their welfare is appreciated. If I can be of any further
assistance, please don't hesitate to call. With best wishes,
Sincerely,
John M. Shalikashvili,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
____
Under Secretary of Defense,
Personnel and Readiness,
Washington, DC, May 4, 1994.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: I have taken the following actions
to expedite the abuse victim study the Department is
conducting to reduce or eliminate disincentives to reporting
abuse of family members:
First, the contractor has agreed to accelerate the analysis
of the Task II data from the intake victim abuse surveys and
of the Task III personnel records analysis, once the
collection phases from these two tasks are completed. Second,
this coordination process will be completed concurrently with
the Services as each task report is completed rather than
waiting for the final report of the three task reports. This
will require more staff effort, but will shorten the time
required for the coordination process.
Together these actions will move the completion date up to
the end of May, rather than the end of June as originally
planned. I look forward to continuing our work together on
behalf of military members and their families.
Sincerely,
Labert V. Conte
(For Edwin Dorn).
____
FY93 DoD Authorization Bill, Public Law
102-484
Covers Abused Military Spouses and Children whose member
has served at least 20 years and is eligible for retirement
benefits.
Up to 50 percent of retirement benefits can be claimed by
abused spouse or child when the 20-yr. military member is
dishonorably discharged from the service for the abuse.
Health care, commissary, medical, and dental benefits
covered.
Requires broad study of all issues (including the under 20-
yr. members.
FY94 DoD Authorization Bill, Public Law
103-160
Gives Secretary ``authority'' to cover all abused military
spouses and children whose member is dishonorably discharged
for abuse, regardless of time in service.
Provides up to three years of transitional benefits (based
upon present Dependent Indemnity Comprensation pay scale).
No Health care etc.
Ensures spouses and children receive retirement pay and
other benefits during the military member's appeals process.
(PVD Amendment)
FY95 Domenici Amendment
Directs Secretary to implement program to cover all abused
military spouses and children whose member is dishonorably
discharged from the service for abuse.
Directs same.
Provides health care, commissionary, dental, and medical
for transition period.
Ensures spouses and children whose member has under twenty
years service receive transitional benefits during the
appeals process.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I tell the Senate we still do not have
the report today. I really believe unless there is some absolute
necessity not to do this that we ought to get it and we ought to get it
soon.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record two
additional accounts that relate we do have child abuse and wife abuse
and domestic violence in the military. Time magazine has an article,
and I would like it to be made a part of record, where they do go
through the increases that are occurring in these particular problems
in the military and a story found that I think is quite accurate on
domestic violence on the rise in the military. This comes in a New York
Times article. I ask that those two follow the letters that I just
asked to be made a part of the record.
There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Military Struggling To Stem an Increase In Family Violence
(By Eric Schmitt)
Washington, May 22--In a trend that has Pentagon officials
deeply worried, domestic violence in military families has
increased steadily since the late 1980's, according to
Defense Department figures.
The number of confirmed spouse abuse cases climbed to 18.1
per 1,000 spouses last year, from 12 cases per 1,000 in 1988.
At the same time, substantiated cases of child abuse have
increased slightly to 6.6 per 1,000 children, from 6 per
1,000.
In a grim illustration of the most severe problems, an
average of one child or spouse dies each week at the hands of
a relative in uniform. Over the last six years, an average of
37 children have died each year as a result of abuse in
military families. In 1993, the figure was 38 deaths.
Last Wednesday, in the most recent incident of such
violence, Master Sgt. David W. Reynolds, a 20-year Army
veteran and member of the Army's Old Guard ceremonial unit,
fatally shot his estranged wife, Denise, in a parking lot in
Falls Church, Va., and then shot himself to death.
Shaken by this troubling trend, the armed forces are
rushing to add more aggressive prevention programs to
existing treatment, and to conduct detailed surveys of
military families to pinpoint early signs of trouble. But
Pentagon officials argue that budget constraints are
hampering their ability to address the problem fully.
Military experts say the increase in cases of domestic
violence can be attributed in part to heightened awareness of
the problem throughout society and to improved reporting
techniques. But the mounting stresses of life in a military
buffeted by shrinking numbers, wrenching social changes, more
frequent deployments and nagging uncertainty about careers
have also fed family tensions, these officials say.
``There's no question that the downsizing has had a real
impact on the active-duty military and their families,'' said
Peter J. McNelis, a former Army colonel who now heads the
Military Family Institute at Marywood College in Scranton,
Pa. ``You can't talk to anyone without getting the sense
they're tense and feel that the system is letting them
down.''
Congress has also expressed concern. At a closed meeting
last week to address the equality of women in the military
and steps to prevent sexual harassment, female Senators and
the senior leaders of the armed forces traded concerns about
domestic violence in military families.
Needs to be Realistic
Part of the problem is that there's let's-sweep-it-under-
the-rug attitude about all this,'' said Senator Barbara
Boxer, Democrat of California. ``The military needs to be
realistic and admit there is a problem.''
The rate of child abuse in the military is less than half
of that in the general population, largely because drug and
alcohol abuse is less prevalent in the military and because
military families are shielded from the kind of abject
poverty that is also associated with child abuse.
Trends in reported spouse abuse are more difficult to
compare because there are no reliable national statistics on
the problem. But an Army survey of 55,000 soldiers at 47
bases indicates that one of every three families has suffered
some kind of domestic violence, from slapping to murder. That
was twice the rate found in groups of civilians the Army
surveyed for comparison. The results of the survey, a
continuing study started in 1989, were first reported last
week by Time magazine.
Delores F. Johnson, head of the Army's Family Advocacy
Program, said the Army was startled by the figures, but she
cautioned against drawing definitive conclusions from them.
``The one-in-three figures certainly are alarming,'' she
said. ``But before we go off the deep end, we want to do
further analysis of the data.''
The military services have had programs in place to deal
with domestic violence since the early 1980's, for the
practical reason that stresses at home tend to spill over to
the battlefield, hurting military readiness, recruiting and
retention.
With family violence cases continuing to rise, despite an
increase in budgets for treatment to $79 million this year
from $15 million in 1989, the military is now trying to
improve its prevention programs with these efforts:
In June the Army will begin assigning trained civilian
counselors to hundreds of units, down to the battalion and
company level.
The Pentagon has established a panel that is reviewing
child deaths at three major military hospitals in Colorado,
California and Washington State. It will eventually
investigate child deaths in all military families for signs
of abuse.
The Defense Department has commissioned a yearlong study of
7,000 adolescent children of service members at 25 bases to
identify stress-creating family problems.
But just as in civilian life, spouses in the military are
often reluctant to report abuse, fearing even more violent
attacks or that revealing abuse could imperil the service
member's career and the family's finances. Congress has
ordered the armed services to investigate disincentives to
reporting domestic violence.
Sandra G. Rosswork, manager of the Navy's Family Advocacy
Program acknowledged, ``It's a tough marketing job to get the
word out to families that help is available and there are no
negative consequences to careers.''
Military and civilian social workers say child abuse in
military families, as in the civilian population, ranges from
neglect to battering, while spouse abuse often involves
yelling and pushing, assaults and threats.
The majority of the reported cases involve mid-level
enlisted personnel like sergeants in the Army, Marine Corps
and Air Force, and petty officers in the Navy. But social
workers say abuse also reaches into the officer corps.
an equal opportunity plague
``We see people of all ranks because domestic violence
crosses all lines,'' said William Duke, director of the
family violence care center for Cumberland County, N.C.,
which includes Fort Bragg. ``It's an equal-opportunity plague
on our society.''
Today's military has more married couples and more children
than at any other time in its history. The percentage of
married service members has increased to 58 percent this year
from 47 percent in 1980.
``The combination of high work demands, separation from an
extended family, many times in a foreign country, and
financial stress is a formula for family stress and sets up a
formula for family violence,'' said Gary Bowen, a professor
of social work at the University of North Carolina and an
expert on military families.
concerns in marine corps
It was such concerns that led the Marine Corps to try last
year to phase out enlistment by married men and women, a
policy that was rescinded almost as soon as it was announced
to widespread criticism. The policy directive said that an
inordinate number of Marine Corps marriages were failing
under the pressures of military life, in ``an all too
familiar pattern'' that could ``result in decreased
performance and require command attention.''
Both the Marines and some other experts point in particular
to the youth of both partners in military marriages. When a
19-year-old marine marries a 17-year-old and then they get
moved around the country, trouble is more likely.
``A lot of spousal abuse is the result of people getting
married young and not knowing their partners well,'' said
Rita Campbell, the director of a shelter for battered women
near Fort Stewart, Ga.
Ginny Powell, a clinical social worker at the Navy's family
advocacy center in San Diego, said: ``In many cases the
parents themselves were abused or neglected. Many of them are
now immature parents.''
army training cited
Although some family specialists, both civilian and
military, say that troops trained for combat often bring
combative behavior home with them, military officials deny
any link. ``While we train soldiers to be aggressive, they're
not trained to be abusers,'' said Col. Jim Schile, an
Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Army for Morale, Welfare,
Recreation and Family programs.
At any rate, overt violence is not the only type of abuse
found in military families. In San Diego last June, a
neighbor reported a case of child neglect involving the 4-
month old daughter of a 22-year-old petty officer and his 20-
year-old wife. By the time civilian authorities arrived,
however, it was too late.
``The child looked like someone from the Sudan who just
starved to death,'' said Lieut. Comdr. Norma Jones, director
of the Navy family advocacy center in San Diego. ``It was a
family that fell through the cracks.''
The parents were convicted of second-degree murder earlier
this month and face prison terms of 15 years of life.
This summer, the Navy will train family counselors in a new
program to help children who have witnessed spouse abuse in
their home.
``It's becoming clear,'' said Ms. Rosswork of the Navy's
Family Advocacy Program' ``that if we want to prevent
domestic violence, then we need to start doing something pro-
active with children currently in homes where there's
domestic violence.''
[From Time, May 23, 1994]
The Living Room War
(By Mark Thompson)
(As the U.S. military shrinks, family violence is on the rise. Can the
Pentagon do more to prevent it?)
Washington.--Jeromy Willis, an Air Force enlisted man and
ex-Army marksman, had been trained to kill the enemy. But
when the cold war ended and his base faced closure and his
career began looking less secure and his marriage came under
strain, the enemy started looking a lot like his wife Marie.
First he tried to kill her with a flaming propane torch.
Weeks later he tried to strangle her. She fled to her
mother's home in Rhode Island, and the Air Force confined
Jeromy to his base in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. But when
Marie returned to press charges against her husband, he had
somehow learned of her supposedly secret appointment.
Outraged that she was ruining his career Jeromy confronted
Marie inside the waiting room of the base legal office early
last year. He fired a pawnshop pistol into her chest. As
horrified witnesses watched her yellow dress turn crimson,
she screamed, ``Jeromy, no!'' And then he fired a second
round into her brain.
Marie Willis became another victim of an alarming increase
in domestic violence on America's military bases. The rise in
abuse of spouses and children, researchers and the Pentagon
believe, may be connected to the painful reduction in U.S.
fighting forces following the end of the cold war. In 1986,
there were 27,783 reported cases of violence in military
families; last year there were 46,287. Now, a confidential--
and unprecedented--Army survey obtained by Time suggests that
spousal abuse is occurring in one of every three Army
families each year--double the civilian rate. Each week
someone dies at the hands of a relative in uniform, and
nearly 1,000 formal complaints of injury are lodged against
family members in the service. Untold thousands may suffer in
silence.
Over the past year there has been gory evidence of the
home-front carnage. A soldier in Washington state killed is
wife, packed her body into a suitcase and threw it off a
bridge. In Southern California a Marine who was a hero in the
Persian Gulf War shot and killed his newly divorced wife and
their five-year-old daughter. In North Carolina an airman
hacked his wife to pieces, wrapped her remains in plastic
garbage bags and stored them in the refrigerator. In Hawaii a
sailor killed his baby daughter, stuffing her into a duffel
bag and tossing her into Pearl Harbor. A soldier in Germany,
angered at his wayward spouse, decapitated her G.I. lover and
placed the severed head atop his wife's nightstand.
The new Army survey offers an unvarnished and quantifiable
look at the problem. ``The rates of marital aggression are
considerably higher than anticipated,'' declared the
researchers, who have questioned more than 55,000 soldiers at
47 bases since 1989, and continue to do so.The growing number
of victims seeking help ``is soon likely to exceed treatment
resources.'' And the problem isn't restricted to low-level or
poorly performing soldiers. ``Often those in the most
responsible and stressful positions,'' the report says
referring to noncommissioned officers, ``appear to be more
likely to be involved in abusive episodes.'' The violence
ranges from kicking, bitting and punching to attacks with
knives and guns.
The Army's efforts to curb such violence--through
counseling and other help--are rarely mandatory. That, says
the study, leads to two critical failings: few soldiers take
advantage of the help, and the worst abusers don't
participate. Researcher Peter Neidig, whose company,
Behavioral Science Associates in Stony Brook, New York, is
conducting the Army survey, believes similar levels of
domestic abuse exist in the other services. While Neidig
believes the Army is ahead of the civilian world in
confronting the issue, Army officials admit they are only
starting to understand the extent of the problem. ``We were
being very reactionary, explains Delores Johnson, who heads
the service's program to combat such abuse. Rather than
trying to prevent it, the Army emphasized medical and legal
help after the violence occurred. ``We're just beginning to
take a look at what prevention means,'' says Johnson. The
Army study, which is designed to identify groups at high risk
of domestic violence, found evidence that abuse tends to
escalate at bases scheduled to shut down. ``We're very
interested in that,'' Johnson says, ``because we're in the
middle of downsizing.'' Pentagon officials also say their
efforts to encourage military families to report such abuse
has played a role in the rising number of reported cases.
But the military is spending only $80 million of the $120
million it says it needs this year to fight domestic abuse.
That $40 million gap is less than the price of one of the
three dozen F/A-18 fighters the Navy is buying in 1994. The
shortfall, officials concede, means most of the money will
still go toward the medical and legal bills of those already
ensnared in domestic terror, instead of focusing on
prevention.
Gail McGinn, a top Pentagon personnel official, says the
military family's nomadic existence contributes to the
problem. Most move every three years, ripping the military
family from the support network of relatives and friends that
civilian families count on when times get tough. The long
absences of the breadwinner--on lengthy cruises, battlefield
exercises or peacekeeping missions--add to familial stress.
The military drawdown, from 2.2 million troops in 1987 to 1.5
million in 1997, compounds the problem. Soldiers and sailors
who once dreamed of a secure, 20-year career and a handsome
facing a trunicated career, no pension and bleak employment
prospects in the civilian world. ``Everybody is wondering
about what their own careers and their own finances will be,
and of course, financial issues are major contributors to
family violence,'' McGinn says. ``There's a lot of
tension.'' Outside experts point to other factors.
Compared with civilian society, the military population is
younger and drawn from lower socioeconomic ranks, and
consequently more violence prone. Alcohol abuse is
relatively high, pay tends to be poor and the military
attracts men who have authoritarian tendencies.
Also boosting the opportunity for such violence is the fact
that nearly 58 percent of the military are married, perhaps
the highest proportion in history. According to Pentagon
figures, abuse is largely confined to midlevel enlisted
personnel like Air Force, Army and Marine sergeants and Navy
petty officers. They're old enough to be married and have
children--and the resulting debts--but often earn less than
$20,000 a year.
Some military training contributes to a misogynist
attitude, says Joan Zorza, director of the National Battered
Women's Law Project in New York City. ``A man is criticized
by being told he's acting like a woman--a `pussy'--to
humiliate him and make him tougher,'' she says. ``That often
translates into seeing women as not being important and
therefore easier to oppress.''
An earlier study had already found a correlation between
combat jobs and domestic violence. Troops trained to fight
are more likely to batter children than their uniformed
colleagues in noncombat jobs, according to a 1979 study of
985 case of child abuse among Air Force personnel by the
University of New Hampshire, ``There's a spillover from what
one does in one sphere of life in one role to what one does
in other roles,'' says Murray Straus, a University of New
Hampshire family-violence expert who worked on the study.
``If you're in an occupation whose business is killing, it
legitimizes violence.''
The inherent lack of autonomy in a military job also sets
the stage for abuse. ``It's all about control,'' says Cindy
Zamora, the wife of an Army tanker. She now lives in a
shelter for battered women in Killeen, Texas, just outside
huge Fort Hood. She moved there after her husband bit her,
beat her and threatened her with a knife. ``There's a lot of
women in here married to soldiers whose sergeants protect
them if they're good soldiers,'' she says. ``They can't
control their superiors on the job, so they control us.''
Although her husband admitted under oath last month in a
Texas courtroom that he is married to two women, he
remains in the Army. ``He was under a lot of stress and
was nervous about being kicked out,'' she says. ``He said
if he didn't get his sergeant's stripes, I was going to
get hurt.'' She's angered that he remains in the Army in
good standing even as it investigates his bigamy. ``The
military knows he has two wives, but he's still in the
Army,'' she says. ``They just sweep it under the rug.''
Katherine Coleman was married to an Army major and
psychologist. ``It's a myth that domestic violence doesn't
happen in officers' families,'' says Coleman, now divorced
and living in San Antonio, Texas. Her husband went so far as
to draft a prenuptial pact detailing sexual obligations and
rules governing outside friendships. She recalls him
cornering her in the kitchen or bathroom and not letting her
leave until she gave in to his demands. ``We argued once for
four hours in the kitchen, and he wouldn't let me out,'' she
says. ``I had to urinate on the kitchen floor.'' But she had
power over him too. ``He hit me a couple of times until I
told him his career would be over if he did it again,''
Coleman says. He remains in the Army, training its mental-
health workers.
The men involved in such episodes aren't eager to discuss
them. But some acknowledge that the prospect of watching
lifelong dreams shatter as the military shrinks can make them
lash out in rage and frustration. ``It stresses you out, but
you can't hit the officers,'' an Army man says. ``So you wait
till you get home and take out on her and the kids.'' Another
soldier will only say of his wife that ``we abused each
other.'' In fact, the Army survey suggests that spousal abuse
usually involves violence by both partners. But women, it
notes, are far more likely than men to be injured.
The military has reacted to the problem by creating
counseling programs and discipline boards. Military families
are told to report any instances of domestic violence they
witness, even if it occurs outside their family. But few
abused spouses are willing to risk their family's financial
future by seeking help through Army channels, because such
complaints often end up on the desk of the abuser's
commander. ``The military needs to do something to ensure the
confidentiality of spouses so the wife can go and get help
without hurting his career,'' says Phyllis Lonneman, a
Kentucky attorney representing a woman charged with the
slaying of her Army husband in August after years of alleged
abuse. ``It doesn't matter how good or bad the military's
programs are if the spouses are afraid to use them.''
And the abuser's commander often isn't sympathetic to the
battered spouse, according to Sadonna Polhill, who is the top
caseworker at the Killeen shelter. ``They'll tell the wife,
`This is a bunch of bull--quit making these accusations
because you're ruining your husband's career,''' she says.
``They try to make the one who's being battered at fault.''
Anxiety over their husbands' careers has led to a sharp drop
in the number of women--from 85% to 50% over the past two
years--who permit the shelter's staff to alert military
officials to the women's visits. ``A lot of that has to do
with the pressures on the soldiers and their families,''
Polhill says. ``And many are deathly afraid of their
husbands.''
While many civilian domestic-violence experts praise the
strides the military has made in dealing with the problem,
they say follow-through is often lacking. A Pentagon
investigation last year surveyed 13 Pentagon prisons to see
how many were complying with a 1982 federal law obligating
them to alert crime victims, including abused spouses, when
perpetrators are released. Not a single one was. In a 1990
case, a Kentucky woman, Andrea Turner, was murdered by her
husband three days after his release from a military prison.
The killer, who had been locked up for abusing her, said he
shot her five times in the back because she ruined his Army
career. She had made plans to move secretly to a new home
before his official release date, but the military neglected
to tell her that he was getting out two months early because
of accumulated military leave. ``It was a nightmare,'' one
Army official involved in the case says. ``Nobody told her.''
The problem isn't limited to spouses. Child abuse is also
on the rise, leading the Pentagon to create a child death-
review task force that will eventually probe all child deaths
in the U.S. military to determine if abuse is to blame.
``After a child dies, people say it was an accident,'' says
Army Colonel Will Hatcher, who is helping to launch the
program. ``But we want to go back and check.'' For several
months the task force has been examining child deaths at the
Fitzsimons Army Medical Center in Colorado and at hospitals
at the Bremerton naval base in Washington and Travis Air
Force base in California.
Despite the Pentagon's intentions, its sometimes haphazard
efforts offer little comfort to victims and their families.
Jeromy Willis, for example, was sentenced to life
imprisonment for the murder of his wife and is now serving
time at Fort Leavenworth Kansas. Yet Marie Willis' family
remains bitter, because the military ignored so many warnings
that a tragedy was afoot. Her family says Jeromy was confined
to base twice because he tried to Kill Marie, but he was
allowed to roam freely on the base when the Air Force invited
and paid for her to return there and testify against him.
``Abused people should not rely on the military for
protection.'' says her father, Eugene Mello, himself an Air
Force veteran. Her mother, Marie Mello, puts it more simply:
``The Air Force was an accomplice in my daughter's death.''
Mr. DOMENICI. Now, Mr. President, I have discussed the amendment that
I am sending to the desk at this moment and ask that it be immediately
read. It has been discussed with Senator Nunn and Senator Nunn's staff
and Senator Thurmond and Senator Thurmond's staff.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will
be set aside.
Amendment No. 2162
(Purpose: To require the establishment of the program previously
authorized for payment of transitional compensation to dependents of
members separated for dependent abuse and to improve the benefits
provisions)
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes an
amendment numbered 2162.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 128, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following
new section:
SEC. 522. TRANSITIONAL COMPENSATION AND OTHER BENEFITS FOR
DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS SEPARATED FOR DEPENDENT
ABUSE.
(A) Requirement.--subsection (a) of section 1058 of title
10, United States Code, as added by section 554(a)(1) of
Public Law 103-160 (197 Stat. 1663), is amended--
(b) Commencement and Duration of Benefits.--Subsection (e)
of such section is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Commencement and Duration of Payment.--(1) Payment of
transitional compensation under this section--
``(A) in the case of a member convicted by a court-martial
for a dependent-abuse offense may commence as of the date of
the approval of the court-martial sentence by the person
acting under section 860(c) of this title (article 60(c) of
the Uniform Code of Military Justice) if the sentence, as
approved, includes a dismissal, dishonorable discharge, bad
conduct discharge, or forfeiture of all pay and allowances;
and
``(B) in the case of a member being considered under
applicable regulations for administrative separation from
active duty in accordance with such regulations (if the basis
for the separation includes a dependent-abuse offense) may
commence as of the date on which the separation action is
initiated by a commander of the member pursuant to such
regulations, as determined by the Secretary concerned.
``(2) Transitional compensation with respect to a member
may be paid for a period of 36 months, except that, if as of
the date on which payment of transitional compensation
commences the unserved portion of the member's period of
obligated active duty service is less than 36 months, the
period for which transitional compensation is paid shall be
equal to the greater of--
``(A) the unserved portion of the member's period of
obligated active duty service; or
``(B) 12 months.
``(3)(A) If a member is sentenced by a court-martial to
receive punishment that includes a dismissal, dishonorable
discharge, bad conduct discharge, or forfeiture of all pay
and allowances as a result of a conviction by a court-martial
for a dependent-abuse offense and each such punishment
applicable to the member under the sentence is remitted, set
aside, or mitigated to a lesser punishment that does not
include any such punishment, any payment of transitional
compensation that has commenced under this section on the
basis of such sentence in that case shall cease.
``(B) If administrative separation of a member from active
duty is proposed on a basis that includes a dependent-abuse
offense and the proposed administrative separation is
approved by competent authority under applicable regulations,
payment of transitional compensation in such case shall
cease.
``(C) Cessation of payments under subparagraph (A) or (B)
shall be effective as of the first day of the first month
following the month in which the Secretary concerned notifies
the recipient of such transitional compensation in writing
that payment of the transitional compensation will cease. The
recipient may not be required to repay amounts of
transitional compensation received before that effective date
(except to the extent necessary to recoup any amount that was
erroneous when paid).''.
(c) Health, Commissary, and Other Benefits.--Section (e) is
further amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (j) and (k) as subsections
(k) and (l), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (i) the following new
subsection (j):
``(j) Health Commissary, and Other Benefits.--(1) A
dependent or former dependent entitled to payment of monthly
transitional compensation under this section shall, while
receiving payments in accordance with this section, be
entitled to receive medical and dental care, to use
commissary and exchange stores, and to receive any other
benefit that a dependent of a member of the armed forces is
entitled to receive on the basis of being a dependent of a
member of the armed forces to the same extent and in the same
manner as a dependent of a member of the armed forces on
active duty for a period of not more than 30 days.
``(2) If a dependent or former dependent eligible or
entitled to receive a particular benefit under this
subsection is eligible or entitled to receive that benefit
under another provision of law, the eligibility or
entitlement of that dependent or former dependent to such
benefit shall be determined under such other provision of law
instead of this subsection.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--(1) The heading for such
section is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 1058. Dependents of members separated for dependent
abuse: transitional compensation and other benefits''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 53 of
such title is amended by striking out the item relating to
section 1058 (as added by section 554(a)(2) of Public Law
103-160 (107 Stat. 1066)) and inserting in lieu thereof the
following:
``1058. Dependents of members separated for dependent abuse:
transitional compensation and other benefits.''.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that
will significantly contribute to the efforts I have made over the last
2 years, which the Senate Armed Services Committee have supported,
relative to the issue of military spouse and child abuse. My colleagues
will recall in 1992 I introduced the ``Abused Military Dependents
Protection Act.'' This legislation was adopted in the fiscal year 1993
Defense Authorization Bill, Public Law 102-484.
Prior to my legislation, abused military spouses and their dependents
whose military member had served the requisite number of years to earn
retirement benefits, but was dishonorably discharged from the service
for spouse or child abuse, were not eligible to receive any of the
retirement benefits the military member (and in my view the spouse and
family) had earned. Section 653(e) of Public Law 102-484 ensures that
abused military spouses and their children whose military member is
dishonorably discharged for spouse or child abuse will have access of
up to 50 percent of the member's retirement benefits, as well as access
to health care, commissary, and other privileges which they would have
otherwise maintained if the member was not dishonorably discharged.
As important, I included language in Public Law 102-484 requiring a
comprehensive study by the Department of Defense to provide statistics
on abuse related to separations from military service on a force-wide
basis and without regard to the number of years of military service of
the member. In addition, the study will examine the entire scope of
family violence and the actions taken or planned to be taken by the
Department of Defense to reduce or eliminate disincentives, including
the socioeconomic impact on a force wide basis, for dependent members
of the Armed Forces abused by the member to report abuse to the
appropriate authorities.
Regretfully, Mr. President, the Department of Defense has not yet
submitted its report. In a letter dated May 4, 1994, the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness informed me that I
would have the report in late May. Unfortunately, and while I
understand it should be delivered momentarily, I have yet to see it.
Frankly, I am disappointed. I have tried very hard to obtain this
report because I knew that it would be very helpful in answering more
completely the full scope of the problem and possible future remedies.
Nevertheless, Mr. President, I rise today to take another step
forward in the fight against military spouse and child abuse.
Admittedly, this amendment is limited in scope, but I know it will be
helpful to hundreds of abused spouses and their children.
Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today will authorize
health care, commissary, and other benefits that are authorized by the
original legislation I introduced in fiscal year 1993 that is now part
of Public Law 102-484. Unfortunately, the legislation that was passed
last year in section 554 of Public Law 103-160 does not contain these
benefits. My amendment will make last year's section of Public Law 103-
160 consistent with my original legislation, now section 653 of Public
Law 102-484.
Mr. President, military spouse abuse is a serious problem. At this
point, I would like to ask unanimous consent to place in the Record
articles from Time magazine and the New York Times entitled, ``The
Living Room War: As the U.S. military shrinks, family violence is on
the rise. Can the Pentagon do more to prevent it?,'' and, ``Military
Struggling to Stem Increase in Family Violence.'' These articles make
it clear that spouse abuse continues to increase, and we need to do
more about it. Time magazine reports:
In 1986 there were 27,783 reported cases of violence in
military families; last year there were 47,287. Now a
confidential--and unprecedented--Army survey obtained by Time
suggests that spousal abuse is occurring in one of every
three Army families each year--double the civilian rate.
The New York Times reports:
In a grim illustration of the most severe problems, an
average of one child or spouse dies each week at the hands of
a relative in uniform. Over the last six years, an average of
37 children have died each year as a result of abuse in
military families, In 1993, the figure was 38 deaths.
Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today is critical to
ensuring that the fear factor associated in reporting domestic violence
cases in the military is significantly reduced. Too often in the past,
abused military spouses and their children have had no option but to
endure the abuse. My legislation provides them with a ``way out''
without risking financial ruin.
The soon-to-be released study will provide us the information we will
need to make additional changes in the system next year, but the time
for delay has passed. We can no longer afford to wait. Military spouses
and children are dying. We must direct the Department of Defense to
implement this program so that we can continue our responsible efforts
to deal with this problem. I have gratefully, appreciated the Senate
Armed Services Committee's support on this issue over the last 3 years,
and I look forward to their continued support, and the support of all
of my colleagues.
Mr. President, this amendment says for those situations of 1 year to
20 years of service and a dishonorable discharge during any of those
periods for any military member convicted of domestic violence, either
spousal or child, that the spouse, the nonoffending child and children
will receive benefits.
It also says that those benefits will add to them health care,
commissary, dental, and medical for this transition period.
The law right now says that we will have a 3-year payment to them for
3 years of benefits for the transition. We are adding these new covered
items--health care, commissary, dental, and medical--to the existing
law.
Frankly, I was going to try to make this mandatory in the original
amendment, but I am not doing that because I have the assurance of the
chairman that he is going to join me here on the floor urging that the
military take care of this responsibility.
Clearly, it is something they ought to do and ought to do as quickly
as possible. They have not yet started the program for the 1- to 20-
year military members that was adopted last year in the defense
authorization bill. The DOD authorization conference report that passed
the Senate last year included language that gives the Secretary
authority to cover abused spouses and children of 1- to 20-year
military members who were discharged because of these violations, and
it gives their spouse and their children some benefits. They are not
even carrying that out yet.
We add a few benefits here today, and perhaps this colloquy on the
floor of the Senate will cause them to take it serious enough to get it
started as quickly as possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, first, let me congratulate the Senator from
New Mexico for addressing his amendment in a very consistent and, I
think, very effective way on this problem which he has identified and
which he has taken the lead in legislative activities to try to deal
with, the problem that the Senator from New Mexico is addressing, the
disincentive that has been built into the overall military benefits
package for spouses and children.
When a spouse is being abused or children are being abused by a
military member, there is a disincentive that has existed for them
reporting that and having it dealt with.
I think the whole Nation has seen in the last several weeks a great
deal of attention on this question of spousal abuse, without referring
to any case, the need to deal with it at the very beginning, and to
have it reported when it takes place or when children are abused.
Yet in the military there has been a disincentive because immediately
if your spouse is reported for any kind of abuse, then basically your
transitional benefits have not been there, you have not had benefits
because that individual may be kicked out of the military, and then the
spouse and the children also suffer.
So this amendment reemphasizes the dedication of the Senator from New
Mexico and the importance the Senate of the United States attaches to
this problem.
It is my understanding that the military is about to come out with
their full implementation of this. But this amendment makes it clear
that the Senate of the United States is going to follow this closely
and insist that it be done.
I join the Senator in expressing my support for this concept. This
amendment, as I understand it, authorizes certain additional transition
assistance for spouses and children that are found in this situation,
so that the bottom line is they are not discouraged from making timely
reports of spousal or children abuse.
This amendment does not make this program mandatory. I think the
Senator from New Mexico perhaps more than anybody in the Senate
understands that we do not need new entitlement programs no matter how
worthy they are. So this keeps it out of the entitlement or mandatory
program category. But it does, I think, merit the support of the U.S.
Senate.
So I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator
from New Mexico.
So the amendment (No. 2162) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, while Senator Nunn, the chairman, is on
the floor, let me say to him a few hours ago there was a very difficult
vote here on the floor with reference to a cost-of-living index and the
way we would treat some of our veterans with reference to cost-of-
living index versus the way we were paying civilians or how we were
handling civilians or others.
I did not know that we had finished the debate last night but just
for a few minutes this morning. So I did not have anything to say. But
I want to say to the Senate I believe the Warner amendment, in
principle, is absolutely right. So I voted for it.
In fact, I have never thought we should treat the men and women--
those who are discharged from the military and get pensions of any type
or VA benefits--I did not think we should treat them any differently
than civilians or even Social Security recipients. I thought they all
should be treated the same.
In fact, I have introduced legislation to that effect and have had
many, many supporters for it years ago.
So in principle, we were right in voting it in. But I also want to
say that to create a new entitlement and not call it one, but rather
say we will pay it out of appropriated accounts, is just not the way to
conduct business here.
For many, and this Senator is one, I am worried when we take a $300
million or $400 million cut in defense. In fact, I think we all came to
the floor, I say to Senator Nunn, on the so-called Exon-Grassley
amendment. We did not want further cuts in the allocation of defense.
And even when that amendment went through in its fullest, it probably
would have been a half a billion dollars or maybe $750 million that we
would have taken out. But here in one fell swoop we are going to have
to fund about $360 million, which is what I understand this entitlement
is worth.
I want to pledge to the Senate and to all of those concerned about
defense that I am going to use every bit of my available knowledge and
information about these processes to find a way to pay for that COLA
addition, but not to pay it out of the ongoing annual defense program,
because I think it will affect the personnel and operations and
maintenance in a very, very dramatic way.
We have to find a way to pay for entitlements like entitlements are
paid for out of the entitlement pools that the U.S. Government is
paying for entitlements in this country. We cannot let this precedent,
which is a bad precedent, now take hold, and actually pay for it out of
the operating accounts of an appropriation budget.
So I will spend as much energy and effort and as much of my staff's
talent, working with others, seeking to find a way to do this without
further decimating the defense operations, and maintenance, and the
personnel of the military who are living day by day defending us.
I think the veterans would tell us to do it another way. So we owe it
to them to try.
I thank Senator Nunn for his efforts and I hope together we will be
able to find a way to do it.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I welcome the remarks of my friend from New
Mexico. I hope, too, there are alternative ways to accomplish this
purpose.
I agree that there should be equity in these COLA's I do not agree
that the military should be singled out. And they have been, and that
is regrettable.
I made a very long speech on the subject last night and I will not
repeat it today. If the Warner amendment had failed, I did have an
amendment that I was going to propose which would equalize the COLA
sacrifice between military and civilians. That, too, might have failed,
and probably would have failed. But it is clear, after the Senate
adopted the Warner amendment, that the amendment I was going to propose
was not consistent with that amendment. So there was no need to go back
over the same ground again.
But what we have done here is we have taken an entitlement restraint
that was in last year's budget bill and we have decided that we are
going to compensate that, make it whole, for the people on military
retirement. And we have done it by taking it right out of the defense
bill. That is what has been done in this authorization bill.
What has not been done is the money has not been found.
I have seen some of the letters put out by the national
organizations. They say it can come out nonreadiness accounts. I went
through that very clearly today. It either comes out of readiness, or
it comes out of procurement, or research and development, or it comes
out of force structure. No one has identified where this money is going
to come from. So it has not been appropriated. It has not gone through
the appropriations.
The amendment I would have proposed would have taken care of this for
4 years with some sacrifice, but about half the sacrifice the American
people are now being asked to undertake.
This amendment only calls for 1 year, if they find the money. So the
money has to be found for 3 more years. There is a total of $2.2
billion. We only dealt with $370-some-odd million this time.
In order to get $370 million out of procurement, you do not want to
do it to programs that are already underway, so you do it out of the
front-end of procurement programs just getting started. In order to do
that, because of the slow spendout rate on initial programs like ships,
to get $376 million in outlays, which is what we are talking about,
expenditures this year, you have to cut about $8 billion in
procurement. So if we do this every year we are talking about
astounding cuts in the overall defense of our country.
We already are on a downslide. We are already cutting defense too
much. So I welcome the comments of the Senator from New Mexico and I
welcome his help. I hope this program can be worked out.
I have managed, I am sure, to offend every group around town during
the course of my opposition to this amendment. But that is all right,
too, because at some point you have to tell the facts as they are. And
the people out there in the field who contact me, military retirees,
are astounded when they find out what they are advocating has to come
out of the defense budget. That is not what they want. The
organizations here in town, like every other organization--and they are
certainly no different in this respect--are seriously guarding every
single penny in entitlement programs.
It is no mystery why entitlement programs are running away from us.
It is not just health care. That is the main culprit. But the reason is
because people are very vigilant in protecting those programs.
It is no mystery why we have the kind of deficits we have. All you
have to do is look at the charts--and I will not go back through those
again. But I think the exercise we have been through in the last 24
hours on this particular matter is as clear a demonstration as anyone
will find about why we have the fiscal problems we have in this country
today.
So I welcome the assistance of the Senator from New Mexico here. I am
sure, if anyone can find a way to do this without damaging the defense
of the country, and maintaining the equity and fairness to the military
retirees, and without increasing the deficit, I am sure he will find a
way. But that is not an easy path to probe. I will be working with him
to try to accomplish that.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Harkin). The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would just add to this.
As you look at what is being contemplated between now and the end of
the year, or now and the end of the year for health care, and maybe 6
months into next year for welfare reform, I do not have the exact
numbers, but you see we have a law that if you want to add to an
entitlement, you have to subtract from an entitlement, or you have to
pay for that increase with taxes.
My best estimate over the next 5 years, between welfare reform and
health care reform, is that we probably are going to cut entitlements
of one type or another in excess of $150 billion between Medicare,
Medicaid, and those that we want to either cut or end as part of
welfare reform.
Frankly, it seems to me, if we are going to reduce entitlements that
much for those programs, maybe a small portion right off the top ought
to go to pay for the COLA's for veterans. That might be one way to look
at it. And I will explore that before too much more time expires.
I yield the floor.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, what is the pending business on the floor
of the Senate, if I might inquire?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Nunn amendment to the Warner amendment is
the pending business.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
amendment be set aside temporarily so I may proceed with an amendment
which I am sure is going to require some debate--I hope not much
debate.
I am going to make a very short opening statement. I know Senators
are trying to leave for the Fourth of July break, and I will be very
brief.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2163
(Purpose: To prohibit government-to-government transfers of the
Airborne Self-Protection Jammer [ASPJ], or any related software,
abroad)
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, today I rise to offer an amendment with
Senator Roth of Delaware to prohibit the U.S. Government-sponsored sale
of the very troubled airborne self-protection jammer. This is known as
the ASPJ, and Senator Roth and I do not want to see the foreign
military financing program go forward with this sale abroad.
The Senate has heard me on this issue on several occasions with my
colleague, Senator Roth. I originally intended to offer an amendment
banning any sale, either FMS or commercial, of the ASPJ but, Mr.
President, today I have a much more modest proposal that I hope will be
accepted by the Senate. Our amendment that we offer today simply
forbids any use of the FMS to export the ASPJ.
The ASPJ dates back to the 1970's, when our country first decided we
needed to update and improve our radar jammer technology. After years
and years of problems, the system actually failed its operational
tests. Then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Atwood wrote, in July of 1989,
that the ASPJ ``* * * has not satisfactorily passed the test relative
to cost, performance, or reliability. This is a clear case of not
meeting the exit criteria for a transition from the full-scale
development phase to the production phase.'' That was by Deputy
Secretary Atwood.
In subsequent investigations by the inspector general, the Pentagon
Operational Test Director, and the General Accounting Office, all found
that the ASPJ was tested fairly, the jammer badly flunked its
operational test, and that the ASPJ should not be produced. The U.S.
Air Force came forward and said: We no longer desire to have this
particular radar jammer on U.S. Air Force planes.
In December 1992, the Defense Secretary killed this entire $2 billion
program. Despite the fact that the ASPJ has failed operational tests,
and despite the fact that the DOD terminated production of the ASPJ in
December of 1992, the ASPJ is one of those weapons systems that refuses
to die.
We have heard about a cat with nine lives. Mr. President, this is a
turkey with nine lives.
The latest episode in the ASPJ saga involves the potential sale of
the ASPJ to foreign countries, specifically Switzerland and Finland.
Are these sales from the manufacturer or the contractor to the
Governments? No, these are Government-to-Government sales. FMS sales,
if I may be more specific.
Originally, I was told that the ASPJ would not be sold abroad. I
received two letters from the then Under Secretary of Defense assuring
me that the ASPJ would not be approved for sale under the FMS program.
Last September, Mr. Deutch wrote, and I quote:
I am not approving ASPJ for the Foreign Military Sales
Program.
In March 1994, Mr. Deutch again wrote me, and I quote:
The department's position remains that foreign military
sales funds will not be used to cover sales of ASPJ to
foreign countries because the department does not want to
apply a warranty on a system that will not be procured for
U.S. aircraft.
I repeat that, Mr. President, because I think it encapsulates what
our Department of Defense's position was in March 1994.
The department's position remains that foreign military
sales funds will not be used to cover sales of ASPJ to
foreign countries because the department does not want to
apply a warranty on a system that will not be procured for
U.S. aircraft.
Only a few months later, it now appears that the Department of
Defense has changed its tune. At a hearing that I held on March 22 of
this year, I was assured that while sale of the ASPJ abroad would be
allowed, I was also assured at the same hearing that these exports were
so-called commercial sales, not Government-to-Government sales. This
means that the contractors, and not the U.S. Government, would become
the exporter of these units. I was told by Miss Colleen Preston, the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Reform on March 22
before the Federal Services Subcommittee of the Governmental Affairs
Committee:
What we have done is said to foreign customers that the
ASPJ may be sold as a commercial item by the company to the
contractor or another Government.
This is our own Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
Reform, Colleen Preston. She concludes:
However, because the system did not pass operational
testing, DOD will not allow a purchase of the ASPJ system as
an FMS sale.
Frankly, Mr. President, this amazes me. This radar jammer that costs
$2.5 to $3 million per system, this jammer that failed operational
test, this jammer that the Air Force says it does not want, this jammer
that is so bad that the Pentagon canceled it, is being sold now by our
Government to foreign countries.
I was not happy to hear that a failed system was being sold abroad. I
originally intended to offer an amendment to block all commercial
sales. I am not doing that today. I must say that I was relieved that
at least the U.S. Government was not providing the jammer to these
other particular countries.
However, DOD has changed its tune again. In direct contradiction to
this testimony before our subcommittee, as well as a contradiction to
the letters from Deputy Secretary John Deutch assuring me that ASPJ
would not be sold through the FMS program, the Pentagon now plans to
sell the software component, which is the heart of the system, of the
ASPJ, and integrate the ASPJ through the FMS system. Contractors will
export only the ASPJ hardware, which is basically nothing more than the
box that the software is in.
In short, Mr. President, while the ASPJ contractors are going to be
responsible for exporting the hardware on the ASPJ, the U.S. Government
will be the exporter of the all-important ASPJ software. And this
software, which is the brains and the heart of the ASPJ, is what could
not pass muster, it could not pass tests, it could not get by the
operational testers in all of the tests conducted between 1989 and
1992. This jammer simply does not work. It has never worked.
According to the General Accounting Office in a report entitled ``Use
of FMS in Proposed Commercial Sales of Airborne Self-Protection
Jammer,'' I quote:
While the United States is relieved of any legal or
financial liability for problems occurring under a foreign
military sale, it would be expected to resolve contract
disputes. Foreign Government officials state that they expect
items to meet the specifications included in the LAO [letters
of offer and acceptance] to look at the United States rather
than the contractor to ensure performance.
Mr. President, who is going to be holding the bag if these systems do
not work, according to the General Accounting Office? My interpretation
is the old U.S. taxpayer. If we sell the ASPJ through the FMS system,
the U.S. Government has a long-term obligation. GAO goes on to say:
Use of separate procedures for hardware and software sales
might make such disputes more contentious because experience
has shown that it is often difficult to trace system
performance problems to a discrete hardware or software
problem.
Our simple amendment, offered by the distinguished Senator from
Delaware, Senator Roth, and myself, does nothing to stop the export of
the ASPJ systems to foreign countries. While I personally think that we
would be better off selling this system to our enemies and not our
friends, this comes down to a case, I think, of caveat emptor: ``Let
the buyer beware.''
What this amendment does say in its simplicity and in its directness
and, hopefully, speaking to a theme of common sense, is that the ASPJ
contractors--Westinghouse and ITT--and not the U.S. taxpayers should
bear the full burden of this particular export.
We know that the jammer does not work. It has never worked. Our
amendment says that the Government should not be in the position of
selling a failed weapon system to other nations. I am urging my
colleagues to support this amendment offered by Senator Roth and
myself.
Mr. President, in conclusion, let me state a suggestion. We today
have 95 of these $3 million radar jammers stored somewhere in a
warehouse. It would be my suggestion that Westinghouse and ITT--who I
think have hired almost every high-paid lobbyist in Washington, DC, to
defeat this amendment--it is my suggestion that we call up
Westinghouse, we call up ITT and we say, ``Ladies and gentleman, we
have 95 of these systems. We would like to sell them back to you. We
will discount these systems 15, 20, 30 percent.'' We have already paid
them a good price for them. They made them; they manufactured them.
They have gotten their money. So let them buy them back, let the
taxpayer recoup some money, and then if Westinghouse and ITT want to go
to the State Department and get a license that costs $200, then they
can go to Finland, Switzerland, South Korea or wherever, and they can
sell these 95 ASPJ's. The taxpayer will have recouped some money and we
will be rid of this system that has not worked now for over 20 years.
A second suggestion, Mr. President, if that suggestion is not
accepted by Westinghouse or by the Department of Defense, ITT, and all
the other parties. If you want to create some jobs and think the ASPJ
is good, that it works; you think our allies will buy this system even
though it does not work, that is fine and good. Go out and start
manufacturing these ASPJ's. Build all you want. But the conractors
should take the risk. Do not burden the American taxpayer further. We
have already spent well over $2 billion for a system that does not
work.
The amount of money we have spent on this system Mr. President--and I
just left the Finance Committee where we are about to be arguing about
long-term health care--could begin to fund long-term health care, what
we have spent on this system that has never worked and is not going to
work, that our own Air Force says they will not put on an Air Force
plane.
Mr. President, I hope our colleagues will not vote to continue to
make the Government party to selling this system abroad to friendly
nations, making the taxpayers potentially obligated for the obligations
or troubles that are going to occur relative to these foreign military
sales. Let us stop the Government's involvement in this matter and let
us return to common sense.
Mr. President, at this point I am going to yield the floor.
Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in very strong opposition to this
amendment. I am mystified by this continuous fixation on the part of
some Members of this body with the ASPJ. It is really the ardor of the
zealot that is involved here with respect to this amendment, and let me
go through and just try to detail why.
Also let me say to my good friend from Arkansas, I do not know where
these high-paid lobbyists he referred to are. None of them have come to
see me. The people we talk to from Westinghouse are the Westinghouse
people. I know that it makes for good rhetoric and a lot of theater on
the floor of the Senate to make that allegation. But to the best of my
knowledge, there is no substance to it I want to say to the
distinguished Senator from Arkansas. I know it is a nice rhetorical
debating flourish to make that assertion, but as far as I know there is
no substance to it, and I certainly have not encountered it. People we
have been talking to are the Westinghouse people, of course, a
significant employer and a very responsible corporate citizen in our
State and in many other States in the country.
Now, the Senator from Arkansas has in effect knocked the ASPJ off the
American procurement list. Some of us differ with him on that. We think
the testing was inadequate, that it was not accurate, and that it
needed to be redone. We think the ASPJ is a state-of-the-art system
which could serve our own forces very well indeed. But that issue is
not the issue that is now before us.
What we are now faced with is not the question of the U.S.
procurement of the ASPJ. It is, rather, the question of whether this
system can be sold to friendly countries that are fully aware of all of
the things that the Senator from Arkansas is asserting on the floor. In
fact, to be certain that they are aware of them, he has been in touch
with them himself in order to make sure it is brought to their
attention.
Now, the two countries involved here are Finland and Switzerland,
both neutral countries but both close friends of the United States.
The Department of Defense has adopted a policy which they have
adhered to prohibiting foreign military sales of the ASPJ until the
system passes U.S. operational testing.
However, Westinghouse was granted a license by the Department of
Defense to market the ASPJ hardware under a direct commercial license,
with the software and integration remaining eligible under FMS.
Now, I must say to the Senator, I resent this reference to the
hardware as just a box. It is a very sophisticated box. It takes a lot
of technical skill in order to put it together. And it represents a
significant technological achievement, I would say to my colleague.
Now, the Senator may want to put it down, but I do not think it is
fair to a lot of highly skilled engineers and scientists and technical
people who produce that item. Now, operating in good faith under DOD's
marketing license, Westinghouse and ITT have been negotiating with
Switzerland and Finland, both neutral nations but with longstanding
friendly relations with the United States, for the sale of the ASPJ and
its integration software under the limits imposed by the Department of
Defense.
In fact, it has been a very difficult political decision on the part
of both Finland and Switzerland to buy fighter aircraft made in this
country and to reject their European counterparts.
Let it be very clear. One of the things that is at issue here is
where is this acquisition going to be made--in the United States or in
Europe? At the moment at least, if the distinguished Senator from
Arkansas does not prevail here, the acquisition is going to be made in
the United States. If he prevails, I think it is pretty clear it is
going to be made in Europe. One would think that given that an
acquisition is going to be made, you would want to market U.S. products
abroad. But that is not the case with the proposer of this amendment.
Now, I know that behind it lies an assumption, well, if this line
keeps producing, they may come back and try to get U.S. sales--I assume
that is the motivation here--hence the effort to block this sale,
although I think there is really no argument whatever against this
sale.
However, the question here is simply are we going to prevent U.S.
companies that have developed state-of-the-art systems from selling
them competitively abroad? Why would we drive Finland and Switzerland
to make their acquisitions in Europe rather than make them in the
United States?
Now, Finland and Switzerland are aware of all of the goings on that
have surrounded the ASPJ. They are aware of the test results, which
many of us think were erroneous and should be redone. The Senator from
Arkansas thinks not, and he used those test results to kill the U.S.
procurement. Nevertheless, these countries want to go ahead. They know
the history of this system. There is no concealment or deception here.
In fact, the Senator from Arkansas has been in touch with these
countries in order to make sure they know about it.
The system meets their needs. If we now block the sale, these
countries will go to a foreign supplier.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, if my friend from Maryland will just yield
for one quick observation, I am not even going to ask him a question.
My friend from Maryland has mentioned on two occasions in his speech,
Mr. President, that the Senator from Arkansas has been in touch with
these countries. The Senator from Arkansas has never been in touch with
any country about this sale. The General Accounting Office I think has
put them on notice as to the test results. And I would appreciate the
Senator taking that--
Mr. SARBANES. Did the GAO do that at the Senator's instance?
Mr. PRYOR. I do not know. I have no knowledge. I do not recall asking
the GAO to contact these countries. I imagine they did it on their own.
I do not know who asked the GAO to contact these countries.
Mr. SARBANES. It was not at the Senator's instance?
Mr. PRYOR. No.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator yield? Did the Senator not write
letters to these countries? Did the Senator write letters to these
countries?
Mr. PRYOR. This Senator did not request GAO that these countries be
contacted by the General Accounting Office.
I would be glad to read into the Record--and I apologize for
interrupting my friend.
Mr. SARBANES. No, no. If the Senator is being misrepresented, he
ought to interrupt and we ought to get it straight. Our report is that
the GAO contact with these countries to bring these matters to their
attention was in effect at the instance of the Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. PRYOR. That GAO planned interviews to respond to a letter from
Senator Roth and myself which included questions such as: ``Did the
Department of Defense violate the policy of our own Defense Department
in attempting to go forward with these sales?''
I do not know how the Senator from Maryland draws a conclusion that I
contacted these governments or that I suggested that GAO contact them.
The Senator from Arkansas did not do that.
I just wanted my friend from Maryland to be aware of that.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, both of these countries are aware of the
ASPJ test results. They want to buy it. They regard it as the best
system in the world. They see the system meeting their needs.
If this sale is blocked, it is going to go to European competitors.
The net result is that system will not be allowed to be marketed
anywhere. Our allies are the friendly neutral countries, such as
Finland and Switzerland.
The GAO recently finished a study--yet another study at the request
of the ASPJ opponents--which concluded that the software sale done
through the FMS program is consistent with the U.S. Department of
Defense standard practice and would not present either a national
security problem or a problem of U.S. financial liability.
Here is what you have. The hardware is not going to be done through
FMS; that will be on a commercial basis. The software and integration
will be done through FMS. Because of the sensitivity of the mission
computer software source code, that has to be done that way. It cannot
be done on a commercial basis. But that is because of the sensitivity
of the computer software source code.
As the GAO said, this is being done consistent with the Department of
Defense standard practice. It does not present a national security
problem. It does not present questions of U.S. financial liability.
The Finns and the Swiss undertook to purchase the F-18's with the
understanding they would get a complete weapons system package
including the key equipment to identify, prioritize and jam enemy
threat signals. They want the ASPJ. They know all the facts about the
ASPJ, facts which the Senator from Arkansas has laid out on the record
time and time again, and which have influenced the decision in this
country about the acquisition. Despite all of that, they want to go
ahead. They perceive it as a state-of-the-art system, and they want to
proceed with it. It is being done consonant with U.S. law and FMS
restrictions.
This amendment which would terminate the negotiations over this sale
would be ill-advised. It would merely shift hundreds and hundreds of
jobs out of this country and into Europe.
I very strongly urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment.
Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I, too, join with my colleague, my
senior Senator from Maryland, in rising to oppose the Pryor amendment.
I oppose the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas because it is bad
for the security of our country, bad for our allies, and a bad business
decision for our country.
The Senator from Arkansas wants to prevent the sale of ASPJ through
foreign military sales. He says his amendment will not prevent
commercial sales but, Mr. President, it most certainly will. The U.S.
Government for security reasons will not permit the sale of defense
systems software commercially. Our Government requires that all
software for security systems like these be sold as foreign military
sales. Do you know? We do this for good reason. Why? Because it will
ensure that the United States of America keeps control over the
software and the secrets contained in the software. Our allies insist
that software be sold and integrated as foreign military sales. They
want the assurances provided by a foreign military sale that the system
is integrated properly, that it is updated to meet the threat posed by
potential foes, and they want their equipment to have the same
characteristics as ours so they can operate with us.
Integration of the foreign military sales does not guarantee ASPJ
system performance. But it does verify aircraft safety issues. It has
been a longterm U.S. policy to provide hardware commercially. But for
national security and for safety of flight reasons, integration in
software is provided by way of the FMS program.
Why does the Pryor amendment single out the ASPJ, Mr. President? It
makes no sense to restrict the sale of software and the integration of
the ASPJ to foreign military sales. But we do not do that for other
electronic warfare systems.
This amendment hurts the ability of American business to compete. If
a foreign government cannot purchase the software from the U.S.
Government government-to-government, then they are going to turn to
software manufacturers outside the United States.
Who are these foreign governments? They are not evil empires. They
are not Darth Vaders. They are Switzerland. They are South Korea where
just a few weeks ago we were terrified that we could be going to war.
We voted in this body on the fact that we should be ready to repel any
invasion of South Korea.
Let me tell you. If we are out there flying on the 38th or 39th
parallel, I would like the South Koreans to have the jammer.
Much has been said about how flawed the jammer is; that it is a
``Heck, no, turkey,'' and that this debate would be portrayed as we
Senators standing up for the taxpayer, and then two Senators from
Maryland, hacks advocating pork barrel for some corporate guy. That is
not the case. All you need to do is read Aviation Week and Space
Technology, which I know many of the Senators do. On January 4, 1993,
they wrote an editorial on this.
I ask unanimous consent that this editorial and the subsequent
article by Phil Klass that talks about the jammer also be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From Aviation Week and Space Technology, January 4, 1993]
Don't Kill the ASPJ Jammer, Fix It!
On December 10, most U.S. Navy combat flight crews probably
were focused on the holiday season and therefore oblivious to
the fact that death warrants may have been issued for some of
them. On that day, the Navy notified ITT and Westinghouse it
was terminating the ALQ-165 Airborne Self-Protection Jammer
program. Intended to protect F/A-18s and F-14Ds against
modern antiaircraft missiles, the ASPJ development effort was
dropped ``for the convenience of the government.'' This is a
serious mistake that needs to be corrected.
The Navy said it terminated ASPJ because it had failed its
operational test and evaluation and that provisions in the
Fiscal 1993 Defense Authorization Act left no alternative
(see p. 27). In reality, it seems Navy and Pentagon officials
abandoned the ASPJ ship to avoid further antagonizing Sen.
David Pryor (D.-Ark.), and his close friend, President-elect
Bill Clinton. Pryor, who has waged a long vendetta against
ASPJ, chairs the Governmental Affairs Committee's
subcommittee on federal services, post office and civil
service. He opened subcommittee hearings on ASPJ last March
by characterizing it as a ``faulty radar jammer'' and ``an
embarrassing example of Pentagon mismanagement, blatant
inconsistencies and internal deception.''
After spending $1.5 billion and 15 years to develop the
world's most capable airborne self-protection jammer, after
several limited-production contracts to demonstrate the
system could be built and after the most rigorous testing and
debugging any EW system has undergone prior to full-scale
production, the program was killed because it failed to pass
operational tests.
Did ASPJ fail to detect or respond properly to simulated
enemy radars on the Air Force and Navy test ranges? Hardly.
Those who have seen the data say the system detected 98% of
nearly 300 threat-emitters it encountered. And each time,
ASPJ correctly identified the type of threat, selected the
proper countermeasures and radiated appropriate jamming
signals.
ASPJ's problems arose when actual flight test data were
used in simulations intended to model a variety of real-world
combat scenarios. This permitted more threats to be generated
than the Navy and Air Force could afford to install on their
EW ranges. But, did this make the simulation unrealistic
enough to skew the assessment of ASPJ effectiveness? We think
it may have.
During the simulations, ASPJ-equipped aircraft had to
demonstrate a 30% greater survivability than aircraft without
jammers. But in one simulation scenario, 90% of the ``naked''
aircraft survived, which meant 117% of the ASPJ-equipped
aircraft had to survive if ASPJ was to achieve the required
Measure of Effectiveness.
Through nearly 500 hrs. of operational flight tests, the
ASPJ hardware had nine failures. There were an additional 12
``no-fault-later-found'' removals attributed to loose
connections in aircraft mounting racks. During operational
tests, ASPJ's built-in-test (BIT) experienced some false
alarms, but the latest BIT software was not installed.
Operational testers also complained they lacked instruction
manuals, but the contractors had delivered the manuals two
years earlier.
Pryor notwithstanding, it would have been more logical to
analyze deficiencies identified during the tests, correct
them and delay fullscale production of the system for a year.
This more sensible approach would have enabled the Navy to
outfit a substantial portion of its F/A-18 fleet and F-14Ds
before the end of the decade.
The Navy now is back at square one. Several alternatives
exist--such as the Loral ALQ-178 or Raytheon ALQ-187--but
time will be needed to adopt them to the F/A-18 and F-14D.
And because neither has the broad capabilities of ASPJ, the
Navy will have to downgrade its requirements. In the
meantime, F/A-18s and F-14Ds will have to depend on the
Lockheed Sanders ALQ-126B, which was developed more than 20
years ago to meet the less sophisticated threats of the
1970s.
If the U.S. faces another Desert Storm situation in the
coming decade and Navy combat crews have to cope with modern
threats, Pryor's comments at this hearing could haunt him:
``The public should be mad at government today,'' he said.
``. . . when a failed system like the ASPJ is put into a jet
fighter, it risks the life of the brave American pilot who it
is supposed to be protecting. The Pentagon should be
ashamed.'' If Navy pilots fly into another Desert Storm
situation without an ASPJ-type jammer, others will share the
Pentagon's shame.
There still is time for Defense Secretary Richard B.
Cheney--who has demonstrated his willingness to bite the
bullet by terminating the Navy's A-12 program--to delay the
ASPJ termination, convene an expert panel to assess
corrective actions and get on with fixing ASPJ.
____
[From the Aviation Week and Space Technology, Jan. 4, 1993]
ASPJ Cut Leaves Fighters Exposed
(By Philip J. Klass)
The U.S. Navy's decision to terminate the AN/ALQ-165
Airborne Self Protection Jammer program leaves its F/A-18s
and F-14Ds vulnerable to recent-vintage radar-guided missiles
until the end of this decade or later.
The action was triggered by a report from the Pentagon's
director of operational test and evaluation that ASPJ failed
to demonstrate the required ``measure of effectiveness''
(MOE) in combat simulation studies. Other, less consequential
short-comings also were cited.
However, during the flight test portion of the operational
evaluation at USAF and Navy electronic warfare ranges, ASPJ
reportedly detected 98% of the nearly 300 enemy radar-type
emitters it encountered. Every detected threat was correctly
identified by type, and the system reacted by transmitting
the intended jamming/deception signal, according to one
electronic warfare specialist.
The decision to terminate the program, on which the
Pentagon has spent about $1.5 billion--rather than defer
full-scale production until simulation results could be
independently evaluated and minor deficiencies corrected--
resulted from provisions in the Fiscal 1993 Defense
Authorization Bill.
By the time the bill emerged, Senate and House conferees
had learned the preliminary results of operational tests. The
bill said that if ASPJ failed to pass operational tests
``none of the funds available to the Department of Defense
for fiscal year 1993 or any fiscal year before Fiscal 1993
may be used for the procurement of the Airborne Self
Protection Jammer system except for the payment of the costs
of terminating existing contracts * * *.''
ITT Avionics and Westinghouse, which jointly developed ASPJ
starting in 1981, have nearly completed delivery of 100
systems under Lot 1 of a Limited Rate Initial Production
(LRIP) contract and were about to start delivery of Lot 2 for
36 more systems. Pentagon lawyers interpreted the
authorization bill language to mean that they could not pay
for Lot 2 systems.
The termination order, ``for the convenience of the
government,'' was issued Dec. 10. The action is expected to
result in layoffs of 400-500 employees at ITT and a
comparable number at Westinghouse.
The Senate-House conference report said, ``The conferees
continue to believe the Navy needs a jammer system'' and
recommended that the Navy should ``determine if the existing
ASPJ program might be restructured to provide an effective
and suitable system, or if elements of the ASPJ program might
be adapted for use in a new jammer program. If such a course
proves impossible, the Navy should * * * procure an
alternative jammer system.''
The General Accounting Office is surveying electronic
warfare manufacturers for potential ASPJ replacements. Two
leading candidates are the Loral ALQ-178, a version of which
is used in Israeli and Turkish air force F-16s, and the
Raytheon ALQ-187, an advanced version of the Aspecs system
developed for Greek F-16s. But neither system presently
offers the full capabilities of ASPJ, such as being able to
counter coherent pulse-Doppler interceptor radars.
According to one former Pentagon EW specialist, ``by the
time the Navy develops specifications for an ASPJ
replacement, holds a competition, flight tests the contenders
and selects a winner, five years will have elapsed. Add
another two years to get into production and modify F/A-18s
in the fleet to accept the new jammer, and it could be well
into the 21st century before the fleet is equipped.''
Critics of the simulation scenario and criteria note that
an ASPJ-equipped aircraft was required to demonstrate a 30%
increase in survivability over a ``naked'' (unequipped)
aircraft. In one simulation scenario, where the naked
aircraft came in at very low altitude and all enemy early
warning radars were assumed to have been countered by
standoff-jammer aircraft, the naked aircraft achieved 90%
survivability.
If ASPJ were to meet its specified 30% increase in
survivability, ``117% of the aircraft had to survive the
mission. In other words, 17% more aircraft had to return than
were launched to attack the target--which obviously is
impossible. Thus, ASPJ had failed to meet the specified
MOE,'' according to one observer.
One of ASPJ's harshest congressional critics has been Sen.
David Pryor (D.-Ark.), who has held several hearings on the
jammer. Last spring he accused top Pentagon officials of
violating an earlier commitment by authorizing follow-on Lot
2 LRIP production for $89.3 million before receiving the
results of operational tests (AW&ST Apr. 13, 1992, p. 62).
At the hearing, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
Donald J. Yockey defended the Lot 2 contract award. However,
he restated his earlier commitment not to approve full-scale
production until ASPJ had successfully completed operational
tests.
When the results of the operational evaluation, conducted
by the Navy's VX-5 test squadron at China Lake, Calif., were
circulated in the Pentagon, the Navy's ASPJ program office
requested an opportunity to challenge test report
conclusions. But this request was rejected. When word of
possible termination reached commanders of the Atlantic and
Pacific fleets, both reportedly sent in messages confirming
their support for ASPJ.
Acting Navy Secretary Sean O'Keefe, in his previous
position as Pentagon comptroller, had not been an ASPJ
supporter. It was recognized that Pryor, a close friend of
President-elect Bill Clinton, would be an influential voice
with the new Administration. One industry observer speculates
that ``top Navy brass decided that the service, whose image
had suffered because of the Tailhook scandal and its handling
of the A-12 program, needed to placate Pryor to enhance its
relations with the new Administration.''
In response to a request by the Korean air force, which
earlier expressed interest in buying ASPJs for its F-16s, the
USAF's F-16 System Program Office has evaluated the recent
ASPJ test report. Based on Navy operational test data and the
results of current USAF tests of ASPJ in an F-16 the F-16 SPO
reportedly has endorsed the system's operational
effectiveness. ITT and Westinghouse are expected to try to
sell ASPJ to Finland and to Switzerland for use on their F/A-
18s.
Ms. MIKULSKI. What did they say? They say:
On Dec. 10, most U.S. Navy combat flight crews probably
were focused on the holiday season and therefore oblivious to
the fact that death warrants may have been issued for some of
them. On that day, the Navy notified ITT and Westinghouse it
was terminating the ALQ-165 Airborne Self-Protection Jammer
program. Intended to protect F/A-18s and F-14Ds against
modern antiaircraft missiles, the ASPJ development effort was
dropped ``for the convenience of the government.''
This editorial goes on to say:
This is a serious mistake that needs to be corrected.
They said:
The Navy said it terminated ASPJ because it had failed
operational test and evaluation and that provision in Fiscal
1993 Defense Authorization left no alternative. In reality,
it seems Navy and Pentagon officials abandoned the ASPJ ship
to avoid further antagonizing Sen. David Pryor of Arkansas.
This is the editorial from Aviation Week and Space Technology. This
is not Senator Barb Mikulski who has never, ever been in the pocket of
some high-paid lobbyist. The people are my advisers. And I turn to the
technical people.
What do they say? They say this:
Did ASPJ fail to detect or respond properly to simulated
enemy radars on the Air Force and Navy test ranges? Hardly.
Those who have seen the data say the system detected 98% of
nearly 300 threat-emitters it encountered. And each time,
ASPJ correctly identified the type of threat, selected the
proper countermeasures and radiated appropriate jamming
signals.
So this technology is able to play offense and defense.
They say further that:
ASPJ's problems arose when actual flight test data were
used in simulations intended to model a variety of real-world
combat scenarios. This permitted more threats to be generated
than the Navy and Air Force could afford to install on their
EW ranges. But, did this make the simulation unrealistic
enough to skew the assessment of ASPJ effectiveness? We think
it may have.
During the simulations, ASPJ-equipped aircraft had to
demonstrate a 30% greater survivability than aircraft without
jammers.
But in one simulation scenario, 90 percent of the ``naked'' aircraft
survived, which meant 117 percent of the ASPJ-equipped aircraft had to
survive if ASPJ was to achieve this measure of effectiveness.
I could go on about this, but the editorial says:
Pryor notwithstanding, it would have been more logical to
analyze deficiencies identified during the tests, correct
them, and get full-scale production of the system for a year.
Why do they say that?
If the United States faces another Desert Storm situation
in the coming decade and Navy combat crews have to cope with
modern threats, Pryor's comments at his hearing could haunt
him: ``The public should be mad at Government today,'' he
said. ``. . . when a failed system like the ASPJ is put into
a jet fighter, it risks the life of the brave American pilot
it is supposed to be protecting.''
Those who analyzed the technology say that putting it in will protect
those Navy pilots as in Desert Storm. It will protect the Norwegian
pilots, it will protect the Swiss pilots, and it will protect the South
Korean pilots. But only if the foreign military sales are allowed to go
forward.
And the sham, the smokescreen, this illusion of compromise by doing
it commercially is there. Every Senator here knows that we cannot lose
control of our software because of the secrets it contains. I hope that
we will defeat the Pryor amendment and that we will settle this issue
once and for all. I hope one day the jammer is back on American
aircraft. But, for God's sake, allies, knowing the history of this
Senate debacle and debate, derailing, and obstructionism, I think they
ought to be able to buy it according to the same rules of the game we
have established for everyone else.
I could go on with GAO reports and so on. I know the hour is late. I
did not pick this fight. I want to yield the floor now and see what the
chairman of the committee wants. If they want a longer fight, I am
prepared to do it. For the people who work here and at Westinghouse and
at ITT, for the Navy pilots having to rely on this, I am willing to
stand here all night and all day tomorrow to jam the Pryor amendment.
Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I think it is time for the Senate to go
home and celebrate the Fourth of July. I want to say to my good friend
Senator Mikulski and my friend Senator Sarbanes from Maryland that I,
too, feel the pain when they are talking about a loss of jobs. If they
are talking about Westinghouse or ITT, wherever the facilities are
located, I understand and share the pain. I remind the Chair and our
colleagues today that in the State of Arkansas, the county that has
been hardest hit by defense cutbacks has been the County of Ouachita,
my hometown, my home county. We have been hit so hard that our
unemployment rate is the highest in the State of Arkansas.
Mr. President, this cannot become a jobs program, and I hope it will
not become a jobs program. I want to repeat once again the statement
from Mr. John Deutch in a letter sent to Senator Roth and myself on the
15th of March this year when he concluded his list with regard to the
ASPJ by stating finally:
The Department of Defense remains committed to the policy
of no foreign military sales or commitments for foreign sales
of Defense systems prior to the successful completion of OT&E
and the specific approval of the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition and Technology.
This policy, according to Mr. Deutch, of March 15, 1994, remains in
effect today.
Mr. President, also, I would like to answer our colleagues from
Maryland, our very good friends, I might add, by stating that as of
March of this year, the Department of Defense said the ASPJ could be
sold through commercial sales. They did not think FMS was necessary.
Software codes can be scrambled and, according to the GAO report, the
Swiss and the Fins will buy the F-18's from the United States
regardless of the ASPJ purchase.
Also, I think it is worth noting that my friends from Maryland have
both questioned whether or not the testing was fairly done or whether
the results were fair. Let me state for the benefit of our colleagues
that our own independent Office of Operational Testing has said, ``No,
this system does not work.'' Our own inspector general of the
Department of Defense said, ``No, this system does not work.'' The arm
of this great institution, the General Accounting Office, has stated
time and time and time again that, ``No, this system does not work.''
Once again, Senator Roth and I are not trying to ban commercial
sales. If ITT and Westinghouse want to reengineer these lines and
continue manufacturing the ASPJ software and hardware and sell these
systems overseas, this amendment would do nothing to impede the free
enterprise system. But it would remove the American taxpayer, who has
already been out well over $2 billion for these systems that do not
work, it would remove the American taxpayer from further liability in
this particular area of the radar jammer.
Mr. President, one final word, and it is somewhat of a personal word.
This is to my friend from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, who implied on
the floor a few moments ago that this Senator from Arkansas had become
a zealot on this issue. How many times, Mr. President, have I watched
my good friend in his eloquence; how many hours with charts and graphs
and a pointer stick has he eloquently stated what the deficit situation
is, our budgetary situation, our fiscal situation, the international
monetary problems. And I have listened to him, I have watched him, I
have admired him, I have respected him, and I have followed him time
and time and time again. But I have never--never once--thought he was a
zealot. I might have thought he was a passionate individual, a caring
Senator, but never a zealot for taking the floor of the U.S. Senate and
expressing that passion on what he believes in so deeply. I just hope
my colleague and good friend will allow the Senator from Arkansas that
same passion to express himself on an issue that he feels as deeply
about as the Senator from Maryland feels about his issue.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have great respect for the work my
good friend from Arkansas has done in the area of defense procurement.
He has been a crusader for the ``fly before you buy'' principle which
saves our Government time, money and, most importantly, lives.
More than anyone else, Senator Pryor is responsible for creating the
position of the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation
[DOT&E], which has helped ensure objective evaluation of new systems
independent of undue influence of industry, the military services, and
weapons developers in DOD's acquisition community.
But in this case we disagree. Mr. President, what I argue for is the
American manufacturer's right to market and export its product as long
as prospective buyers have access to enough information about the test
results to make an informed decision.
I understand Finland is very interested in the ASPJ for its new
United States-supplied F-18's. Finland is well aware of the ASPJ's test
results and has been consulting with both DOD and the contractors prior
to making their final decision. I also understand Switzerland and South
Korea are potential customers.
Mr. President, DOD's longstanding position has been to approve
marketing and commercial sale of systems which have completed OT&E--
successfully or not--to qualified customers. Such is the case with
Finland and the others. I believe my colleague from Arkansas has no
more interest in thwarting this legitimate American business than I do.
Where we part ways is on the question of whether the integration of
the hardware and software into U.S.-origin aircraft should be
accomplished via a Foreign Military Sales [FMS] case--in other words,
government to government.
As then Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Deutch wrote to
Senator Bradley and me in February:
It has long been the DOD view that when significant
modifications or integration efforts on U.S. military
aircraft are made, we should control and/or oversee that
process. Crucial issues involving safety of flight, aircraft
performance and security strongly recommended DOD
involvement.
Mr. President, I think these are sound reasons for maintaining
control over system integration via the FMS process. As Navy officials
point out--and I now quote from a draft GAO report on the ASPJ
requested by Senator Pryor and Roth:
The F-18 is a highly integrated aircraft in which all
systems such as radars, avionics, mission control,
navigation, and jammers are linked together through the
aircraft's operational flight program. These systems undergo
continuous updating and modification due to changes in threat
or technology. A change in one system could have a cascading
and possibly negative effect on the others. As a result,
close government oversight of both the aircraft and ASPJ's
software components is required.
The GAO preliminary report goes on to agree that authorization for
FMS transfer of the ASPJ software is a standard practice.
If I understand my friend from Arkansas' concerns correctly, I
believe he is worried that even this peripheral U.S. Government
involvement implies some form of warranty or official support for a
failed system. I can fully understand and sympathize with that concern.
But I accept the word of current Deputy Secretary of Defense Deutch,
who wrote to Senator Pryor in March, saying:
The Department's position remains that Foreign Military
Sales (FMS) funds will not be used to cover sales of ASPJ to
foreign countries because the Department does not want to
imply a warranty in a system that will not be procured for
U.S. aircraft.
With regard to integration, Deutch goes on to say:
Consideration of any FMS support for integration of a
commericially purchased system into an American FMS item will
be made on a case-by-case basis. The intention is not to
promote the sale of any commercial system--on that the
Department's policy is quite clear.
Instead, the integration of any commercial procurement will
be considered only if such support is essential to support
the FMS American aircraft. Practical considerations of safety
of flight, aircraft performance, and security can also affect
the decision to integrate commercially procured systems under
FMS.
Mr. President, the GAO report requested by Senators Pryor and Roth
did not find any violation of U.S. policy in the decision to allow FMS
integration of ASPJ. Specifically, GAO found no breaching of what is
commonly called the Yockey policy, which requires specific approval of
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition before the foreign
military sale of any major weapons system that has not successfully
completed operational test and evaluation. To again quote the GAO
report:
DOD's decision to permit the sale of the ASPJ software
through FMS procedures * * * does comply with the Yockey
policy because the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition approved the sale. In implementing this
decision, Navy officials noted that national security, safety
of flight concerns, and the interactive nature of the jammer
and aircraft software components dictated the need to sell
the ASPJ's software and integration into the aircraft through
the FMS process.
This decision was consistent with long-standing DOD policy
on the need to protect classified information and address all
safety-of-flight concerns.
If the DOD is prevented from integrating the ASPJ software via FMS,
Finland and other prospective buyers are almost certain to look
elsewhere for their jammers. I understand that the Finns' second choice
is produced overseas.
Mr. President, Senator Pryor's amendment would thus take business
away from an American business in New Jersey and drive it overseas. I
applaud the Senator's principles regarding procurement, but in the case
of software integration, I think the DOD makes a compelling case. I
also accept Dr. Deutch's assurance that such integration does not imply
official warrenty or support for the ASPJ. I urge my colleagues to vote
against this amendment.
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Pryor
amendment to restrict overseas marketing of the airborne self-
protection jammer [ASPJ].
The manufacturers of the ASPJ have played by the rules in marketing
their product abroad. They have provided full information on the
system's performance to potential buyers and have accepted the Defense
Department's ruling that FMS funds could not be used to purchase the
system. Despite these obstacles, several foreign countries are
interested in purchasing the ASPJ for their F-18 aircraft.
These countries legitimately want assurances they will be able to
secure FMS for integrating ASPJ into their F-18 aircraft, for the
reasons I have already described. They do so knowing that the U.S.
Government bears no responsibility for their choice, even with FMS
funding for integration. Indeed, under the contract, it is the
contractor, not the U.S. Government, that bears responsibility for any
problems.
I can, therefore, see no justification for Congress now to try to
insert itself into the process and prevent foreign sales of the ASPJ by
banning use of FMS.
The Department of Defense has posed no obstacle to exporting the
ASPJ. In a letter to me of February 2, 1994, then-Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition John Deutch stated:
After the status of the U.S. ASPJ program was determined,
munitions licenses were approved for foreign commercial sale
of the ASPJ. * * * to have refused to approve them after that
determination would have unfairly penalized your constituent,
particularly in light of strong international interest in the
system.
The ASPJ has not been a trouble-free program. I needn't go into the
details of the disputed tests. The point is that the manufacturers have
successfully marketed the ASPJ, foreign governments are interested in
buying it, DOD has no objection, and we have an obligation not to
impede a legitimate sale.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, live fire and operational testing are keys
to the Congress' fly-before-buy policy. The policy states that a weapon
should not be produced until testing shows that it works. Independent
operational and live fire testing are objective checks and balances on
the Defense buying system. In a system where bureaucratic interests
carry more weight than results, realistic tests are vital to making
sure weapons work before they are given to those who must depend on
them in battle.
I am concerned about the office of operational testing not having a
director since the Clinton administration took office. Without a
director, there is no one in the Pentagon to fight against those that
want to procure weapons even if they do not work. Almost every month
last year, the GAO identified weapons programs that are being produced
even though they have not proven their worth, and in some cases have
failed, in operational tests.
Mr. President, too many systems have been circumventing the
congressional policy of fly-before-buy. There are 183 weapons that
currently require operational testing to determine whether they can
fulfill their mission requirements and are suitable for fielding. I
asked the GAO to give me an accounting of the commitment represented by
those programs. The GAO obtained data for 107 of those programs. The
107 programs represent $872 billion in taxpayer dollars.
Unfortunately, many of these programs are entering production, and
continuing to be produced, before they have proven their worth.
Recently, I received a new GAO report on a special computer system that
the Army is buying despite the fact that it failed operational testing.
Current Pentagon practice allows anywhere from 25 to 100 percent of the
production to be completed before the Pentagon knows if a system works.
This is clearly at odds with the Congress' policy of fly-before-buy.
Mr. President, it has been over 10 years since Senator Pryor and I
first joined forces to convince our colleagues to adopt the policy of
fly-before-buy. Throughout the 1980's, we were successful in getting
testing legislation put into law. We were able to get the Congress to
establish an independent office of operational testing and evaluation
to implement the fly-before-buy policy. Now, it is time to make
improvements in that legislation.
Earlier this week, I received a new General Accounting Office report
that Senator Pryor and I commissioned. This report recommended ways to
streamline the operational testing statutes, while preventing the
production of weapons that do not work. Senator Pryor and I had hoped
to use the GAO's findings in an amendment prepared for the fiscal year
1995 defense authorization bill. Unfortunately, there has been
insufficient time to fully develop the legislative proposal. However, I
intend to continue to work with the Senator from Arkansas to improve
the operational testing laws.
I still believe that live and operational testing are the keys to
judging results. Several provisions of the Federal Acquisition
Streamlining Act that I authored would integrate such testing early in
the acquisition process. The legislation that Senator Pryor and I are
working on is needed to more fully implement that approach. Adopting
this approach would reduce the difficulties associated with finding
problems late in the acquisition process. It would reveal serious
design problems before money was wasted producing systems that do not
work and have to be fixed.
There is a strong push for Congress to enact procurement reform
legislation, and the administration has endorsed a bill that includes
proposals to weaken the testing statutes. The Senate's procurement
reform bill contains provisions developed by Senator Pryor and me, with
the help of our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee. However,
the House versions of the defense authorization and procurement reform
bills contain provisions that will weaken the bill.
In March, Senator Pryor held hearings on the testing legislation,
including the proposals made by the House bills. At that hearing, which
I attended, we received testimony strongly opposing the provisions in
the bill. In other hearings on procurement reform, the General
Accounting Office and the Defense inspector general strongly opposed
the provisions relating to operational and live fire testing.
I intend to watch these legislative proposals very closely. In this
regard, we have had a good working relationship with our colleagues
from Armed Services. Accordingly, the Senate passed several important
testing reforms as part of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, in just a moment I will be asking --in fact,
I think I will do it right now because I think the question is
pertinent at the moment.
Do we need a rollcall vote on this amendment? Senator Smith, a little
while ago, was gracious enough not to ask for a rollcall. Of course,
that amendment was being agreed to. I am not sure who is going to
prevail in this amendment if it is a voice vote. We are trying to
expedite this bill. I ask my colleague from Arkansas whether he needs a
rollcall vote?
Mr. WARNER. If I might add a word, I say to my chairman and others
listening that I have talked to Mr. Smith, and indeed he did, as a
matter of convenience to the Senate, forego the clear option he had to
have a rollcall vote. And if there is a necessity to have it here, I
would like to state that it seems to me he has a right to reinstate his
amendment and consider a rollcall vote.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I certainly have no objection to the
Senator from New Hampshire having a rollcall vote on his amendment--I
have been told we are going to be here all night, so I have been in the
Finance Committee markup--if he wants to have a rollcall vote. Looking
at the geography and lay of the land, I think if I had a voice vote, I
do not think the Senator from Arkansas would prevail. I do not know
what would happen if we had a rollcall vote, but I think my chances
would be better. I do not want to inconvenience the Senate, and I hope
I am not one who is being an obstructionist.
But I would like for a rollcall vote to be had on this particular
amendment.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, the Senator is certainly not an
obstructionist. He has a right to have a rollcall vote. I think based
on that we should have a rollcall vote.
I will speak only 1 minute on the amendment.
Mr. President, I agree with the Senators from Maryland on this
amendment. It is, of course, important from my point of view in terms
of the precedent because the F-18 aircraft software is classified as
secret. The U.S. Government under classified materials needs to
maintain control of both the F-18 and ASPJ software for security
reasons.
Because of that, the FMS process is the appropriate mechanism to
handle it. I think the U.S. Government should basically not be
precluded from handling these foreign military sales under FMS.
I do not believe we should arbitrarily deny sales of defense products
that our allies in their own opinion want to buy. The potential foreign
customers have been provided, as far as I know, full disclosure of the
operational test results. The contractors agreed to accept full
liability for any problems of maintenance or performance.
As far as I am concerned, this is a legitimate business proposition
that we should not interfere with on the floor of the Senate. I see no
reason to. If foreign countries wanted to buy another jammer
commercially, we would manage that sale through FMS even if it had not
passed the full operational evaluation.
I agree with the Senators from Maryland on this one, and I have to
disagree with my friend from Arkansas.
I am prepared to move to table the amendment after the Senator from
South Carolina makes a comment, or I would give the Senator an up-or-
down vote on the amendment.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I will take 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Pryor amendment to
restrict the transfer of airborne self-protection jamming equipment to
foreign purchasers of American fighter planes, such as the F-18.
Mr. President, the ASPJ passed its developmental tests, and foreign
buyers of American-made aircraft want to acquire the system to provide
protection for those aircraft. We should let them buy it. In some
cases, such as Korea, we have made agreements to let them buy the
equipment. We should not cancel those agreements because we disagree
over American test standards.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Pryor amendment to restrict the
transfer of airborne self-protection jamming equipment, to foreign
governments.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, have I properly sent the amendment to the
desk? The amendment has been sent to the desk, is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] for himself and Mr.
Roth proposes an amendment numbered 2163.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 200, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following
new section:
SEC. 1017. PROHIBITION ON GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS
OF AIRBORNE SELF-PROTECTION JAMMERS (ASPJ) (AND
RELATED SOFTWARE) ABROAD.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Airborne
Self-Protection Jammer (ASPJ), or any software or other
component thereof, may not be sold or financed under the Arms
Export Control Act to any foreign country.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on No. 2163.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment.
The PESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia moves to table the
amendment.
Mr. PRYOR. I believe the yeas should be ordered.
Mr. NUNN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, Senator Roth and I planned to offer an
amendment that would at long last truly bring ``Fly Before You Buy'' to
fruition. However, due to the time constraints in considering the
fiscal year 1995 DOD authorization bill, we will offer the amendment
today.
Our amendment, called the Fly Before You Buy Act of 1994, would
ensure that major weapon systems are tested and proven before they are
purchased and sent to our troops. Fly Before You Buy would be
accomplished by conducting operational testing earlier in the life of
new weapons, and by ensuring that we limit the number of units produced
until testing has been successfully completed.
Fly Before You Buy is not a new concept. It was first promoted in the
wake of the Vietnam War, after thousands of American soldiers lost
their lives because of weapons that failed to perform as expected.
Mr. President, the Congress and the Department of Defense have taken
steps to promote Fly Before You Buy. In 1983, Congress passed
legislation creating an independent operational testing office in the
Pentagon. This office has been charged with making sure weapons are
tested and proven before they reach our fighting forces. The DOD's
operational testing office has become the internal champion of Fly
Before You Buy.
Operational tests are specifically designed to prove that military
hardware will perform as expected in combat. There is one major
problem, Mr. President. Our acquisition community is waiting too long
to conduct operational testing. In fact, many new weapons are currently
being built and sent to our troops before any operational testing can
be conducted. Mr. President, this is not Fly Before You Buy.
Mr. President, current law allows weapons to be sent into combat
without any operational testing. We will never be able to truly
practice Fly Before You Buy until we change the law that guides the
acquisition of new weapons.
Operational testing is of little or no use if it is conducted after
the weapon system has been purchased. We simply cannot afford to buy
now and fix later. Time and time again, DOD has purchased weapons
before operational testing has shown that they work.
Mr. President, 100 percent of the Air Force's B-1B bombers were
purchased before operational testing for a total cost of $23 billion.
Sixty-four percent of the Air Force's ALQ-135's, a radar jammer, were
bought before operational testing was completed. Mr. President, let me
repeat that: the Air Force planned to buy 514 jammers. 331 or 64
percent were produced before operational tests proved that they work.
The total cost of the ALQ135 is $1 billion. The list goes on: The Navy
purcahsed 37 percent of its T-45 trainer aircraft before operational
testing (total cost $2.7 billion); the Air Force purchased 33 percent
of its C-17 airlift plane before operational testing (total cost
$15 billion). Mr. President, this cannot be allowed to continue.
The General Accounting Office has prepared a report on the use of
operational testing at DOD, entitled ``Low-Rate Initial Production Used
to Buy Weapons Systems Prematurely.'' GAO found that DOD allows low-
rate production to begin without the performance of any operational
testing. In other words, under current law, we can buy all the weapons
that we want without ever triggering operational testing. GAO says that
this has resulted in the procurement of substantial inventories of
unsatisfactory weapons requiring costly modifications to achieve
satisfactory performance and, in some cases, the deployment of
substandard systems to combat forces.
Mr. President, I mentioned earlier that 37 percent of the Navy's T-45
plane were bought before operational testing. This plane needed major
design changes. Tests showed it needed a new engine and new wings, Mr.
President. These planes are sitting on an air field waiting for the
contractor to come back, take the original wings off, and attach new,
improved, workable wings to these planes.
I also mentioned that 33 percent of the Air Force's C-17's were
purchased before operational testing. GAO found that the C-17's
reliability is significantly less than expected and it does not meet
its payload and range specifications. In other words, Mr. President, it
cannot carry as much or go as far as the Air Force thought it would.
GAO also noted that while the wings, flaps, and slats are all being
fixed, other problems continue to be identified.
The GAO recommends that Congress require that certain operational
testing requirements be met before low rate production begins and that
Congress put a limit on the number of units produced during low rate
production.
Mr. President, that is exactly what the Fly Before You Buy Act does.
It contains two simple but important changes to the way DOD conducts
its business: First, it says that an early operational test must be
done before low-rate production begins and second, that no more than 10
percent of the total number of weapons to be built can actually be
produced before final operational tests are completed.
Our amendment would force earlier operational testing. If the
acquisition proponents believe the system is ready for low-rate
production, they first have to check the initial operational test
results. If the operational test results are favorable and the system
is allowed to move into low-rate production, then our amendment would
allow the establishment of a production line but at a slower, lower
rate of production. We should not be producing most or all of the
weapons in low-rate production, before operational testing is complete.
One of the questions that has been asked of me regarding this
amendment is how can operational testing go forward if the production
line is not up and running? The answer is quite simple. Production
units are not necessary for initial operational testing. Currently,
operational testing is almost performed on ``production verification
units'', what you and I would call a prototype, Mr. President. In other
words, the system that is developed and used during developmental
testing can be used for the early phase of operational testing.
Another concern has been raised: will this amendment slow down the
process of getting weapons to our troops? The answer again is simple:
No. 1, I admit our amendment might slow down the access to flawed,
unproven weapons. Our amendment would force early operational testing
before low-rate production begins and weapons start rolling off the
production line. It would prevent another C-17 or T-45, where planes
sit and wait for new wings and in the end will speed up getting good
weapons into the field.
This amendment could save money by identifying flaws in the system
design before most or all of the weapons have been produced. It could
eliminate many of the costly and time-consuming retrofitting that we
currently see in so many of our weapon systems.
Two of our best known military experts, the Chairman and the Ranking
Minority Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee both supported
this concept in statements made in 1990. Senator Sam Nunn said:
In the past we spent billions and billions of dollars
because we rushed weapons systems into production before they
had been tested. We now have time to do it: We have time to
do it right. I support a fly before you buy policy.
Senator Strom Thurmond stated:
Fly before you buy will provide us more capable equipment
at less cost. It will enhance the credibility of the
procurement process and will give us more bang for the
buck.
Mr. President, this amendment would put real teeth in Congress'
commitment to Fly Before You Buy. Meaningful, early operational testing
would finally be a reality.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Georgia to lay on the table the amendment of the
Senator from Arkansas. On this question, the yeas and nays have been
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. MITCHELL. I announce that the Senator from California [Mrs.
Boxer], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], the Senator from
Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], the
Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], the Senator from Connecticut
[Mr. Lieberman], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum], the Senator
from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon],
are necessarily absent.
Mr. DOLE. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], the
Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown], the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen],
the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], the Senator from Texas [Mr.
Gramm], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], the Senator from
Arizona [Mr. McCain], the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], and the
Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bryan). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 14, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 185 Leg.]
YEAS--68
Akaka
Baucus
Bingaman
Bond
Boren
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Danforth
Daschle
DeConcini
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durenberger
Exon
Faircloth
Feinstein
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gregg
Hatch
Heflin
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Lautenberg
Levin
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Pressler
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
Wofford
NAYS--14
Biden
Bumpers
Feingold
Grassley
Harkin
Hatfield
Kohl
Leahy
Mathews
Pryor
Roth
Sasser
Smith
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--18
Bennett
Boxer
Brown
Campbell
Cohen
D'Amato
Dodd
Ford
Gramm
Helms
Johnston
Lieberman
McCain
Metzenbaum
Murkowski
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2163) was agreed
to.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I know Senators want to know what the best
estimate is, and the best estimate I have now is that we can finish
this bill in another couple of hours if we get cooperation and if we do
not get bogged down on a long debate on an amendment.
There are two or three amendments out that people disagree on, and
even if the managers were to agree with them they would still be
disagreed to. One of them involves the gulf war problem and the
Veterans' Affairs Committee is now working with Senator Riegle on that.
Senators Rockefeller and Riegle are working on that, and I believe we
would be best served by letting them work for a few minutes on that one
because they may be able to come to some agreement.
In the meantime we have a number of amendments that have been agreed
to on both sides--both sides, Democrats and Republicans. I propose we
bring those up now. But I do not want to interfere with anyone who may
want to bring up an amendment, particularly one that may be contested,
because everyone would like to get the rollcall votes over with as soon
as possible, including the managers.
So it would be my intent to begin going through some amendments that
have been agreed to on both sides. But if anyone has an amendment they
feel compelled to offer at this point in time we certainly would be
amenable to that.
Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Thurmond,
is recognized.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, if anyone has an amendment and desires a
rollcall, I wish they would let it be known now so we can make plans. A
great many Senators want to catch planes. I have to catch a plane at
7:10, if we are not going to have any more rollcalls. I am sure the
others feel the same way. We can take up these amendments with no
contests after that. But if nobody else wants a rollcall we will go
ahead now with these amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will inform the Senate that the
question that next occurs, unless set aside, is the Nunn second-degree
amendment, No. 2160, to the Warner amendment No. 2359.
The Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, is recognized.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry,
and I, and others I suspect, have been somewhat unprepared for an
amendment by our distinguished friend from Virginia on the ABM Treaty.
I understand there has been an attempt to work out the amendment of our
friend from Virginia, Senator Warner. But I have just seen the language
of the amendment, as has the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.
Clearly I do not speak for him, but I suspect he feels as I do.
We have a serious, serious problem with what seems to be an amendment
of the ABM Treaty on the floor at this moment, from our perspective.
I am delighted to attempt, along with the Senator from Massachusetts,
to try to clarify this matter. Maybe we have misunderstood it. But if
it is as it appears--although it has been years and years and years; I
have been here 22 and I do not think I have ever done this in a late
hour--I would be very reluctant to go to a vote on this amendment
tonight.
I may be mistaken about how I read this amendment. So what I would
like to do, if the Warner amendment is the pending business, is maybe
move on to something else for a few minutes and give the Senator from
Massachusetts and myself, and others who may have an interest, an
opportunity to confer with our friend from Virginia.
Again, I want to move this along as rapidly as anyone else. One of
the paragraphs seems pretty profound, but I may be mistaken.
I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.
Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Warner
amendment be temporarily laid aside so we can take up amendments that
have been cleared on both sides.
Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. NUNN. I urge the Senators from Delaware and Virginia to get
together to see if we can work this out.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, momentarily I would like to reserve the
right to object so I can address my colleague from Delaware.
The Warner amendment was not intended in any way to be an amendment
to the ABM Treaty. This is a subject which I and a number of other
Senators, particularly the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] and the
Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] and others have been working on
for some period of time.
It is a very simple principle which we are endeavoring to achieve.
The Senator from Virginia sent an amendment to the desk. The Senator
from Georgia, quite properly, second degreed it. We have worked with
the Senator from Georgia and have reached a new draft which the Senator
from Virginia is prepared to accept.
In the course of preparing ourselves to bring it to the Senate, it
was discovered, in a very objective and fair way, that there could be a
constitutional issue in the revised amendment respecting the rights of
the executive branch versus the legislative branch. I was endeavoring
to say to Senators that we would leave the revised amendment with this
constitutional question, and in good faith, I and others would try to
work it out in the context of a conference between the House and the
Senate, at which time customarily, members of the Foreign Relations
Committees of both branches of Congress participate in those
conferences.
In that way, we would convenience the Senate so as to not bring up at
this late hour an issue which I feel is very important and one on which
I feel very strongly.
Having said that, in a few sentences, the purpose of the Warner
amendment, now amended by the Senator from Georgia, is simply to
guarantee that this body in no way forgoes its authority under the
Constitution--namely, the advise and consent clause--to have such
review as this body determines is necessary of any revisions to the ABM
Treaty now being negotiated between the United States and Russia with
two of the other new countries participating as if they were partners.
But, nevertheless, primarily between the United States and Russia.
Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WARNER. Momentarily. As it relates to the theater ballistic
systems, in 1972, when the ABM Treaty was adopted, no one--and I
repeat, no one--had in mind theater ballistic missiles.
At that time, quite properly, the full concentration of all involved
was on the strategic systems.
Each Senator now understands fully the evolution of technology where
today we have theater ballistic systems. We saw it in the gulf. The
Scud missile inflicted the greatest degree of damage of any weapons
systems on our troops and, therefore, it is imperative, in my judgment,
that this country move forward, as it is, with a series of systems to
ensure that we have a deterrence and, indeed, a defense against future
theater ballistic systems.
The purpose of the amendment is to preserve the right of the U.S.
Senate to review any agreement, particularly that one now being
negotiated within the framework of the SCC, known as the Standing
Consultative Commission. That is the purpose of the Commission.
Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WARNER. I saw the distinguished manager seeking recognition.
Perhaps he would like to speak, and then I will be glad to address the
Senator from Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I will just suggest to my colleagues on this
amendment that they have a discussion, because I believe if they have a
discussion, we have a chance of working something out. I do not think
we are going to get it worked out in dialog.
The Senator from New Jersey has an amendment and has to go back to
the Finance Committee in just a few minutes for their markup. I believe
he would be willing to enter into a 30-minute time agreement equally
divided with no amendments--we may want to reserve the right to a
second-degree amendment on that. Anyway, we can work that out. I would
like to be able to go ahead with that amendment, if we can.
Mr. KERRY. The Senator from Virginia reserved the right to object,
and I am not sure whether he said he would not object at this point in
time.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would not object. I simply wish to
express to the Senate as a body the subject of the discussion which
will now take place between myself and other Senators who are
interested.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would just like the Senator from Virginia
to note that neither the Senator from Delaware nor I disagree about the
interpretation with respect to theater defenses and, obviously, we want
them. The danger is that the language, as currently framed, embraces
the notion that the Senate might be codifying an actual breakout from
the treaty because it, in fact, embraces the notion, referring to
currently deployed missiles.
And because China has sold some missiles to Saudi Arabia, which
currently pushed the envelope of what is theater versus strategic, you
run into a possibility of ratifying the notion that those missiles are,
therefore, within our interpretation of the ABM treaty which would, in
effect, nullify the ABM Treaty or present enormous problems of
interpretation.
So it is our hope that we can articulate what the Senator from
Virginia wants without doing violence to the ABM Treaty itself.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am quite agreeable to meet with all
Senators on this subject who are interested.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a unanimous consent proposal that is
pending before the Senate to temporarily set aside the Nunn amendment.
Is there any objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey, I believe, has
an amendment. Could the Senator just very briefly describe the
amendment so I can determine if we need to reserve the right to a
perfecting amendment?
Mr. BRADLEY. The amendment would eliminate the Selective Service
System.
Mr. NUNN. Pure and simple. It is elimination.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be a 30-minute period of
time, equally divided, on the Bradley amendment on Selective Service,
with no second-degree amendments in order; and that the vote occur at
the expiration of 30 minutes on or in relation to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the Senator yield? I have an amendment in the
Finance Committee at 7 o'clock. I need 3 minutes. I wonder if the
Senator from New Jersey would be willing to----
Mr. NUNN. If we can get the unanimous consent agreement, we can yield
to the Senator from West Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
proposal propounded by the Senator from Georgia? Without objection, it
is so ordered.
The Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller.
Mr. NUNN. I ask that the Senator from West Virginia be recognized for
a time equally divided between the two.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. A period which might exceed slightly more than 3
minutes, but not by much.
Mr. President, I want to give my thanks to the Senator from Virginia
for working this out. It is an excellent amendment.
This is an amendment that the ranking Member, Senator Murkowski,
Senator Jeffords, and Senator Dodd support. It has the support of the
VFW, the American Legion and the AmVets, and these are the only
Veterans Service Organizations we have contacted so far. So it has good
support.
As the Presiding Officer knows, thousands of Persian Gulf war
veterans are ill as a result of being over there.
This amendment would support two comprehensive studies, one an
epidemiological study, and, secondly, research on something called
pyridostigmine bromide, an experimental drug which was given to 400,000
Persian Gulf war troops. It will also support research on the causes,
treatment and possible transmission of gulf war illnesses.
We had a hearing back on May 6. On that day, my own veterans
committee staff, which has been working for 9 months on this, promised
that we would follow this through.
Senator Riegle has also been active on this issue and his suggestions
are incorporated in this amendment.
In any event, what we know is that in the gulf war we had toxic
chemicals which when combined with other chemical agents can be
dangerous. Some of these are insecticides which are commonly used by
U.S.soldiers all across this world, and they are used in homes all
across America.
New research, which is not yet published, shows that the use of this
experimental drug pyridostigmine could have made commonly used
insecticides, which were used in the Persian Gulf war, potentially 10
times more lethal. DOD should do this research as soon as possible, and
they want to. Since these insecticides are found everywhere, we need to
move forward quickly.
The $20 million for this amendment will help us learn how to treat
the soldiers who were affected by this and also will teach us more that
we absolutely need to know.
I hope that the amendment will be accepted by both sides.
That would conclude my remarks.
It is my understanding that Senator Riegle, who has been an integral
part of working out this arrangement, is not here at this point.
Unfortunately, I have to leave at this point because I have to get back
to the Finance Committee.
I will take the advice of the Senator from Georgia, the Chairman of
Armed Services Committee, and I will simply postpone the vote on this.
Amendment No. 2164
(Purpose: To prohibit registration under the Selective
Service System and to terminate the activities of civilian
local boards, civilian appeal boards, and similar local
agencies of the Selective Service System.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized
pursuant to the previous unanimous consent agreement.
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Bradley), for himself, Mr.
Hatfield, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Kerry and Mr.
Bumpers, proposes an amendment numbered 2164.
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 128, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following
new section:
SEC. 522. TERMINATION OF ACTIVITIES UNDER SELECTIVE SERVICE
SYSTEM.
(a) Termination of Registration Requirement.--
(1) Termination.--Section 3 of the Military Selective
Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 453) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(c) After September 30, 1994, no person shall be required
to present himself for and submit to registration under this
section.''.
(b) Termination of Activities of Selective Service System
Boards.--Section 17 of the Military Selective Service Act (50
U.S.C. App. 467) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
after September 30, 1994--
``(1) the President may not appoint a person as a member of
a civilian local board, civilian appeal board, or similar
local agency of the Selective Service System; and
``(2) any such board established as of that date may not
meet.''.
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of
myself and the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Senator Hatfield,
Senator Feingold, Senator Kerry, Senator Feinstein, and Senator
Bumpers. It is an amendment that would prohibit draft registration and
terminate the activities of the Selective Service boards.
Last year, 41 Senators voted for an amendment we offered to the
fiscal year 1994 VA/HUD Appropriations Act which would have eliminated
all but termination funding for the Selective Service System. The
arguments we made then are every bit as relevant today. I will not
repeat them in detail, but it is still worthwhile to review them
briefly.
I yield myself 8 minutes.
The Selective Service System is a dinosaur in the post-Soviet world.
It is made obsolete by two welcome developments--the All-Volunteer
Army, and the end of the Soviet threat.
Our All-Volunteer Force is a remarkable success story. Backed by
reserves, it is capable of handling the types of conflicts we are
likely to see, the Somalias, the Bosnias, and yes, the Desert Storms of
the foreseeable future. Desert Storm provided that our volunteer force
backed by Reserves, can put a half-million men on the ground and
support them, without resorting to conscription.
We will not need a flood of draftees for any conflict we are likely
to fight in the foreseeable future. I do not ask you to take my word
for this; the Pentagon's own ``1993-1999 Defense Planning Guidance
Scenario Set'' found that only 1 to 7 scenarios lasted long enough to
require--or allow for--conscription. This was a scenario involving a
reunified, rearmed Soviet Union.
Such a conflict is simply not on the horizon. Were this scenario to
develop we would have a long lead time, both to try to counteract this
development by diplomatic and economic means, and to develop a system
to identify our 18 year colds, without paying millions of dollars per
year in the meantime.
Finally, the Selective Service System is not performing well. A
November 1992 study by the U.S. Army Forces Integration Agency
uncovered severe overstuffing, poor morale, and overgrazing in the work
force. It found employees reading newspapers and magazines, and freely
admitting that they had no meaningful work to perform while on duty.
In last year's debate, opponents of our effort to cut funding for the
Selective Service System cited a number of arguments. Let us look at
these arguments in light of another 9 months' experience.
One argument was ``civic responsibility.'' According to this line of
reasoning, we should encourage our young men to register as an act of
patriotism. Mr. President, if we define good citizenship by the one-
time act of filling out a card on our 18th birthday, we are in deep
trouble.
Civic responsibility is voting. It is paying taxes. It is being
informed about the important issues shaping our communities, our
country, and our world. I would argue that it lies for us in voting
only for responsible spending.
Mr. President, civic responsibility means participating in our
communities and taking responsibility for ourselves and our fellow
citizens. I might note that this type of civic responsibility is not
limited to young men turning 18 years old, but is open to every adult,
man and woman, every day.
Another objection we heard last September was the quite legitimate
concern that, if the unthinkable did come to pass and we needed to
identify our 18-year-old men, we would need the Selective Service's
records. Well, the Defense Department itself has put that concern to
rest. In a report to the President and Congress dated last December,
DOD noted that the Selective Service System already identifies young
men who do not comply by obtaining names from records kept by State
drivers license bureaus, high schools, country voter registrars, Social
Security, DOD, HHS, Department of Transportation, INS, the Office of
Personnel Management, and the Postal Service. Given these sources of
information, we do not need to spend millions of dollars every year
collecting postcards.
A more serious concern we heard last year was that, while draft
registration might not be necessary, we should wait for the
administration to review the issue. Well, the administration has
spoken--twice--and the result only confirms what we have been saying.
We do not need the Selective Service.
The Secretary of Defense's December 1993 report, provides a wealth of
evidence that draft registration serves no useful purpose. In the
interests of time, let me just quote one passage:
Peacetime draft registration could be suspended with no
effect on military mobilization requirements, little effect
on the time it would take to mobilize, and no measurable
effect on military recruitment. * * * suspending peacetime
registration could be accomplished with limited risk to
national security.
That is the DOD's own document.
The May 18, 1994, letter from President Clinton following an NSC
review of this issue falls into the same trap. After finding that
``tangible military requirements alone do not currently make a mass
call-up of American young men likely,'' it tries to justify continued
registration with three weak arguments: First, registration is a cheap
insurance policy; second, abolition would send the wrong signal to
potential adversaries; and third, registration provides a link between
civilians and the All Volunteer Force.
Mr. President, I do not think these arguments fly. The DOD report
that I have quoted demolishes the insurance policy argument. Not only
does it conclude that registration is not necessary for military
mobilization requirements, but it also lists alternative ways to
identify draft eligible men that I mentioned earlier.
The administration's resolve argument is also off the mark. America
does not demonstrate its resolve by asking its young men to fill in a
postcard on their 18th birthday. America shows its resolve through
vigorous goal-oriented foreign and security policy.
Finally, I simply do not believe that civilian support for our
military depends on draft registration. If that were true, that would
be a sad commentary on our society. No. I believe that civilian support
for our brave servicemen and servicewomen comes from an understanding
and appreciation of the vital job that they do. It does them a
disservice to claim that draft registration is a significant
underpinning of America's support for its military.
Mr. President, I know I have gone on too long. But there are so many
arguments against wasting our money on the Selective Service System
that I would like to close with one more direct quotation from the
Department of Defense report:
The end of the cold war and the dissolution of the Soviet
Union have permitted downsizing the military and reducing its
demands on the Federal Treasury. With reduced force levels,
combined with two decades of successful experience with
raising and maintaining an all-volunteer force, improved
total force policy, recent victorious wartime experiences,
and the quality of active and reserve personnel, it is highly
unlikely that we will have to reinstate the draft in the
foreseeable future. Consequently, peacetime draft
registration could be suspended without irreparable damage to
national security.
Mr. President, let us on the Senate floor stop temporizing and show
some leadership and prove to our constituents that we can eliminate at
least one outdated program.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes and 48 seconds under the control
of the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BRADLEY. I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, after considerable footdragging, the
Pentagon in February finally completed its study of peacetime draft
registration.
To quote from the Pentagon's report:
Peacetime draft registration could be suspended with no
effect on military mobilization requirements, little effect
on the time it would take to mobilize, and no measurable
effect on military recruitment. Suspending peacetime
registration could be accomplished with limited risk to
national security considering the low probability of the need
for conscription.
Despite the fact that the Pentagon told the President and Congress
that there is no military requirement for draft registration, the
President announced that he has decided to continue this requirement.
President Clinton's decision is deeply disappointing. In his letter
to Congress the President argues that taxpayers should continue to pay
$23 million a year or an unnecessary program because it is an insurance
policy against underestimating a threat our Armed Forces may face.
The United States of American retains the finest-equipped, best
trained military in the world. Our Nation spends one-half of its total
discretionary budget on defense and spends over $30 billion more on its
military than the combined defense budgets of the other 15 NATO
countries, Japan and Russia.
The war with Iraq proved that our all-volunteer force works and the
Pentagon expects minimal or no effect on mobilization or recruiting if
draft registration is eliminated.
And yet the President tells us that ``terminating the Selective
Service System and draft registration now could send the wrong signal
to our potential enemies who are watching for signs of U.S. resolve.''
I do not understand this logic. How does forcing America's 18-year-
old men--men only, not all Americans--to the post office to register
for the draft send a signal to a potential enemy? And who is this
enemy?
The President's transmittal to Congress goes on to argue that, ``as
fewer and fewer members of our society have direct military experience,
it is increasingly important to maintain the link between the All-
Volunteer Force and our society at large.''
Like many fellow Senators, I am a veteran. I volunteered for duty
during World War II. Yet I find abhorrent the message that the threat
of conscripted service is somehow the best way we, as a nation, can
instill patriotism. Our Nation was founded upon the principles of
individual liberty and our Nation has responded with honor and duty
when our national security was threatened.
Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed with the notion that once
again this program is being promoted as a symbol of national security
and an integral part of our military manpower system. It is not. The
draft will not aid our Nation in times of crisis. We do not send men
from the recruiting station to the battlefield. They must have
training.
Our insurance policy in times of crisis are the Guard and the
Reserve. The Pentagon report to Congress calculated that suspension of
draft registration would increase the induction period from 13 to 43
days. That report concluded that such a delay is acceptable. And our
experience in the war with Iraq was that the total force structure is
sound.
Yet the President has turned aside the military's own analysis and
ignored the fact that draft registration is a relic of the past. He has
embraced weak and subjective justifications for continued registration
at the expense of our children's liberty. Many young Americans will be
punished for their failure to register, whether they forget or whether
they purposely fail to sign up.
In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee, an official
from the American Civil Liberties Union warned that draft registration
is a ``heavy intrusion into the lives of Americans when the government
requires them to sacrifice years of their lives, and possibly their
lives themselves, against their will. This intrusion cannot be taken
lightly even when the country is involved in a large-scale conflict.''
As testimony to Congress has indicated, there exists grave
constitutional concerns, including the argument that compulsory service
violates the prohibition of involuntary servitude and the possible
violation of the first amendment guarantee of freedom of association.
In the many times I have debated this issue, I also have raised the
matter of equity. We know that during the Vietnam War, minorities were
drafted disproportionately. We know that men and women are not treated
equally by the draft. And those who do not choose to register for
reasons of conscience are either deemed lawbreakers or must go through
a rigorous or sometimes onerous process to prove their belief.
The fate of the Selective Service program, which is not even funded
by the Department of Defense, is indicative of our unwillingness to see
our national security needs as they really are. Are we really so
vulnerable that it is better to continue to run roughshod over the
rights of our young men than to end a program which even the Pentagon
says is unnecessary? I think of the words of the late Senator Robert
Taft, who spoke eloquently about individual liberty and against
compulsory service. Just before American entered World War II, Senator
Taft said:
If the emergency is as great as alleged, then we should
adopt a completely socialized state and place ourselves and
our property at the disposal of the Government. This is
fascism. It could only be justified if it were the only
possible alternative to the subjugation of the United States
by fascism from without.
Even when considering our most important task, the retention of our
national defense, we, as Federal representatives, should be vigilant
against the creep of authoritarianism. Our Nation is separated from
those under the fist of totalitarianism by our freedom and by our long
history of voluntary support of our national defense structure.
Only when we have become mired in an insupportable war have we turned
to conscription. The Vietnam war remains one of the most tragic
examples of the use of the draft to continue an action which failed to
have the support of the American people. Draft registration is not a
symbol of national strength. The draft is a symbol of weakness: Either
a weakness of purpose or weakness of our willingness to safeguard our
liberty above all else.
I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Bradley in ending this
wasteful program.
Mr. President, let me highlight two or three points.
The Pentagon itself has indicated peacetime draft registration could
be suspended without any military mobilization requirement impact. In
effect, they said we could have the induction period extended from 13
to 45 days if it had to be indicated later on.
This is an opportunity to save some $23 million in our appropriations
because here is the Pentagon saying it is not necessary. Second, I do
not understand the President's logic when he says it is an insurance
policy against underestimating a threat our Armed Forces may face.
Mr. President, this actually carries no basic logic to it for the
simple reason of who our enemies are. Who are our adversaries? Today,
if we want to look at what we are spending, we are spending over half
of our discretionary funds in our budget for military purposes. We are
spending $30 billion more for military and defense preparation than all
of the NATO allies, plus Japan.
So I do not understand this logic. Plus the fact: How are a few
recruiting people going to have an important message to our so-called
adversaries of registering at the Post Office?
It is not an insurance policy for emergencies. We do not send
recruits or draftees from the draft station to the battlefield. There
has to be a period of training. So what we rely upon in emergencies are
the Guards and the Reserve.
So this idea that somehow a draft system is an answer to emergencies
is just not valid.
Mr. President, lest we think that this is a matter of philosophy, let
me suggest that the most powerful statement ever made on the question
of the draft was made by the high apostle of conservatism, the late
Robert Taft of Ohio, one of the truly great Senators who is honored out
there today in our reception room.
Listen to what Robert Taft said as we were getting ready to go into
World War II, and all those arguments about the draft and so forth. He
said:
If the emergency is as great as alleged, then we should
adopt a completely socialized state and place ourselves and
our property at the disposal of the Government. This is
fascism. It could only be justified if it were the only
possible alternative to the subjugation of the United States
by fascism from without.
Those are pretty strong words.
Mr. President, I submit that this is not needed at this time. It is a
time to save money.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Maryland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by the
Senator from New Jersey, and I do it because the President of the
United States is for Selective Service. The House of Representatives
voted recently in behalf of Selective Service. They defeated a simpler
amendment offered by Congressman Dellums that paralleled the Bradley
amendment. It was defeated 273 to 125.
This time last year, the distinguished Senator from New Jersey
offered in my Appropriations Committee, the VA, HUD, Independent
Agencies, which appropriates the funds for the Selective Service an
amendment to strike Selective Service. It was defeated 58 to 41. In
respect for him, I asked--and others who felt the same way, the
distinguished Senator from Oregon, the distinguished Senator from New
Jersey, and 39 others--for the President of the United States to make a
determination whether he felt it was in our national security interests
to continue the Selective Service in light of the end of the cold war.
The answer came back from the White House in a letter addressed to
the House of Representatives and to all of us on May 18, 1994 in which
the President of the United States asked that Selective Service be
continued, and that we fund it at the request of $23 million.
He says it is important to our defense needs and ``Maintaining the
SSS and draft registration provide a hedge against unforeseen threats
and a relatively low-cost insurance policy.''
The President believes that ``Terminating the SSS and draft
registration now could send the wrong signal to our potential enemies
who are watching for signs of U.S. resolve.''
And he says, ``As fewer and fewer members of our society have direct
military experience, it is increasingly important to maintain the link
between the All-Volunteer Force and our society at large.''
I will not read the entire letter of President Clinton, but I ask
unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The White House,
Washington, DC, May 18, 1994.
Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker, on February 18 of this year I transmitted
then Secretary of Defense Aspin's report on the continued
requirement for peacetime draft registration. At that time, I
advised you that peacetime draft registration. At that time,
I advised you that draft registration and the Selective
Service System (SSS) would be continued while the National
Security Council conducted an interagency review of the SSS.
That review has now been completed. I have decided that it
is essential to our national security to continue draft
registration and the Selective Service System. While tangible
military requirements alone do not currently make a mass
call-up of American young men likely, there are three reasons
I believe we should maintain both the SSS and the draft
registration requirement:
Maintaining the SSS and draft registration provide a hedge
against unforeseen threats and a relatively low cost
``insurance policy'' against our underestimating the maximum
level of threat we expect our Armed Forces to face.
Terminating the SSS and draft registration now could send
the wrong signal to our potential enemies who are watching
for signs of U.S. resolve.
As fewer and fewer members of our society have direct
military experience, it is increasingly important to maintain
the link between the All-Volunteer Force and our society at
large. The Armed Forces must also know that the general
population stands behind them, committed to serve, should the
preservation of our national security so require.
As part of this decision, I am directing the Secretary of
Defense to update our mobilization requirements and
timeliness for the SSS based upon current threat scenarious,
re-examine the timeliness for how quickly manpower must be
provided, consider the possibility of selective call-up of
skilled personnel (such as medical personnel) and continue to
review the arguments for and against continuing to exclude
women from registration now that they can be assigned to
combat roles other than ground combat.
I believe our FY 1995 request of $23 million is essential
to our defense needs and urge Congress to approve this
request. At the same time, we will continue to seek
additional economies and operating efficiencies at the
Selective Service System.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, therefore, the Pentagon and the task
force chaired by the National Security Council, and now the President
of the United States, endorse the maintenance of Selective Service for
the reasons that the President has outlined.
The Selective Service involves over 11,000 volunteers and
considerable infrastructure. If peacetime registration is terminated,
the Selective Service should not be dismantled until a better,
efficient use of those resources could be determined.
The Selective Service does more than register 18-year olds for the
draft. It also keeps other forms of registration and data in which we
call up, for example, health personnel so that in the event of a
national disaster, a catastrophic situation, possibly another
earthquake or several hurricanes affecting the east coast, we would be
able to mobilize much needed health personnel and emergency management
people.
We need the personnel and Selective Service to be fit for duty for
our military needs and other ancillary materials that they keep that
would help mobilize us for other risks affecting the United States of
America.
Let me conclude on the night before the Fourth of July when we
celebrate the Declaration of Independence: We ask so little and we give
so much as a nation. We no longer convey the sense of patriotism, a
sense of civic obligation that for every opportunity there is an
obligation, for every right there is a responsibility, and calling
people forth to register for the draft says that somewhere along the
line you have to know that there is a United States of America, and
maybe someday you will be called upon to defend not only the
Constitution but the very territory of the United States of America.
The registration is an important tool for conveying citizenship.
Probably on another issue, we will talk about women registering. This
is not the time for debate on that issue.
But registration is such a modest, modest request to be able to
convey, number one, a readiness, the ability to mobilize, the ability
to organize, that I encourage the Bradley amendment be adopted, that
the Selective Service System continue to stand, and for those who have
given so much, we should also say: Of those to whom much has been
given, much should be asked.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from
Indiana, Senator Coats.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). The Senator from Indiana is
recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, if Senator Bradley's amendment were
adopted, we would effectively end the registration under Selective
Service on September 30, 1994. Selective Service has been serving the
Nation since it was established in 1940, although conscription goes all
the way back to the Civil War.
Since 1940, the Selective Service System has been allowed to lapse
several times. Each time, Congress and the American people have
recognized later that when faced with a crisis, we needed a system
which could support the transition from peace to war when the country
was thrust into a world crisis.
In the event of full mobilization or national emergency, the
Selective Service System will have the first registrants reporting for
duty within 13 days and would provide an additional 100,000 inductees
within 30 days. The purpose of peacetime registration is to provide a
capability for rapid augmentation of the total force.
Mr. President, last year, the Secretary of Defense completed a study
of the continued requirement for draft registration. The bottom line
was that the registration should be continued pending a further review.
That further review was undertaken and completed in May of this year,
and the bottom line conclusion was the same: continue the Selective
Service System. Quotes from the review are going to be made on this
floor, but the conclusion needs to be stated.
The conclusion is: retain the system.
Mr. President, I do not often quote favorably the President of the
United States from this floor, but he sent a letter to us dated May 18,
1994, which says:
That review has now been completed. I have decided that it
is essential to our national security to continue draft
registration and the Selective Service System for three
reasons:
1. Maintaining the Selective Service and draft registration
provides a hedge against unforeseen threats and a relatively
low-cost ``insurance policy'' against our underestimating the
maximum level of threat we expect our Armed Forces to face.
2. Terminating this Selective Service System now could send
the wrong signal to our potential enemies who are watching
for signs of U.S. resolve.
3. As fewer and fewer members of our society have direct
military experience, it is increasingly important to maintain
the link between the All-Volunteer Force and our society at
large.
Mr. President, for reasons stated here this evening, for the fact
that the House of Representatives, by a more than 2-to-1 margin, has
concluded we should retain the system. For the reasons stated by the
President in his letter to this body, I believe we should reject the
amendment offered by Senator Bradley.
The request that is made for continuation of Selective Service is
essential to our defense needs, and I urge Congress to approve the
request submitted to us by the President of the United States, and I
urge rejection of the Bradley amendment.
Mr. GLENN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, Senator Bradley's amendment would
terminate the Selective Service System and the requirement for any
person to register for the draft effective on September 30, 1994.
Mr. President, the Selective Service System is needed to undergird
the national military strategy. It is consistent with the concept of
service to the Nation. It is an important backstop against an
unexpected need for large numbers of military personnel. In the
President's words,
Maintaining the Selective Service System and draft
registration provide a hedge against unforeseen threats and a
relative low cost ``insurance policy'' against our
underestimating the maximum level of threat we expect our
Armed Forces to face.
The Selective Service System is just one of the signals this country
sends to potential adversaries around the world that we are ready and
able to protect our vital national interests. It also represents a
responsibility to rally to the defense of the Nation for our young men,
if needed. This is a small part of the responsibility of full
citizenship in a free nation. A full 97 percent of America's young men
comply with the requirement to register. I am not surprised that our
young men accept this important responsibility. It is the American way.
The Secretary of Defense studied the continued requirement for the
Selective Service. The study concluded that the Selective Service
System should be continued in order to provide the infrastructure
necessary to reestablish the capacity to garner age-eligible personnel
in a timely manner, when necessary. I also concluded that the Selective
Service has a symbolic value beyond its practical value. This symbolic
value demonstrates to friend and foe, as well as our own youth, that
America is willing to make broad sacrifices to maintain freedom. On
February 18, 1994, the President concurred with this study and ordered
an interagency review of the requirement for peacetime draft
registration.
On May 18, 1994, the President announced the results of this second
review. He decided that it is essential to national security to
continue draft registration and the Selective Service System. The
President cited three specific reasons for his decision. First, he said
the Selective Service System is a low-cost insurance policy against
unexpected threats. Second, he said terminating the Selective Service
System would send the wrong message to potential enemies. Last, it is
important to maintain a link between the All-Volunteer Force and our
society at large. This last reason is the responsibility of full
citizenship of which I spoke earlier.
Mr. President, there are many examples of Government waste. Any
Member of the Senate can point to several without detailed study. The
Selective Service is a valuable part of the national defense team and
is certainly not a waste of taxpayer dollars.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has 39 seconds
remaining.
The Senator from New Jersey has 1 minute 36 seconds remaining.
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, if we cannot eliminate this program, I do
not know what program we can eliminate. The Selective Service System is
overmanned, overgraded. People in levels 13, 14, and 15 are performing
jobs that levels 7, 8 and 9 can perform. There is poor morale and
antiquated equipment. There are 267 full-time jobs. That is what this
is all about.
The arguments offered in support of it--civic responsibility? If we
are reduced to having a Selective Service System where somebody 18
years old fills out a card and that is the limit of his civic
responsibility, where are we in terms of being a hedge against the
future, when the only possible hedge it could be against, that the all-
volunteer Army could not counter, is a rejuvenated, hostile,
reconstituted Soviet Union? It is not in the cards.
In terms of a signal, I do not really think filling out postcards
sends a very threatening or ominous signal to anyone.
There was a remark made that it was on the eve of July 4; on the eve
that we celebrate the Declaration of Independence we do not want to
eliminate the Selective Service System.
Mr. President, July 4 celebrates not only the Declaration of
Independence but the Revolutionary War. There was no draft in the
Revolutionary War.
On the eve of the battle of Princeton, George Washington with the
troops in tattered clothes, he did not have a draft. He asked them
would one good man step forward. One did. Another did. And enough
stepped forward to win the Revolutionary War.
We do not need the draft. It should be abolished. Save the money.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor
of Senator Bradley's amendment to terminate the Selective Service
System.
While I believe that maintaining a strong and prepared military must
be a top priority for this country, I do not believe that it is
necessary to continue spending millions of dollars each year to
preserve a cold-war relic that requires all young men to register for
the draft. This is particularly true during this time of tight budgets.
It is crucial that we invest our scarce defense dollars in cost-
effective, versatile programs that are vital to U.S. national security
in the post-cold-war world.
In a December 1993 report issued by the Defense Department, the
Secretary of Defense stressed that
because of the reduced global threat together with improved
total force readiness and the Department's proven ability to
maintain a quality volunteer force, the effects of
eliminating draft registration on our ability to meet
mobilizations requirements are expected to be minimal.
The report goes on to say that
peacetime draft registration could be suspended with no
effect on military mobilization requirements, little effect
on the time it would take to mobilize, and no measurable
effect on military recruitment.
In the case of a national emergency, the Defense Department report
lists several alternative ways to identify draft-eligible men that are
already in use and that will ensure greater compliance. For example,
Social Security records, driver's licenses, DOD records, INS documents,
and the U.S. Postal Service are all viable options that will cut
Government bureaucracy and save U.S. taxpayers over $20 million in
fiscal year 1995 alone.
Just as I see this amendment as one way to reinvent Government into a
more efficient and cost-effective entity, I also see it as a chance to
follow through on the efforts of the Defense Department, the President,
and Congress to reinvent out military into a strong, modern-day force.
We should spend our defense dollars on higher Defense Department
priorities to ensure the readiness of our troops and modernization of
our weapons.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to terminate a draft
registration system no longer needed in today's world, one that costs
the U.S. taxpayer tens of millions of dollars annually.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of our time.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President's letter be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The White House,
Washington, DC, May 18, 1994.
Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
President of the Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: On February 18 of this year, I
transmitted then Secretary of Defense Aspin's report on the
continued requirement for peacetime draft registration. At
that time, I advised you that draft registration and the
Selective Service System (SSS) would be continued while the
National Security Council conducted an interagency review of
the SSS.
That review has now been completed. I have decided that it
is essential to our national security to continue draft
registration and the Selective Service System. While tangible
military requirements alone do not currently make a mass
call-up of American young men likely, there are three reasons
I believe we should maintain both the SSS and the draft
registration requirement.
First, maintaining the SSS and draft registration provide a
hedge against unforeseen threats and a relatively low cost
``insurance policy'' against our underestimating the maximum
level of threat we expect our Armed Forces to face.
Second, terminating the SSS and draft registration now
could send the wrong signal to our potential enemies who are
watching for signs of U.S. resolve.
Third, as fewer and fewer members of our society have
direct military experience, it is increasingly important to
maintain the link between the All-Volunteer Force and our
society at large. The Armed Forces must also know that the
general population stands behind them, committed to serve,
should the preservation of our national security so require.
As part of this decision, I am directing the Secretary of
Defense to update our mobilization requirements and timelines
for the SSS based upon current threat scenarios, re-examine
the timelines for how quickly manpower must be provided,
consider the possibility of selective call-up of skilled
personnel (such as medical personnel) and continue to review
the arguments for and against continuing to exclude women
from registration now that they can be assigned to combat
roles other than ground combat.
I believe our FY 1995 request of $23 million is essential
to our defense needs and urge Congress to approve this
request. At the same time, we will continue to seek
additional economies and operating efficiencies at the
Selective Service System.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I congratulate Senators Bradley and
Hatfield for this amendment to abolish the Selective Service System and
end the anachronistic requirement for all 18-year-old men to register
for the draft. This outdated program costs U.S. taxpayers millions of
dollars a year while doing virtually nothing to enhance our national
security.
Arguments that the draft provides a low-cost insurance policy, or
that ending the draft would send a signal of weakness to our enemies,
or potential enemies since we no longer have a superpower adversary,
simply do not hold water. The Secretary of Defense, in a December 1993
report, concluded that draft registration could be suspended with ``no
effect on military mobilization requirements, little effect on the time
it would take to mobilize, and no measurable effect on military
recruitment.'' The National Security Council also reviewed the
registration process and concluded that current military requirements
make a mass callup unlikely.
As for sending a signal of weakness, it is our real military
capabilities that will impress our potential enemies, not an expensive
list of names. We should concentrate our efforts on maintaining the
most capable, highly trained, and well equipped fighting force in the
world. And we have built exactly that with the All Volunteer Force, not
by conscripting young men as do many other countries. Ensuring that we
keep our military strong and capable is exactly what the Senate is
doing in acting on this bill.
Instead of contributing to the readiness of our military, the current
Selective Service System siphons off precious dollars that could be
used to support our troops in the field. This amendment will save an
estimated $23 million a year that can then be channeled into the active
duty military to meet real national security requirements.
I should point out that I have no opposition to the concept of using
the draft in a national emergency. I would strongly support the swift
reactivation of a registration process if the world situation pointed
toward a possible prolonged conflict. But such a likelihood is so
remote at this point as to be almost unimaginable. However, if such a
scenario were to arise in the next few years the Defense Department has
already explored various other effective ways of identifying draft age
men, such as Social Security records and drivers license applications.
Once again I commend the sponsors of this amendment for challenging
the status quo and moving to eliminate the needless expenditure of
millions of dollars a year.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I was in the Senate gallery, as a young
teenager, when they passed the draft act many, many years ago.
I remember being very impressed with it then. It served us well
through the years.
It may have some problems, as the Senator from New Jersey indicates
but, by and large, I think it serves us pretty well, and we have some
11,000 volunteers in it.
I can also remember the pride I took in signing up under the
Selective Service. Maybe we decry such feelings today. But I felt that
and carried that card with me and was quite proud of it.
So, I think for all the reasons that have been given by my colleagues
on this side we should oppose this, and I move to table the amendment
of the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Ohio to lay on the table the amendment of the Senator
from New Jersey. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered,
and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. MITCHELL. I announce that the Senator from California [Mrs.
Boxer], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], the Senator from
Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], the
Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], the Senator from Connecticut
[Mr. Lieberman], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum], the Senator
from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon]
are necessarily absent.
Mr. DOLE. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], the
Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], the Senator from Colorado [Mr.
Brown], the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen], the Senator from New York
[Mr. D'Amato], the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], the Senator from
North Carolina [Mr. Helms], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], the
Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr.
Simpson], and the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 30, as follows:
{Rollcall Vote No. 186 Leg.
YEAS--50
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Breaux
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Coats
Cochran
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Danforth
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durenberger
Exon
Faircloth
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gregg
Hatch
Heflin
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Nunn
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Sasser
Smith
Stevens
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
NAYS--30
Baucus
Boren
Bradley
Bumpers
Chafee
Daschle
DeConcini
Feingold
Feinstein
Grassley
Harkin
Hatfield
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mathews
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nickles
Packwood
Reid
Wellstone
Wofford
NOT VOTING--20
Bennett
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Campbell
Cohen
D'Amato
Dodd
Ford
Gramm
Helms
Johnston
Lieberman
McCain
Metzenbaum
Murkowski
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Specter
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2164) was agreed
to.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
amendments numbered 2160 and 2159
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison.
Mr. KERRY. Parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. WARNER. Parliamentary inquiry. What is the pending matter before
the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Texas wish to make an
inquiry?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yield for an inquiry?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending questions are amendments No. 2160
and No. 2159.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could clarify through the Chair, the
pending business as I understand it is the Warner underlying amendment
as amended by the second-degree amendment of the Senator from Georgia.
That is the pending business before the body?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WARNER. I wish to accommodate other Senators in their inquiry to
the Chair. However at a certain point in time I would like to clarify
the status of the pending business for the benefit of the Senate.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Virginia yield
for a question?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, absolutely.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator from Virginia be willing to lay the
amendment aside for a quick amendment that is acceptable to both sides?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will be delighted to accommodate the
distinguished Senator from Texas. I would, however, wish to advise the
Senator that there are about four Senators at the moment focusing on
the pending business. In deference to them, I would like to know what
their wishes were before I acceded to that request.
Mr. President, my understanding is I believe several Senators, namely
myself, the Senator from Delaware, the Senator from Massachusetts, and
the Senator from Georgia, and such others who may be interested--and I
know the Senator from Wyoming is--we are about to reach an agreement, I
believe, with respect to the text of an amendment which the Senator
from Virginia would send to the desk as a modification to the
underlying amendment. Shortly thereafter I presume the Senate would
like to turn its attention to that business so it can go on with the
other amendments.
It may well be we could accommodate the Senator from Texas in the
period of time it takes to reconcile any differences that remain among
the four of us.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me just make a statement. I am
perfectly willing to wait for the pending business that is on the floor
to be finished if it is ready to be finished. But I would like to have
recognition immediately thereafter. I did have permission from the
manager of the bill to do so, not knowing that the amendment might be
ready.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Will the Chair please advise the Senator from Arizona
who has the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has the floor.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, so the Senator from Texas has the
floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DeCONCINI. She can proceed as she so wants?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. It is the understanding of the Senator from Virginia I
had the floor pursuant to the matter before the Senate, and I then
yielded to the Senator from Texas to hear her inquiry to the Chair, and
the same for the Senator from Wyoming. I do not know that I lost the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized, and
giving inquiry to the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, has there been unanimous consent to waive
the pending business? Parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendments were set aside, but
they never recurred.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, point of parliamentary inquiry?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized
for an inquiry.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that they were set
aside prior to the previous vote, but on the disposition of the
previous vote that the amendment of the Senator from Virginia is now
the pending business before the Senate and has not been set aside at
this point; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. KERRY. If the pending business is the amendment of the Senator
from Virginia, and the Senator from Texas has agreed already that she
would be willing to let the Senator from Virginia proceed, it would
seem to me we could quickly resolve this by proceeding to the pending
business with the understanding by unanimous consent that the Senator
from Texas would proceed immediately to have the floor on the
completion of the pending business. Is that correct?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I so move.
Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
Mr. WARNER. Parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. If I may restate what I have understood, and consistently
understood, to be the pending business, it is the amendment of the
Senator from Virginia, as amended by an amendment in the second degree
from the Senator from Georgia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WARNER. And further there that has been no unanimous consent
granted by the Chair to lay that aside? In which case I will proceed
now to address the pending amendment.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President, just to clarify
for the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has the floor.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for an
inquiry.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Not withstanding what the Senator from Virginia said,
and I understand the pending business is the Warner amendment as
amended, but the Senator from Texas has the floor. Then there is a
unanimous consent request by the Senator from Massachusetts that the
Senator from Texas yield so that the pending business can be taken up;
is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts began to make a
request.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I think we can solve all of this if the
Senator from Virginia is recognized, and we can deal with his
amendment. We do not need unanimous consent.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized by the
Chair.
Amendment No. 2159, As Modified
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, with the cooperation of the Senators from
Massachusetts, Delaware, and Georgia, I am prepared to send to the desk
an amendment and ask that the underlying amendment of the Senator from
Virginia be so modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
The amendment, with its modification, is as follows:
At the end of subtitle C of title II, add the following:
SEC. 224. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT ON AGREEMENTS THAT MODIFY
THE ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE TREATY.
(a) Requirement for Advice and Consent of Senate.--Whenever
the President negotiates an international agreement that
would substantively modify the ABM Treaty, the United States
shall not be bound by such agreement unless the agreement is
entered into pursuant to the treaty making power of the
President under the Constitution (which includes a
requirement for advice and consent of the Senate).
(b) ABM Treaty Defined.--In this section, the term ``ABM
Treaty'' means the Treaty Between the United States of
America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the
Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, signed in
Moscow on May 26, 1972, with related protocol, signed in
Moscow on July 3, 1974.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the amendment at the desk represents an
amendment sent by the Senator from Virginia, and I believe the Senator
from Georgia still remains to be the principal cosponsor; am I correct?
Mr. NUNN. I will be pleased to be a cosponsor, if the Senator from
Virginia so desires.
Mr. WARNER. I think the Senator from Delaware desires to be a
cosponsor; am I correct?
Mr. BIDEN. That is correct, I say to my friend from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. And do I understand the Senator from Massachusetts wishes
to be a cosponsor?
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. KERRY. I believe that in order to perfect this correctly, the
Senator from Georgia would have to withdraw the second-degree amendment
first.
Mr. WARNER. I thought that was implicit in the request of the Senator
from Virginia. Very well.
Mr. NUNN. I withdraw the second-degree amendment.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
So the amendment (No. 2160) was withdrawn.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, pending before the Senate is an amendment,
and I shall add additional cosponsors: Senators Wallop, Thurmond, Dole,
and Smith.
I shall read the amendment very briefly:
(a) Requirement for Advice and Consent of the Senate.--
Whenever the President negotiates an international agreement
that would substantively modify the ABM Treaty, the United
States shall not be bound by such agreement unless the
agreement is entered into pursuant to the treaty making power
of the President under the Constitution (which includes a
requirement for advice and consent of the Senate).
(b) ABM Treaty Defined.--In this section, the term ``ABM
Treaty'' means: the Treaty Between the United States of
America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the
Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, signed in
Moscow on May 26, 1972, with related protocol, signed in
Moscow on July 3, 1974.
Mr. President, to save time, the Senator from Virginia has had more
than adequate opportunity to state his objective. It is a matter of
record. I, therefore, yield the floor so other Senators can speak to
this matter.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Delaware and I
also have no need to give any lengthy explanation. We are very
appreciative to the manager of the bill and to Senator Warner for
working with us to come to an agreement as to how best to protect the
interests of the ABM Treaty and the Senate's prerogatives therefor. We
thank both of them for their efforts on this. We have made our point.
I ask unanimous consent, as a matter of courtesy, that the Senator
from Texas be recognized at the completion of this business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I think this is a good amendment. We have
worked on it for the last several hours. We had good minds from the
Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee working
together. The Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Delaware
have spent an enormous amount of time in the treaty business.
I think this is the amendment we need to adopt. I think it will give
us an opportunity to look carefully at whatever the administration
produces and then the Senate of the United States can make a judgment
about how to proceed on that.
I am sure all of us will be watching that very carefully because it
is of great importance. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleagues.
I express my appreciation to the members of the Armed Services
Committee staff, Tom Moore and Mr. Eric Thoemmes.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment
by the Senator From Virginia. This amendment would affirm a basic
Senate pregrogative--the requirement for Senate advice and consent of
arms control treaties.
Since November 1993, the administration has been engaged in
negotiations with the former Soviet Union to update and clarify
specific provisions of the ABM Treaty. First, the administration is
attempting to identify who, in fact, this treaty is with--a question
left unanswered since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In an
attempt to deal with this dilemma, the administration has proposed that
the treaty be multilateralized, to include any former Soviet State that
wants to become a party to the ABM Treaty.
The second area of negotiation has to do with defining the
demarcation between antiballistic missile systems, which are limited by
the treaty, and theater missile defense systems, which the treaty does
not specifically limit. On this point the treaty itself is extremely
ambiguous--it states merely that it is prohibited to give non-ABM
systems ``capabilities'' to counter ``strategic ballistic missiles'' or
test them in ``an ABM mode.'' But the treaty does not define any of
these key terms.
Mr. President, as a general principle and for specific reasons that
relate to these two areas of negotiation, I believe that the
administration must seek the Senate's concurrence on these important
matters. In my view, any agreement that substantively modifies or
creates new legal obligations for the United States under the ABM
Treaty must be submitted to the Senate as a treaty for its advice and
consent to ratification.
As they now stand, the administration's proposals on theater missile
defense demarcation and treaty succession would, in fact, represent
substantive changes to the ABM Treaty or new legal obligations for the
United States under the treaty. Let me address each of these briefly.
There can be no question that the administration's approach to
succession would constitute a clear and substantive change to the
treaty. It would fundamentally alter the rights and obligations of the
original treaty partners. Moreover, such a change has broad
implications for U.S. policy well beyond the narrow limits of the ABM
Treaty. For example, multilateralizing the treaty would have the effect
of perpetuating the old boundaries of the Soviet Union, and give Russia
extraterritorial rights and a military presence coextensive with the
former Soviet Union.
In examining relevant precedents, it also is abundantly clear that
such a major change to the treaty would require Senate advice and
consent. In 1974, for example, when the ABM Treaty was changed by
protocol to reduce its limitations from two permitted deployment sites
to one, the agreement was submitted to the Senate, which advised
ratification on November 10, 1975. When the START Treaty was in a
similar situation as the ABM Treaty now faces, the sides negotiated a
multilateral protocol, which was submitted for advice and consent as
part of the START I ratification package. These precedents are clear
and compelling.
The TMD demarcation issue is less clear than the succession issue.
Whether a TMD demarcation agreement constitutes a substantive
modification of the ABM Treaty or entails new legal obligations for the
United States under the treaty depends on the form of the agreement. It
certainly would be possible to clarify this issue without making a
single change to the text of the ABM Treaty itself. Moreover, it would
be possible to make this clarification without establishing new legal
obligations for the United States under the ABM Treaty.
In fact, the proposal that the United States presented in November
1993 on this subject did not, in my view, establish any new legal
obligations for the United States under the ABM Treaty. It very simply
clarified a key term in the treaty--that is, what constitutes a
strategic ballistic missile. Such clarifications have taken place on
several occasions over the years in the standing consultative
commission without Senate approval.
I would also note that the administration's November 1993 proposal on
TMD Demarcation was consistent with the congressional finding contained
in last year's Defense Authorization Act, which states that TMD systems
are not prohibited by the ABM Treaty unless they ``are tested against
or have demonstrated capabilities to counter modern strategic ballistic
missiles.'' In other words, as a practical matter, Congress has already
given its advice and consent to a TMD demarcation agreement based on
the so-called ``demonstrated capabilities standard,'' which does not
include specific performance limitations on TMD systems or components.
Unfortunately, the administration has now complicated matters by
accepting such specific performance limitations. These are no longer
clarifications. They are new, binding limitations on missile defense
systems not previously constrained by the ABM Treaty. I would note that
the ABM Treaty does not even limit ABM interceptors in this manner. In
effect, this approach creates a fundamentally new treaty--an ABM/TMD
Treaty. Such a radical departure from the existing limitations will
certainly require Senate advice and consent.
The Senate has every reason to guard its constitutional prerogatives
in the area of treaty ratification. As the chairman of the Armed
Services Committee will recall from our 1987 debate on the Nunn-Levin
amendment, this body has traditionally taken these matters extremely
seriously. As the chairman stated on the floor at that time, allowing
the President to reinterpret a treaty, subsequent to ratification,
without the Senate's approval, would reduce the Senate to, in the
chairman's words, ``A potted plant. * * * An ornament in the national
security arena, adorning but not influencing.''
If we still take this responsibility seriously, as I believe we must,
then the Warner amendment should be adopted.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2159), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Amendment No. 2165
(Purpose: To authorize transfer and use of not more than $43,000,000
for purchase of up to seven roll-on/roll-off vessels for the Ready
Reserve Force of the National Defense Reserve Fleet)
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on
behalf of myself and Senators Sarbanes and Mikulski and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for herself, Mr.
Sarbanes, and Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered
2165.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 110, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
SEC. 357. ROLL-ON/ROLL-OFF VESSELS FOR THE READY RESERVE
FORCE.
(a) Transfer Authorized.--To the extent provided in
appropriations Acts, in order to provide for purchase of up
to seven roll-on/roll-off vessels for the Ready Reserve Force
of the National Defense Reserve Fleet maintained under
section 11 of the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C.
App. 1744), the Secretary of Defense may transfer to the
Maritime Administration not more than $43,000,000 out of
funds authorized by this Act to be appropriated to the
Department of Defense for fiscal year 1995, other than funds
for procurement of national defense features for vessels.
(b) Use by Maritime Administration.--Funds transferred to
the Maritime Administration pursuant to subsection (a) shall
be used only for the purpose set forth in such subsection.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the amendment grants the Department of
Defense the authority to reprogram $43 million for the procurement of
roll-on/roll-off ships for the ready reserve. The congressionally
mandated mobility requirement study called for the acquisition of 19
ready reserve force roll-on/roll-off ships. This would bring the ready
reserve force roll-on/roll-off to a total of 36.
These ships are essential, Mr. President, to early deploying heavy
divisions that must move from the continental United States to a
distant theater of operations. This just gives some flexibility in the
Department of Defense.
I thank the managers of the bill, and I urge the adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague
from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], in offering this amendment to the defense
authorization measure.
I thank Senator Hutchison for her work on this important issue and I
want to express my sincere appreciation to the chairman, Senator Nunn,
and the ranking minority Member, Senator Thurmond, for allowing the
consideration of this amendment.
The ``Mobility Requirement Study'' emphasized our need for a
strategic mobility program. According to the recommendations released
in early 1992, it is imperative that we increase our Ready Reserve
Force of roll-on/roll-off ships to a total of 36.
With funding from fiscal 1993, 12 ships have been added to the force
for a total of 29. The amendment we are offering today, along with
funding already provided to the Maritime Administration, will allow the
acquisition of the seven additional ships needed to complete the fleet.
They will give our Armed Forces the surge capability to move Army heavy
divisions to a regional conflict anywhere around the world.
The Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology reiterated the need for these ships on Tuesday. In a letter
to the distinguished chairman, Secretary Longuemare stated:
Acquisition of used RO/ROs for the RRF is the only near-
term means to meet the DoD surge sealift capability shortfall
which is critical to early combat force deliveries. These
forces must be available in the early stages of a conflict to
secure ports and airfields necessary for the continued
buildup of combat forces.
The amendment we are offering simply allows the Department of Defense
to transfer funds from any source except the National Defense Features
Program to the Maritime Administration for the purchase of up to seven
roll-on/roll-off vessels for the Ready Reserve Force. It requires that
such transfer be made within 60 days after passage of an appropriations
measure for fiscal 1995 and mandates that the Maritime Administrator
obligate the funds by September 30, 1995.
Our amendment does not in any way change the committee's intention,
specified in the report to accompany the authorization, to provide
additional funding to the National Defense Features Program. That
program, while still conceptual, appears to have potential to provide
sustainment sealift following the initial surge. It cannot replace,
however, our need for early surge and it is for that reason that I have
joined in offering this amendment to secure that critical capability in
our Ready Reserve Force.
Mr. President, while I share the hope of every Member of the Senate
that our men and women in uniform will never face another conflict, I
know that we must be ever on guard. I am pleased that we are
considering this amendment that will provide us with the capability to
respond quickly to regional threats whenever and wherever they occur. I
again thank the chairman and urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment of the
Senator from Texas. I believe the additional sealift represented by the
ships that could be added by this amendment would help our deployment
capability, which is one of our most serious needs.
This does, through the normal procedures, permit the reprogramming of
these funds to the sealift requirement, and this is, of course,
assuming the Secretary of Defense makes that kind of decision and
defines that reprogramming of those funds. I hope that will be
available.
I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2165) was agreed to.
Mr. DeCONCINI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
____________________