[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 13, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995 AND MILITARY 
 CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). The Republican leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed 
for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, before we vote on the conference report to 
the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995, I want to take a 
moment to commend the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee for their efforts in hammering out this 
conference report. While they have done the best they could with what 
they were given, the fact remains that President Clinton's defense 
budget and his future years defense plan are inadequate. The fact is, 
our military is going hollow. And while this bill is probably the best 
under the circumstances, it represents another step down a disastrous 
road to unpreparedness.
  The fact is, the President's defense plan is simply not sufficient to 
maintain American security and American leadership. The President's 
defense plan will not meet his declared objectives of fighting and 
winning two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts, and the fact 
is, even this inadequate force is not funded.
  We have all heard of the GAO's conclusions--the budget shortfall of 
the so-called Bottom-up Review force is $150 billion. And we have all 
seen the headlines that the Deputy Secretary of Defense, in a memo to 
the members of the Defense Resources Board, directed the armed services 
to prepare plans for deeper cuts, including the possible termination of 
a number of procurement programs required to modernize our forces. 
While the administration attempts to justify these additional cuts by 
arguing that these funds are needed for pay raises for the troops and 
to contribute to the quality of life of the men and women in uniform, 
the fact remains that the administration ignored these issues in their 
original budget submission. The Congress saw to it that our readiness 
accounts received more funding and it was the Congress that saw to it 
that our soldiers receive adequate pay. Their whole line of argument is 
an attempt to pit the defense industrial base against the troops and 
their families. It escapes me why the administration must always ply 
this phony game of ``enemies and victims.'' Only in this case, American 
strength is the enemy and American security may be the victim.
  As has been often stated by my Republican colleagues, this is the 
tenth consecutive year that the defense budget has been cut. And under 
the Clinton administration's budget we are facing another 5 years of 
slash and burn. I won't repeat the budget analysis. The distinguished 
ranking Republican, Senator Thurmond, and Senator McCain have both 
argued the case well. My question is, at what point do we stop this 
slash and burn of our national security? Next year? The year after? 
Five more years, as the President wants? Will we have the luxury of a 
wake up? Or will the realization come too late, as history shows it 
most always does?
  During World War II, it was the leadership of the United States which 
made victory possible. During the cold war, it was the stalwart 
leadership of this country that resulted in victory over communist 
aggression. Now that we have entered a new era, whether we like it or 
not, the world still looks to the United States for leadership. 
Leadership on today's world stage still means being militarily prepared 
to meet any future threat. Leadership requires a commitment to 
strength. Weakness invites war. These are simple truths, but too easily 
forgotten.
  Yet, if World War II, Korea, the cold war, and Desert Storm have 
taught us anything, it is the danger of wishful thinking. You cannot 
just wish threats away. Wishes are no substitute for vigilance and 
leadership.
  We see the signs that we are returning to the hollow forces of the 
late 1970's. The administration's own panel on readiness recently 
reported that pockets of unreadiness are already showing up in the Air 
Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy. This is not an honest defense 
budget. The administration does not have a genuine defense plan. The 
chairman and the ranking member have done all they can with an 
inadequate defense budget proposal. While I appreciate the good work of 
the chairman and ranking member, and while I wish I could support this 
legislation, I will not endorse another step toward a hollow force.


            statement on the shootdown provisions of s. 2182

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I am deeply disturbed by the so-
called shootdown provisions in the conference report for the fiscal 
year 1995 defense authorization bill.
  Section 1012 of the conference report reverses the longstanding U.S. 
policy of flatly discouraging the use of deadly force against civilian 
aircraft. Under this legislation, the law of the United States would no 
longer condemn foreign governments that choose to shoot down civilian 
aircraft they believe to be involved in drug trafficking. This bill 
also will permit the U.S. Government to assist foreign governments that 
choose to use force.
  I understand how frustrating it is when the illicit contents and use 
of an aircraft are known and yet law enforcement agents cannot down 
that plane. But the alternative in this bill is far worse. To sanction 
the use of deadly force against civilian aircraft, as this legislation 
does, is ill conceived. It is a dangerous error of judgment that wisely 
was rejected by previous administrations.
  This bill permits the shooting down of civilian aircraft so long as 
the plane is reasonably suspected of drug trafficking. And, if that 
reasonable suspicion is wrong--if an innocent aircraft is mistakenly 
downed--the bill would shut off legal recourse for survivors or their 
families. In a deadly game of chance, this legislation lets the United 
States help foreign governments shoot down civilian planes based on 
little more than an educated guess. It then shields our Government from 
liability if the guess is wrong.
  Those who advocate this provision argue that it is needed to protect 
the national security of countries struggling against drug traffickers. 
But by creating a national security exception to the international 
prohibition on the use of force against civilian aircraft, the United 
States will open the door for other countries to do the same. We should 
not forget that in 1983 the Soviets justified the shooting down of 
Korean Airlines Flight 007 on national security grounds and that 269 
innocent people died as a result.
  Madam President, most observers agree that this provision violates 
international law and U.S. treaty obligations. But legalities are not 
the most important problem here. The bottom line is that this is plain 
bad policy. At this point, there is little we can do to remove it from 
this legislation. But I urge my colleagues to rethink this issue and to 
take steps in the future to prevent its implementation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the conference report on S. 2182.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Chafee] and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``nay.''
  The result was announced--yeas 80, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 297 Leg.]

                                YEAS--80

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wofford

                                NAYS--18

     Bennett
     Brown
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Dole
     Feingold
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Kempthorne
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Smith
     Wallop
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Chafee
     Hatfield
       
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________