[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 127 (Wednesday, August 2, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11127-S11185]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to consideration of S. 1026, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1026) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 1996 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
     Forces, and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consideration of the bill.
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, today the Senate begins consideration 
of S. 1026, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
1996. The bill we bring to the floor incorporates the Armed Services 
Committee's best judgments on the Nation's defense requirements. It is 
based on many long hours of testimony, analysis, debate, and 
consideration of opposing views.
  I would like to thank the distinguished ranking member of the 
committee, Senator Nunn, for his outstanding leadership, and for his 
open, fair, and bi-partisan manner. I would also like to thank the 
members of the committee and the professional staff for their 
dedication and hard work.
  It has been a privilege to work with Senator Nunn to bring this bill 
to the Senate. Although it is a good bill, not every Member, including 
me, is happy with every part of it. Throughout the past 6 months the 
committee worked in its traditional bipartisan manner because the 
security of the United States and the safety of our people are 
paramount. The bill reflects this cooperative effort, provides a clear 
direction for national security, and maintains a solid foundation for 
the defense of the Nation.
  The committee's overarching intent was to revitalize the Armed Forces 
and enhance or preserve our national security capabilities. That is 
essential in this post-cold-war world in order to provide the 
leadership and stability which are critical to the growth of democracy. 
Our military must be capable and ready in order to provide our men and 
women in uniform the best possible chance to succeed and survive in 
every demanding situation. We were reminded recently, with the 
dedication of the Korean War Memorial, that freedom is not free. We 
must always remember that courage and sacrifice are the price of 
freedom.
  This bill would fund defense at $264.7 billion in budget authority 
for fiscal year 1996. I have noted with interest some inaccurate 
reports in the press that the bill would increase defense spending, and 
I would like to set the record straight. The funding level in the bill 
we bring to the floor today is nearly $6.2 billion lower in real terms 
than last year's bill, and that represents a decline of 2 percent. 
Although it had been my hope to preserve funding at last year's level, 
this is the best the committee could do, given the budgetary pressures 
facing the Congress.
  I have stated repeatedly that the administration is cutting defense 
too far, too fast. Most credible analysts conclude there is a shortfall 
of at least $150 billion in defense budget authority over the future 
years defense plan. Although the proposal contained in this bill 
represents a decline in defense spending, I would note that the funding 
level is still $7 billion higher than the administration's budget 
request. The administration requested a defense budget 5 percent lower 
than the fiscal year 1995 level, and that is simply unwise. 

[[Page S11128]]

  Despite a decline in defense spending, the bill provides the 
resources to maintain substantial U.S. military power and the ability 
to project that power wherever our vital interests are at stake. An 
implicit theme in our bill is that any aggressor or potential adversary 
should know that our military services will remain the most effective 
and combat ready in the world.
  National security is the most important responsibility of the Federal 
Government, and as we begin debate on this matter, I would like to 
explain the priorities which the committee kept in mind in crafting the 
bill, and highlight a few key decisions. The first objective was to 
ensure that forces remain viable, and manned at sufficient levels by 
people of the highest quality. Well-motivated, well-trained, and well-
led soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are the bedrock of national 
security. Strong support for equitable pay and benefits, bachelor and 
family housing, and other quality of life measures are key elements in 
attracting and retaining high-quality people. Perhaps more importantly, 
this bill expresses the commitment of the Senate to our
 men and women in uniform and attempts to uphold our part of the 
implied contract.

  Our second objective was to ensure the military effectiveness and 
combat readiness of the Armed Forces. We believe the funding levels we 
have recommended will be barely adequate to take care of current 
readiness if the Department of Defense manages resources wisely and 
carefully.
  The quality of overall readiness essentially depends on adequate 
funding for both current and future readiness. Although this funding 
allocation is often described in shorthand as a balance, I would 
suggest it is a fundamental obligation of the Federal Government to 
provide adequate resources for both current and future readiness. 
However, the mix is important because a disproportionate allocation of 
scarce resources to operation and maintenance accounts would limit 
funds for the research, development, and procurement essential to 
modernization. We sought to achieve a reasonable balance. We also 
addressed multiyear procurement to avoid creating bow waves of funding 
requirements in subsequent years.
  Department of Defense decisions to cancel or delay modernization 
programs create unrealistic modernization requirements for the future. 
The committee has addressed critical modernization needs by adding $5.3 
billion in procurement and $1.7 billion in research and development 
accounts to offset some of these problems. We believe the Department of 
Defense must continue to fund procurement, and research and 
development, at similar inflation-adjusted levels in future budget 
requests.
  Congress must also continue to provide sufficient funds for research 
and development to ensure the military's technological superiority in 
the future. If we do not, future readiness will be jeopardized. Unless 
the research and development, and procurement accounts are adequately 
funded from year to year, the services will not have the right weapons, 
in sufficient quantity, to be able to fight and win in the next decade. 
We must remember that the force we sent to war in Desert Storm was 
conceived in the 1970's and built in the 1980's. We must focus on the 
future.
  Third, we addressed the proliferation of missile technology and 
weapons of mass destruction. We cannot stand by, idly watching, as an 
increasing number of foreign states develop and acquire long-range 
ballistic and cruise missiles. Many people do not realize that we 
currently have no defense whatsoever against any missile launched 
against the United States. None. Such missiles are capable of carrying 
nuclear, biological, and chemical payloads to any point in our country. 
We, in the Congress, will richly deserve the harsh judgment of our 
citizens if we fail to prepare for this clear eventuality.
  It is our grave responsibility to ensure we develop the capability to 
defend both our deployed forces and our homeland. The committee 
provided direction and funds for both these requirements in the Missile 
Defense Act of 1995. This title of the bill initiates a new program for 
defense against cruise missiles, while funding robust theater missile 
defenses. It also mandates a national missile defense program which 
will lead to the limited defense of the United States by the year 2003. 
I remind my colleagues that the largest single loss of life in the 
Persian Gulf war was from one, crude, Iraqi Scud missile that was not 
even targeted for the building it struck. It is entirely reasonable to 
spend less than 1\1/2\ percent of the defense budget to meet this 
serious security threat.
  The bill's ballistic missile defense provisions also address the 
administration's attempts to limit theater missile defenses by an 
inaccurate interpretation of the ABM Treaty. That treaty was intended 
to limit only defenses against strategic ballistic missiles, not 
theater defenses. Unless this distinction is enforced, we will end up 
building less-than-optimally capable systems which may not be effective 
against the highly capable missile threats emerging in the world's most 
troubled regions.
  Fourth, the committee was deeply concerned about maintaining the 
viability of the Nation's offensive strategic forces. According to the 
Nuclear Posture Review, the United States will continue to depend on 
its nuclear forces for deterrence into the foreseeable future. Safe, 
reliable, and effective nuclear weapons are at the core of deterrence. 
In this bill the committee directs the Department of Energy to meet its 
primary responsibility of maintaining the Nation's nuclear capability. 
This means the Energy Department must focus on a stockpile management 
program geared to the near-term refabrication and certification 
requirements outlined in the NPR. If DOE cannot or will not shoulder 
this responsibility, then another agency must be assigned the task. 
Unless steps are taken now to maintain a nuclear weapons manufacturing 
infrastructure and a safe, reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, we face 
the very real prospect of not being a first-rate nuclear power in 10 to 
15 years.
  The committee addressed the role of long-range, heavy bombers in 
projecting power. Although I regret the committee's vote not to fund 
the B-2 program, I understand the concerns of Members on both sides 
about the high cost of the program.
  The committee is also concerned that the administration's budget 
request did not include funding for numerous operations which the Armed 
Forces are currently conducting, even though the administration knew 
when it submitted its budget request that these operations would 
continue into fiscal year 1996. We authorized $125 million to pay for 
these ongoing operations in order to avoid the kind of problems with 
curtailed training which emerged last year.
  I caution the administration that one consequence of paying for these 
operations on an unprogrammed, ad hoc basis is ultimately to deny the 
funds necessary for readiness. Last year, the practice of paying for 
peacekeeping and other contingency operations without budgetary or 
supplemental funding was directly responsible for lower readiness 
ratings and curtailed training in some units. Unless the Department of 
Defense includes the funds for such operations in the budget request, 
it will be difficult if not impossible for Congress to assess the 
impact these operations will have on other accounts. The oversight 
responsibilities of Congress are hindered, if not usurped, when the 
Department does not budget for known requirements.
  While I remain confident that this is a good defense bill under the 
present circumstances, I remain troubled. The defense budget trend over 
the past 10 years has been in constant decline, principally in response 
to budget pressures. The administration's request for procurement this 
year is at the lowest level since 1950, declining more than 71 percent 
in real terms since 1985. The defense budget is at its lowest level as 
a percentage of gross domestic product since 1940, just before a 
grossly unprepared United States entered World War II. Each successive 
budget since 1993 has continued to push
 recapitalization farther into the future. As a result, the Services 
have been forced to delay the fielding of critical modern systems while 
maintaining aging equipment at ever-increasing operating and 
maintenance costs.

  The prospects of not having adequate defense funds in the coming 
years 

[[Page S11129]]
should alarm us all. Despite the recommended fiscal year 1996 funding 
increase of $7.1 billion above the administration request, proposed 
future year budgets do not adequately fund the administration's Bottom-
Up Review Force, which is itself barely adequate. These funding levels 
cannot meet known modernization needs and they do not even cover 
inflation. Shortfalls of the magnitude projected by the GAO and others 
will seriously impair the ability of the Department of Defense to field 
the combat-ready, modern forces essential to our national security. The 
limited progress reflected in this bill cannot be maintained unless 
future funding is increased.
  As the Senate takes up this defense bill, some Members will no doubt 
argue that my concerns about steadily declining defense spending and 
emerging threats are misplaced. They will point out that the cold war 
is over and provide long lists of other programs that could absorb the 
money. Such criticisms always surface after a major victory, and just 
before the emergence of the next major threat. They are always shown in 
the long run to have been naive and shortsighted. They consistently 
fail to realize the usefulness of effective military power in shaping 
future events in ways that are favorable to us. They fail to recognize 
the instability and uncertainty of the times, and they fail to consider 
the future.
  We cannot predict what challenges and dangers we will face in the 
future. We do not know with any certainty who will be our next peer 
competitor. I assure you, however, that a peer competitor will emerge 
and if such competitor believes there is an advantage because our 
military has been weakened, he will become bold and our challenge will 
be more significant. I encourage every Senator to keep this in mind as 
we debate this bill over the next few days.
  I thank the Chair, and yield the floor.
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, as we begin debate on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996, I first want to congratulate 
Senator Thurmond and his staff on reporting together the first defense 
authorization bill that has been reported with Senator Thurmond as 
committee chairman. Although he has been a stalwart for many years on 
the committee and has helped prepare the bills in the past, this is his 
first bill as the official chairman of the committee.
  The major themes of this bill reflect Senator Thurmond's longstanding 
and strong and effective support for our national security. It has been 
my great privilege and honor to have worked with Senator Thurmond in 
the Senate and on the Armed Services Committee for all of my 22 years, 
and for at least maybe slightly more than half of his time here in the 
U.S. Senate. His career--and his decorated service in World War II and 
unwavering support for strong national defense, and his devotion to the 
men and women of the Armed Forces--has served as a model and an 
inspiration to me, and to, I believe, his fellow members of the Armed 
Services Committee and the Senate.
  The 18 to 3 vote in favor of the bill in the Armed Services Committee 
reflects the fact that the bill continues many bipartisan efforts 
initiated by our committee in recent years, such as improvements in 
military pay and benefits, modernization of weapons systems, and 
protecting, as Senator Thurmond laid out, military readiness and 
personnel quality. This bipartisan support also reflects the actions 
taken by the committee to address concerns raised by Secretary of 
Defense Bill Perry about a number of the provisions in the House bill. 
In contrast to the action taken by the House, for example, our bill 
provides full funding for the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction 
Program,
 the program that is aimed at trying to prevent proliferation of 
nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons all over the globe. It also 
avoids micromanaging the Office of Secretary of Defense, as was done in 
the House bill, and we do not have unworkable restrictions on military 
operations as the Secretary of Defense specified very clearly he feared 
was being done in the House bill.
  The bill before us provides $264.7 billion in budget authority, the 
amount specified in the budget resolution. This amount, which is $7 
billion above the budget request, will enable us to fund the types of 
initiatives that have received bipartisan support in the past. This 
includes personnel programs such as the 2.4-percent pay raise for 
members of the Armed Forces and modernization programs from fighter 
aircraft such as the F-22 to unglamorous but essential items such as 
Army trucks. Most of the programs authorized by the committee reflect 
the administration's priorities as set forth in the current year budget 
request or in the future years defense program which covers the next 5 
years. Dr. Perry, in his discussions with the committee, urged us to 
focus any additions to the budget on acquisition programs that are in 
DOD's future years defense program. The bill before us largely follows 
this recommendation.
  And I believe as various Members may come to the floor and say that 
we do not now need this program or that program which is funded with 
the additional money that has been put in this bill that was provided 
in the budget resolution, I think it is very important for Members to 
keep in mind that these programs--most of them, not every, but most of 
them--that have been added are in the 5-year defense plan that 
Secretary Perry favors. And I think that is important for people to 
keep that in mind. That was the request that Dr. Perry made of this 
committee, and I think we have largely honored that request.
  Madam President, this bill contains important legislative initiatives 
such as the authority to use innovative programs to finance military 
housing and housing for unaccompanied troops. This was a strong request 
and initiative by Dr. Perry and the Defense Department.
  In addition, we establish a defense modernization account, which I 
sponsored and our committee supported, which for the first time that I 
have any knowledge about will provide incentives for savings in defense 
programs for use of those savings to modernize the equipment for our 
men and women in uniform.
  In other words, Madam President, if the Army, Navy, Air Force, and 
Marine Corps can find savings, we will let them put those savings in a 
carefully monitored account that will have to be, of course, monitored 
by the Congress and will have to follow our normal procedures. But 
those savings will be able to be used for the most critical 
deficiencies we face in modernization. And modernization in the 
outyears, the years ahead, is the biggest challenge we face.
  I think everyone would acknowledge that we are, even with the 
increases in this budget, underfunding the outyear modernization. When 
our equipment starts to wear out, which much of it will toward the end 
of this century, we are not going to have sufficient funding even with 
the increases in this bill to cover that.
  So what we want to do in this defense modernization account--I know 
some Members will have some suggestions and concerns which we will 
certainly listen carefully to--but this account will be controlled by 
the Congress. It will be subject to the normal reprogramming and 
authorization and appropriation procedures which we have now.
  There is a limit on how much can be accumulated. But for the first 
time we will be saying to each of the services, ``You will now have an 
incentive. If you figure out how to save money, it can go into an 
account. We are not going to grab that money and take it away from you 
as your punishment for saving it. We are going to let you spend it 
subject to the congressional oversight as outlined on the critical 
programs you need in the future.''
  I believe this kind of initiative has real potential and promise in 
terms of giving people throughout the military services a real 
incentive to try to save money. We all know the horror stories of what 
we have heard for years, not just in the military but in all areas of 
Government where, when you get down toward the last couple of months of 
the fiscal year, there is money that has not been spent, and the people 
involved in those decisions decide that if the money is not spent, not 
only will it lapse but also they will have the budget cut the next 
year. 

[[Page S11130]]

  So there is almost a perverse incentive throughout Government now to 
take whatever is not spent and spend it so that you do not have your 
budget cut the next year. We want to reverse that psychology. This is 
at least a beginning along that line.
  My outline of the bill's highlights should not, however, be viewed as 
representing unqualified support for all the provisions of this bill. 
The numerous rollcall votes during our committee markup reflect the 
serious concerns of many Members about inadequate funding of important 
programs as well as questions about some of the priorities reflected in 
this bill.
  There is much in this bill that I support, and I do support the 
overall bill. But I do have serious reservations about those aspects of 
the bill that appear to head back without very much thought given to 
the period of the cold war.
  For example, the proposed new Missile Defense Act of 1995 sets forth 
a commitment to the deployment of missile defenses without regard, 
without any regard for the legal requirements of the Anti-Ballistic 
Missile Treaty which we are a party to and which we signed and which is 
an international obligation of the United States of America, until 
changed or until we withdraw from the treaty under the terms of the 
treaty. That is our obligation. That is a law. That is a treaty. It is 
binding.
  The same provision contains legally binding timetables in our bill 
for deployment of missile defense systems. For example, section 235 
requires a multiple site national defense system to reach the initial 
operational capacity in 2003. These timetables are though exempt from 
adequate testing. I hope we can have a system by then. I hope we can 
have one that really works, and I hope it will be calibrated to meet 
the threat that we may have in those outyears. But since the applicable 
missile testing statutes that were in previous laws are repealed in 
this National Defense Act we have before us, what we have is a 
timetable for actual deployment stated as a part of the law and 
repealing the testing that would be required to determine if the 
systems are ready to deploy or whether they are going to be effective 
when they are deployed.
  I do not think that is a good combination. Finally, there is an 
arbitrary--and possibly unconstitutional--restriction on the obligation 
of funds by the executive branch to enforce the terms of the ABM 
Treaty.
  I invite all of our colleagues to look at those aspects where there 
is a demarcation definition between the theater ballistic missile and 
the national missile defense that is precluded except under certain 
conditions in the ABM Treaty. I have no quarrel with those definitions. 
I think they are sensible definitions, and I think we do have to have a 
demarcation point because clearly theater missile defenses are not 
intended to be covered under the ABM Treaty. They never were covered. 
They should not be covered now.
  The problem is once this definition is set forth, the executive 
branch is barred from doing anything at all regarding the ABM Treaty in 
terms of its own negotiations, and I think that that goes way too far. 
In fact, the wording of the proposal we have before us is so broad that 
any Federal official including Members of Congress would be precluded, 
as that statute now would read, from doing anything contrary to that 
definition. I think that goes too far, and I do not think that is what 
we want. I hope we can work in a cooperative way to iron out some of 
those difficulties, which I believe can be done, while continuing the 
strong goal and endorsement of moving forward with defenses without 
doing so in a way that is counterproductive.
  The Department of Energy portions of the bill contain provisions that 
direct the creation of new capabilities for the remanufacture of 
nuclear weapons.
  Madam President, I have serious questions about whether this is a 
premature judgment at this time. The Department of Energy ``Stockpile 
Stewardship'' plan is only now under review by the Department of 
Defense. I know that Mr. Domenici, the Senator from New Mexico, and 
others have been in discussion with Senator Thurmond and his staff and 
Senator Lott and his staff, Senator Kempthorne, on these energy 
questions, and I hope we can work something out here that makes sense, 
that moves us in the right direction without making premature judgments 
that are not ripe for decision.
  Madam President, these are important issues for discussion and 
debate. There are questions about the potential international 
implications of a number of these provisions. For instance, the Russian 
leadership and their Parliament have stressed repeatedly, both to this 
administration and to various Members of the Senate and House, both 
parties, the importance they attach to continued compliance with the 
ABM Treaty. They have indicated that should they judge the United 
States no longer intends to adhere to that treaty, then they would 
abandon their efforts to ratify the START II Treaty, which is now 
pending in the Russian Duma.
  Further, they warned that they would stop further compliance with 
other existing treaties including the drawdowns mandated by START I. In 
my judgment, there is a real danger that the provisions of the Missile 
Defense Act will be considered by the Russians as what is known as 
``anticipatory breach'' of the ABM Treaty.
  Madam President, if this bill leads to that outcome, it will not 
enhance our national security. It will be adverse to our national 
security. Under START I and START II, the arms control treaties which 
have been entered into by Republican Presidents and adhered to by 
Democratic Presidents, the Russians are obliged under the terms of 
these treaties to remove more than 6,000 ballistic missile warheads 
from atop their arsenal of ICBM's and submarine-launched ballistic 
missiles. This includes the very formidable MIRV'd SS-18 ICBM's, the 
very ones that threaten our land-based Minuteman and MX missiles with 
first-strike possibilities.
  These are not insignificant treaties, Madam President. They basically 
remove much of the first-strike capability that we spent 10, 15 years 
being concerned about and spending hundreds of billions of dollars 
trying to defend against.
  They will also have to remove all of their MIRV'd SS-24 missiles and 
completely refit their ICBM force with single warhead missiles. These 
are goals that were worked on in a bipartisan fashion for several 
decades by both Democrats and Republicans with a lot of the leadership 
coming from Republican Presidents in the White House.
  This removal of 6,000 warheads by treaty is a far more cost effective 
form of missile defense than any ABM system that the SDI Program has 
ever envisioned. I am not one of those who believes we ought to be so 
locked into every provision of the ABM Treaty that we do not believe it 
is a document that has to be improved, that has to be amended. I think 
it does. I do not think it is completely up to date. I think we need to 
take another look at it. I think we need to review it. I think there 
are changes that can be made and should be made in accordance with the 
provisions of the treaty.
  Yet, this bill, if enacted, would create a very high risk of throwing 
away both the START II reductions which have not yet taken place, and 
the START I reductions which are taking place now. Because this bill, 
No. 1, acts as if the ABM Treaty does not exist; it does not even 
really acknowledge that there are any concerns. No. 2, it ignores the 
opportunity to negotiate sensible amendments with the Russians. And I 
think it is premature to believe that that effort cannot succeed. I do 
not think we have even started real serious efforts, and I think that 
those efforts at least have a strong possibility of success. And No. 3, 
this bill does not acknowledge that we can get out of that treaty. We 
can exit the treaty under its own terms if our national security is 
threatened.
  If we are going to get out from under the ABM Treaty, if we are going 
to basically decide it no longer is in our national security interests, 
then we ought to get out of the treaty the way the treaty itself 
provides, which is our obligation under international law and our 
obligation under the treaty itself. We can serve 6 months' notice and 
exit the treaty if the Russians are not willing to make changes which 
we believe are necessary for our national security. That is the way to 
get out of the treaty. We should not get out of the treaty 

[[Page S11131]]
by anticipatory breach with provisions of the law that we have not 
carefully thought through.
  Indeed, Madam President, in this respect the actions proposed in the 
bill could be self-fulfilling. They could provoke Russia to stop its 
adherence to the START Treaties which would leave a huge arsenal of 
Russian missiles in place and we would then have to move from a thin 
missile defense to protect against accidental launch or to protect some 
kind of small nation, radical nation, or terrorist group launch, we 
would then have to start worrying about the SS-18's again.
  Now, do we really want to do that? Do we want a self-fulfilling 
circle? We take action without regard to the ABM Treaty in this bill. 
The Russians react by not basically going through with START II. Then 
they decide they are not going to comply with START I. Then they decide 
they are not going to comply with the conventional forces reduction in 
Europe causing all sorts of problems there.
  Then, of course, we have to increase our defense. We have to go from 
the kind of system that President Bush wanted, which is an accidental 
launch type thin system that does not cost hundreds of billions of 
dollars, is achievable, that we can do. We could go to a much different 
kind of system. We are back in a spiral of action and reaction between 
the United States and Russia. I do not think we really want to go back 
into that atmosphere. That is one of the accomplishments we have had in 
the last 10 years. I do not think that is what the authors of these 
provisions in the bill really intend. But I think it has got to be 
thought about because those are the implications of where this bill 
will head.
  Madam President, this leads me to pose several questions. Are we as a 
nation better off if the START I and START II treaties are abandoned 
than if they remain in force? If somebody thinks we ought to abandon 
them and we are better off without them, why do we not say so? Why do 
we not say so? We have got to stop legislating as if there are no 
consequences to what we legislate. Other people in the world react. I 
think that is the way we have legislated too many times on foreign 
policy. I see it increasingly taking place. We act as if we can take 
part of a cake, legislate, forget the consequences, and not even own up 
to what is likely to happen based on what we ourselves are doing.
  The second question. Are we and our NATO allies better off if the 
Russians decline to be bound by the limits on deployments of 
conventional forces contained in the Conventional Forces in Europe 
Treaty? We have already drawn down our forces to 100,000. The allies 
are reducing significantly, in many cases more than we are. We are 
drawing down based on the CFE Treaty and based on the Russians' 
behavior because they have indeed dramatically reduced their forces. Do 
we really want to reverse that?
  Of course, someone can say, well, the Russians cannot afford it now. 
They are not going to be able to build up. That is probably true. I 
think for the next 5 to 6 to 7 years, they will not be able to afford a 
conventional buildup. What they can do is start relying on their early 
use of nuclear weapons very quickly, like tomorrow morning. If they are 
going to decide they are going to give their battlefield commanders 
tactical nuclear weapons again, we are going to go right back to a hair 
trigger situation. That is what they can do. That is cheap. That is the 
cheap way. I do not think that is what we want. I do not think that is 
what the Russian leadership wants at this stage. But are we thinking 
about what we are doing?
  Next question. What will be the effect on Russian cooperation with us 
in forums such as the U.N. Security Council if arms control agreements 
are abandoned, even if it is an inadvertent abandonment on our part?
  Fourth question. What is the ballistic missile threat to U.S. 
territory that requires us to abandon compliance with the ABM Treaty 
and to abandon the pursuit of possible amendments to that treaty even 
when there is nothing whatsoever in that treaty that prevents us from 
taking every step we would otherwise take in the next fiscal year? Why 
are we doing this at this point in time? I think that is the question. 
If we were at a point where we had to make a decision, then I could 
understand some of the pressure in this regard. But there is nothing, 
according to all the testimony, there is nothing whatsoever in the ABM 
Treaty, even as now interpreted, that prevents us from taking every 
step we need to take in the next fiscal year. So why are we doing this? 
I do not have an answer to that.
  Finally, what is the nature of the theater missile threat? And that 
is what I believe everyone would acknowledge is the greatest priority, 
the greatest threat we have now. It is not a future threat. It is a 
present threat, theater ballistic missiles. We already face those. As 
Senator Thurmond outlined in his opening statement, we faced those in 
the Persian Gulf war.
  What is the change that has taken place? That basically would have 
us, as we are doing in this bill, have the money for developing and 
deploying no less than four overlapping-coverage missile defense 
systems to protect the rear area of the theater while leaving our U.S. 
forward-deployed ground troops totally unprotected from attack by 
existing enemy short-range missiles.
  Madam President, I will have an amendment later in this process that 
will add back in the only program we have to protect our frontline 
troops from short-range missiles. Those are the threats we face right 
now. We have a program called Corps SAM that is aimed at making those 
systems that can protect frontline troops. That system has been totally 
zeroed out in this bill; $35 million has been taken out. I assume that 
was part of the money that went into the beef-up of $300 million for 
national missile defense. I think that is a reverse priority. We ought 
the deal with the most imminent threats first. The most imminent threat 
we face now is the theater ballistic missile threat, particularly the 
frontline effect on our troops from short-range missiles. So I will 
have an amendment that I hope we can get some attention to in adding 
back that program at a later point in this debate.
  Madam President, I have a number of other concerns about the bill. 
First, our ability to monitor and control treaty-mandated strategic 
weapons reductions could be affected by the failure of the bill to 
fully fund the Department of Energy's arms control and nonproliferation 
activities. I am not certain whether that provision is part of the 
negotiation that is ongoing now with the Senator from New Mexico, 
Senator Domenici, and Senator Bingaman who has taken a great lead in 
this, but I am sure that will be the subject of some debate here on the 
floor.
  The other provisions, I think there are questionable priorities, as 
mentioned for the missile defense programs. While the bill provides an 
additional $300 million in funding for the national defense program and 
$470 million for other missile defense programs which were not 
requested by the administration, the Corps SAM missile defense system, 
which is strongly supported by the war-fighting commanders. That 
program is terminating. We will have a letter from our war-fighting 
commanders showing that is one of their top priorities. It makes no 
sense to provide vast increases for long-range speculative programs 
that will require billions in expenditure before their validity can be 
assessed while denying funds for specific theater missile defense 
initiatives designed to protect our frontline troops which we have the 
possibility of securing in the very short-range distant future--in the 
very next few years.
  Madam President, also, I am concerned that the bill fails to fund 
certain ongoing Department of Defense programs on the theory that the 
programs should be funded by other agencies, even though neither the 
budget resolution nor the committee bill makes any provision for any 
other agency to assume DOD's responsibilities. These include programs 
that have received bipartisan support for many years, such as 
humanitarian assistance, which was initiated by our former colleague, 
Republican Senator Gordon Humphrey; foreign disaster relief, which was 
initiated by another former colleague, Republican Senator Jeremiah 
Denton; and the civil-military cooperative action program, which was 
developed on a completely bipartisan basis by the Armed Services 
Committee. 

[[Page S11132]]

  Madam President, there are many good features in this bill, but there 
are a number of key areas where this bill can be improved during the 
consideration by the Senate. I look forward to working with Senator 
Thurmond, the other members of the committee, and the Senate in a 
cooperative fashion to move this bill along so we can complete our work 
in a timely fashion, and so that we can come out with a solid bill that 
will move our national security in the right direction.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina, the President 
pro tempore.
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I wish to thank the able ranking 
member for his kind remarks and also thank him for his fine cooperation 
in getting this bill to the floor.
  Madam President, I will now ask that the able Senator from Oklahoma 
[Mr. Inhofe] be recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I do have an opening statement.
  Madam President, before presenting my opening statement, I would like 
to yield momentarily to Senator Kyl for the purpose of proposing an 
amendment.
  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?


                           Amendment No. 2077

  (Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate on protecting the United 
                 States from ballistic missile attack)

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for himself and Mr. 
     Inhofe, proposes an amendment numbered 2077.

  Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as 
read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 371, below line 21, add the following:

     SEC. 1062. SENSE OF SENATE ON PROTECTION OF UNITED STATES 
                   FROM BALLISTIC MISSILE ATTACK.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and 
     ballistic missiles presents a threat to the entire World.
       (2) This threat was recognized by Secretary of Defense 
     William J. Perry in February 1995 in the Annual Report to the 
     President and the Congress which states that ``[b]eyond the 
     five declared nuclear weapons states, at least 20 other 
     nations have acquired or are attempting to acquire weapons of 
     mass destruction--nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons--
     and the means to deliver them. In fact, in most areas where 
     United States forces could potentially be engaged on a large 
     scale, many of the most likely adversaries already possess 
     chemical and biological weapons. Moreover, some of these same 
     states appear determined to acquire nuclear weapons.''.
       (3) At a summit in Moscow in May 1995, President Clinton 
     and President Yeltsin commented on this threat in a Joint 
     Statement which recognizes ``.  .  . the threat posed by 
     worldwide proliferation of missiles and missile technology 
     and the necessity of counteracting this threat .  .  . ''.
       (4) At least 25 countries may be developing weapons of mass 
     destruction and the delivery systems for such weapons.
       (5) At least 24 countries have chemical weapons programs in 
     various stages of research and development.
       (6) Approximately 10 countries are believed to have 
     biological weapons programs in various stages of development.
       (7) At least 10 countries are reportedly interested in the 
     development of nuclear weapons.
       (8) Several countries recognize that weapons of mass 
     destruction and missiles increase their ability to deter, 
     coerce, or otherwise threaten the United States. Saddam 
     Hussein recognized this when he stated, on May 8, 1990, that 
     ``[o]ur missiles cannot reach Washington. If they could reach 
     Washington, we would strike it if the need arose.''.
       (9) International regimes like the Non-Pro-liferation 
     Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Missile 
     Technology Control Regime, while effective, cannot by 
     themselves halt the spread of weapons and technology. On 
     January 10, 1995, Director of Central Intelligence, James 
     Woolsey, said with regard to Russia that ``.  .  . we are 
     particularly concerned with the safety of nuclear, chemical, 
     and biological materials as well as highly enriched uranium 
     or plutonium, although I want to stress that this is global 
     problem. For example, highly enriched uranium was recently 
     stolen from South Africa, and last month Czech authorities 
     recovered three kilograms of 87.8 percent-enriched HEU in the 
     Czech Republic--the largest seizure of near-weapons grade 
     material to date outside the Former Soviet Union.''.
       (10) The possession of weapons of mass destruction and 
     missiles by developing countries threatens our friends, 
     allies, and forces abroad and will ultimately threaten the 
     United States directly. On August 11, 1994, Deputy Secretary 
     of Defense John Deutch said that ``[i]f the North Koreans 
     field the Taepo Dong 2 missile, Guam, Alaska, and parts of 
     Hawaii would potentially be at risk.''.
       (11) The end of Cold War has changed the strategic 
     environmental facing and between the United States and 
     Russia. That the Clinton Administration believes the 
     environment to have changed was made clear by Secretary of 
     Defense William J. Perry on September 20, 1994, when he 
     stated that ``[w]e now have the opportunity to create a new 
     relationship, based not on MAD, not on Mutual Assured 
     Destruction, but rather on another acronym, MAS, or Mutural 
     Assured Safety.''.
       (12) The United States and Russia have the opportunity to 
     create a relationship based on trust rather than fear.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     all Americans should be protected from accidental, 
     intentional, or limited ballstic missile attack.

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I just wanted to propose this amendment 
now, since the Senator from Oklahoma, the coauthor of this amendment, 
is making his opening statement now because perhaps some of the remarks 
he will make in his opening statement will also reflect on the 
amendment, which we want to be considered next.
  So I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Arizona.
  Madam President, I am pleased today to speak on behalf of the Fiscal 
Year 1996 Defense Department Authorization Act. I urge my colleagues to 
preserve it in its somewhat inadequate but present form.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  Mr. INHOFE. Since the 1991----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. INHOFE. I would be glad to yield after the statement.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the 
Senator's statement, I be permitted to make an inquiry of the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I made a unanimous-consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.
  Does he yield for that request?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, the Senator from Oklahoma indicated he 
had a statement. I merely ask unanimous consent that I be recognized 
for the purposes of that inquiry at the conclusion of the remarks of 
the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I would like to ask the Senator to repeat his unanimous-
consent request, please.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the 
Senator's remarks, I be recognized for the purposes of making an 
inquiry of the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield for that request?
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank you.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. INHOFE. I do not yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am advised by the Parliamentarian that the 
Senator from Oklahoma has the floor. If he does not yield, there is no 
ability to request a parliamentary inquiry.
  Does the Senator from Oklahoma yield the floor?
  Mr. INHOFE. I do not yield until the conclusion of my opening 
statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, does the Senator object to my 
unanimous-consent request? I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of his remarks I be recognized for purposes of making a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor. If he 


[[Page S11133]]
yields for a unanimous-consent request, it is his prerogative to do so. 
Does the Senator from Oklahoma yield the floor?
  Mr. INHOFE. Not at this time, Madam President.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from----
  Mr. FEINGOLD. The Senator indicated he would not object to my simply 
taking the floor to make a unanimous-consent request of the type I 
indicated. That is all I am asking at this time.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me continue my opening statement 
from the top again.
  I am pleased to speak on behalf of this fiscal 1996 defense 
authorization bill. Although I believe it is still inadequate, I think 
it is as good as we could pass at this time.
  Since the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the military has been cut, misused, 
neglected, and otherwise distracted from its ultimate purposes--
protecting and preserving America's vital interests. This bill, with 
its House counterpart, represents a first step towards strengthening 
America's Armed Forces.
  One of the most important messages which voters delivered in 1994 was 
the need to restore the strength of America's defenses. With this bill, 
the Senate has clearly had enough of the Clinton administration's weak 
hand in the national security arena. We have added $7 billion to the 
administration's request.
  It has become fashionable in some circles to assert that now that the 
cold war is over, there is no longer a threat out there. But history 
has told us that most wars come with little or no warning. From the 
attack on Pearl Harbor to the invasion of Korea to the invasion of 
Kuwait, few could have predicted the size and scope of American 
military involvement which became necessary in the wake of these 
unexpected events. The lesson learned the hard way in Pearl Harbor 
remains true today: We must always be prepared.
  President Reagan reminded us many times that we, as Americans, never 
have the luxury of taking our security for granted. It is up to each 
generation to take the steps necessary to preserve and pass on the 
legacy of freedom to the next. With this bill, we are beginning to take 
up that challenge.
  As we look to the future, all we can predict with certainty is that 
there will be more surprises. What there will be we cannot be sure, but 
we can make some educated guesses. For instance, the gulf war taught us 
the growing importance of stealth, of space, and of ballistic missiles. 
As we look to the future, it is clear that technology will be playing a 
key role, both in shaping the threats we will be facing and the 
defenses that we will need.
  Madam President, it was not long ago that the former CIA Director 
Woolsey estimated that there are somewhere between 20 and 25 nations 
that currently have or are developing weapons of mass destruction, 
either nuclear, chemical, or biological, and they are also developing 
the means with which to deliver those.
  Today, we are going to have an amendment, the Kyl-Inhofe amendment, 
which will be addressing that, so I will not elaborate on that at this 
time but will seek time during the consideration of that amendment.
  This is a good bill, but I must express my deep concern with the 
Senate's failure to support further funding of the B-2 bomber. The 
House, in its bill, had $553 million. America is reducing her military 
presence around the world. Budget constraints and the end of the cold 
war are naturally causing us to pull back our forward deployed forces 
overseas. But as a world leader, our continuing ability to project 
power around the world will be critical. Unfortunately, our ability to 
immediately respond in a crisis is going to be diminished unless we are 
able to use our technological advantages wisely.
  This is why the revolutionary B-2 Stealth bomber is so important for 
our future arsenal. From bases within our own country, these aircraft 
can quickly deliver devastating payloads to virtually any target on 
Earth without refueling. They can penetrate the toughest air defenses 
with minimal risk to our pilots.
  The B-2 multiplies mission cost-effectiveness. Today, the standard 
bombing run package using escorts, air defense suppression aircraft, 
refueling tankers, and bombers requires up to 67 aircraft and 132 crew 
members. The same mission can be completed with only two B-2's and four 
crew members.
  Many Americans have been persuaded that sophisticated weaponry, such 
as the B-2, are relics of the cold war. They have been told that we can 
easily discard such systems without diminishing our security in the 
current world environment. They have been told that there are more 
important and immediate priorities. It is an easy argument to sell, but 
I do not buy it, and I plan to make my support for more B-2's clear as 
the deliberations go on.
  For 8 years, Ronald Reagan gave us a policy of ``peace through 
strength,'' a policy which invested wisely in defense needs with a 
special emphasis on America's inherent leadership in advanced 
technology. I believe proven success of that policy should continue to 
guide our defense posture. This is why, despite my reservations 
regarding the B-2, I support this bill. It will help save lives and 
protect our vital interests in the future.
  I congratulate Chairman Thurmond and Senator Nunn for the solid 
effort, united effort they put forth. I urge my colleagues to support 
it. I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I would like to begin by complimenting both 
the chairman, Senator Thurmond, and Senator Nunn, for their work, and 
all the members of the Armed Services Committee for presenting a very 
good bill to the Senate this year. I do not have the honor of serving 
on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I did serve on the House Armed 
Services Committee for 8 years. Frankly, I am very pleased with the 
product that has come out of the committee this year.
  I, second, want to associate myself with the remarks the Senator from 
Oklahoma just made. I believe they help to set the stage for a good 
debate on what we need to do to provide for the defense of the United 
States.
  Third, Madam President, I want to begin a discussion of the amendment 
which Senator Inhofe and I have laid down and which I think deals with 
one of the key parts of the bill that has been presented this year. It 
is the issue of missile proliferation, and the question of what the 
United States ought to do about it.
  Given the fact that there is some difference of opinion about exactly 
what the nature of the threat is and when we ought to begin to deal 
with that threat, it seemed to Senator Inhofe and me that we should add 
something to the bill in the way of findings and a sense of the Senate 
which expresses our belief that the American people should be defended 
from ballistic missile attack.
  There are very fine findings currently in the bill. We all agree that 
those findings are a proper predicate for what follows in the bill. But 
we also believe that there are some other things that should be added 
as findings and that the Senate should go on record expressing its 
sense that Americans should be protected from either accidental, 
intentional, or limited ballistic missile attack.
  Madam President, let me read the portions of the findings of the 
amendment which we believe help to lay the predicate for further action 
the Senate will be taking with respect to the protection of American 
people from ballistic missile attack.
 We say, first of all, that the Senate finds the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles present a threat to 
the entire world.

  This threat was recognized by Secretary of Defense William J. Perry 
in February of this year in the annual report to the President and the 
Congress, which states:

       Beyond the five declared nuclear weapon states, at least 20 
     other nations have acquired, or are attempting to acquire, 
     weapons of mass destruction--nuclear, biological, or chemical 
     weapons, and the means to deliver them. In fact, in most 
     areas where the United States forces could potentially be 
     engaged on a large scale, many of the most likely adversaries 
     already possess chemical and biological weapons. Moreover, 
     some of these same states appear determined to acquire 
     nuclear weapons.

  We think this is an important finding because of this question that 
has been posed: Why should we be preparing some of the things that we 
are preparing now? Why should we be testing and 

[[Page S11134]]
developing capable theater missile defenses and beginning to plan for 
the day when we would develop and eventually deploy a national missile 
defense system? It is because of the concern that has been expressed in 
this year's report to the President and Congress by the Secretary of 
Defense, among others.
  Also, recently, in May of this year, at the summit in Moscow, 
President Clinton and President Yeltsin commented on this threat in a 
joint statement which recognizes:

     . . . The threat posed by worldwide proliferation of missiles 
     and missile technology and the necessity of counteracting 
     this threat.

  At least 25 countries may be developing weapons of mass destruction 
and the delivery systems for such weapons. We further find that at 
least 24 countries have chemical weapons programs in various stages of 
research and development. Approximately 10 countries are believed to 
have biological weapons programs in various stages of development. And, 
finally, at least 10 countries are reportedly interested in the 
development of nuclear weapons.
  Several countries recognize that weapons of mass destruction and 
missiles increase their ability to deter, coerce or threaten the United 
States Saddam Hussein recognized this when he stated on May 8, 1990:

       Our missiles cannot reach Washington. If they could reach 
     Washington, we would strike it if the need arose.

  Madam President, we further find in the preliminary findings to the 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution that international regimes like the 
nonproliferation treaty, biological weapons convention and the missile 
technology control regime, while effective, cannot by themselves halt 
the spread of weapons and technology.
  On January 10, 1995, Director of the CIA, James Woolsey, said, with 
regard to Russia:

       We are particularly concerned with the safety of nuclear, 
     chemical and biological weapons, as well as highly enriched 
     uranium or plutonium, although I want to stress this is a 
     global problem. For example, highly enriched uranium was 
     recently stolen from South Africa, and last month Czech 
     authorities recovered 3 kilograms of 87.8 percent-enriched 
     uranium in the Czech Republic--the larger seizure of near-
     weapons-grade material to date outside the former Soviet 
     Union.

  That is former CIA Director James Woolsey.
  We further find in this resolution that the possession of weapons of 
mass destruction and missiles by developing countries threatens our 
friends, allies, and forces abroad, and will ultimately threaten the 
United States directly. On August 11, 1994, Deputy Secretary of 
Defense, John Deutch, now Director of the CIA said:

       If the North Koreans field the Taepo Dong 2 missile, Guam, 
     Alaska, and parts of Hawaii would potentially be at risk.

  (Mr. THOMPSON assumed the chair.)
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, these are not hypotheticals for other 
countries, other places in the world. This is the United States and our 
territory. The former Deputy Secretary of Defense says that they would 
potentially be at risk.
  We further find, in finding 11, that the end of the cold war has 
changed the strategic environment facing and between the United States 
and Russia. That the Clinton administration believes the environment to 
have changed was made clear by Secretary of Defense William Perry on 
September 20, 1994, when he stated:

       We now have the opportunity to create a new relationship, 
     based not on MAD, not on Mutual Assured Destruction, but 
     rather on another acronym, MAS, Mutual Assured Safety.

  The United States and Russia have the opportunity to create a 
relationship based on trust rather than fear.
  That is the final finding in this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. As 
a result of all of these findings, these factors, of these statements 
made by the key representatives of this administration, it is the sense 
of the Senate that all Americans should be protected from accidental, 
intentional, or limited ballistic missile attack.
  Let me focus a moment on that simple one-sentence statement of what 
the sense of the Senate would be. We should be protected from 
accidental launch of ballistic missiles. I cannot think of anyone who 
would disagree with that sentiment. It does not take a star wars or a 
strategic defense initiative to protect against such an attack. We have 
the capability to develop, and ultimately deploy, a system which would 
provide that protection. Inherent within this bill is the beginnings of 
the development and deployment of such a system.
  It is the sense of the Senate that all Americans should be protected 
from intentional ballistic missile attack. Obviously, if there is an 
intentional attack, we want to be protected from that. We mentioned the 
Taepo Dong 2 missile under development by the North Koreans. Should 
they decide to launch an attack against Alaska, for example, who among 
us would argue that we should not be prepared to meet that threat? 
Indeed, the mere threat that such an attack could be launched inhibits 
the conduct of our foreign policy because of the potential of blackmail 
by a country like North Korea.
  To digress a moment to further elaborate on this point, one of the 
reasons that we have such a difficult time dealing with North Korea 
today is that North Korea does pose an offensive threat to millions of 
South Koreans and thousands of American troops against which we have no 
real defense, because of the proximity of Seoul, Korea to the long-
range artillery of North Korea, and because of the deployment of North 
Korean forces. It is very clear that if there were a North Korean 
attack or bombardment from their artillery, literally millions of South 
Koreans and thousands of Americans would be killed before the United 
States had an opportunity to respond. We simply do not have a defense 
against that kind of an attack, unless everybody from Seoul, Korea 
could move back about 30 miles. That is obviously not going to happen.
  Because of the nature of this threat, we are in a position to be 
blackmailed by North Korea. We cannot go in and deal with North Korea 
as we would like to because they do have a means of inflicting great 
harm and damage on us and on the people of South Korea. We literally 
have no way to stop it. The only way to respond to that is by some kind 
of massive military action that would hopefully roll them back. But the 
damage would already be done.
  That is the same thing with respect to missiles. A missile can be 
either used for blackmail in the conduct of one country's foreign 
policy, to push its weight around, or to actually launch against 
another country in a time of war, in order to either create chaos and 
inflict damage on civilian populations, or to be launched against 
military targets. And in order to prohibit that from inhibiting the 
conduct of our foreign policy, we have to have a way of defending 
against it. If you do have a way of defending against it, you can 
essentially say you can build the missiles if you want, deploy them if 
you want, but you cannot be effective in using them, so we are not 
going to be bullied.
  If you do not have an effective missile defense--and as I quoted, we 
do not--then we are susceptible to that negative influence of bullying 
by a country like North Korea. That is why it is important for us to 
have the means of defending ourselves and our allies, whether troops 
are deployed abroad, or whether it is the defense of the American 
homeland--in this case, Alaska--by a threat from the North Koreans.
  Finally, it would be the sense of the Senate that all Americans 
should be protected from limited ballistic missile attack.
  The reason we state it that way, Mr. President, is because we are 
concerned here about a limited attack. We do not believe that there is 
currently existing a threat of massive, strategic attack of 
intercontinental ballistic missiles by a country such as Russia, and 
possibly China, which are the only countries today that could pose that 
kind of threat to the United States. We do not believe that 
circumstances warrant the development of a system that would provide a 
protection against such an attack.
  That is why there is no longer an effort to develop a strategic 
defense, such as was contemplated during the Reagan administration when 
the cold war was a very real threat to the United States, and when the 
Soviet Union then was quite belligerent with the United States, and 
when such a threat actually existed. That is what not we are trying to 
do. 

[[Page S11135]]

  Now, that is why all we are saying here is that it is the sense of 
the Senate that all Americans should be protected from accidental, 
intentional, or limited ballistic missile attack.
  That is the sense-of-the-Senate resolution. Those are the findings. 
Let me finish my presentation with a couple of other quotations that I 
think would not necessarily be properly included within the findings, 
but which I think help to make the case that this is not some 
hypothetical, this is not something that only paranoid people are 
concerned about,
 it is something that at the highest councils in our Government, our 
intelligence, and the Defense Department, there is concern.

  The first reason is because it is not necessarily the development of 
an indigenous capability by a country that is of concern here. We are 
concerned about North Korea developing the missiles that could 
eventually reach the United States. As a matter of fact, the missile 
that could reach the United States is not even shown on this chart here 
which illustrates some of the other missiles that are in development, 
or already developed, and their capabilities.
  The CSS-2, for example, is a Chinese missile that has been sold to 
the Saudi Arabians. It has a range of about 3,000 kilometers. That 
obviously poses a threat to countries in the Middle East, as well as 
some European countries.
  It is not just the indigenous threat, but the possibility of a sale 
of one of these missiles to another country. I mention this missile, 
because this missile was sold by the Chinese to the Saudi Arabians. 
Saudi Arabians are obviously allies of the United States, and we do not 
fear that missile would be launched against us by this regime. We also 
did not fear during the regime of the Shah of Iran that Iran would 
ultimately be unfriendly to the United States. Of course, that is the 
situation that exists today.
  A country that acquires a weapon like this today, if there should be 
some instability or other circumstance that changes its government, 
obviously, it could effectively, and perhaps not in the long-distance 
future, pose a threat to the United States.
  We are first concerned about the indigenous threat, but second, we 
are concerned about a purchase. That is where the time element comes 
in. We can give an estimate of how long it takes a country like North 
Korea to develop a No Dong. It could be another 5 years to develop 
that. But they could sell a country with great capability in a matter 
of days or weeks, and the deployment could be a threat to us in a very 
short period of time.
  A third aspect, in addition to the indigenous development and the 
sale of missiles to be used for military purposes, is, of course, the 
sale of satellite launch capable missiles. This has been done 
throughout the world, as well. There is absolutely nothing to prevent 
the interchange of a satellite to be launched into space for weather 
prediction, for example, and a warhead of mass destruction, a chemical 
or biological warhead, or even a nuclear warhead in such a missile.
  These missiles are proliferating around the world. Even though they 
have a peaceful purpose, they can very quickly be used for military 
purposes, and therefore, for us to base predictions on the fact that an 
adversary of ours will take a long time to indigenously develop a 
weapon, again does not adequately and accurately state the intelligence 
threat to the United States.
  We have to be prepared to accept the fact that nations will buy 
either weapons or buy space launch capable missiles for use as weapons, 
and that can be done in a very short period of time. We only have to 
look at previous examples to know it has been done.
  As a matter of fact, Iraqi Scuds were purchased from another country 
and then modified by the Iraqis.
  It is not just the indigenous development but the purchase of the 
weapons and the purchase of satellite delivery missiles that also 
create part of the problem here.
  Mr. President, let me ask unanimous consent that other material be 
printed in the Record at this point, and allow me to reach a conclusion 
of my statement in support of this amendment for a sense-of-the-Senate 
statement.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            Threat Amendment

       Proliferation is a real concern:
       (A) At their summit in Moscow in May of 1995, President 
     Clinton and President Yeltsin commented on the threat posed 
     by proliferation when they released a Joint Statement 
     recognizing ``. . . the threat posed by worldwide 
     proliferation of missiles and missile technology and the 
     necessity of counteracting this threat. . . .''
       (1) In a March 1995 report, The Weapons Proliferation 
     Threat, the Central Intelligence Agency's Nonproliferation 
     Center observed that at least 20 countries-nearly half of 
     them in the Middle East and South Asia-already have or may be 
     developing weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile 
     delivery systems. Five countries--North Korea, Iran, Iraq, 
     Libya, and Syria--pose the greatest threat because of the 
     aggressive nature of their regimes and status of their 
     weapons of mass destruction programs. All five already have 
     or are developing ballistic missiles that could threaten U.S. 
     interests.
       (2) The missile proliferation threat, even to the U.S. 
     homeland with long-range missiles, is real and growing. Third 
     World nations are advancing their missile programs through 
     indigenous development, the purchase of missile components, 
     and the purchase of space launch vehicles for reportedly 
     peaceful purposes.
       (3) While space launch vehicles can be used for peaceful 
     purposes, such as launching communications satellites, they 
     also give would-be proliferants an inherent missile 
     capability. Every four years another country develops space 
     launch capability.
       (4) The Clinton Administration is overestimating how long 
     it could take for Third World countries to develop nuclear 
     missiles that could hit the American homeland. The Clinton 
     Administration claims that missile attack threats from 
     potentially dangerous Third World nations to the U.S. 
     homeland will not arise for at least ten years. No one can 
     possibly know that--much less depend on such a guess.
       (5) This estimate is based on the assumption that the 
     states acquiring missiles will develop them indigenously. 
     While it is questionable whether it will take ten years for 
     Third World countries to develop missiles on their own, it is 
     clear that proliferants could purchase long-range missiles 
     and nuclear warheads at any time, with little or no advance 
     warning.
       (6) Indeed, Saudi Arabia purchased the 2,000-mile range 
     CSS-2 missile from China several years ago. Others, such as 
     Iran and Syria, have purchased shorter range ballistic 
     missiles from North Korea. There is evidence, including from 
     Russian General Victor Samoilov, who was charged with 
     maintaining control over nuclear weapons, that nuclear 
     warheads have disappeared from former Soviet sites.
       (7) There are also reports that nuclear weapons have been 
     sold abroad covertly, particularly to Iran.
       (8) The key to estimating how long the United States has to 
     respond to a missile threat is not, as is currently the 
     practice, to determine how long it takes a rogue state to 
     produce ICBMs once it has decided to do so. Rather, U.S. 
     planning should be based on how long a rogue state needs to 
     field missiles once the intelligence community has convincing 
     evidence that either their development or purchase is under 
     way.
       (9) The evidence, as reported by the Heritage foundation, 
     thus far is troubling indeed. For example:
       ``(a) Iraq tested a booster with potential intercontinental 
     range in 1990, only months after the U.S. intelligence 
     community discovered what it was doing. After the Gulf War, 
     it was discovered that Iraq had been pursuing an extensive, 
     undetected, and covert program to develop nuclear warheads 
     for its ballistic missiles. By authoritative accounts the 
     Iraqis were within 18 months of having the bomb.
       ``(b) U.S. intelligence in early 1994 discovered that the 
     North Koreans were developing a long range missile dubbed the 
     Taepo Dong 2. Then Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch 
     testified on August 11, 1994, that the Taepo Dong 2 may be 
     able to strike U.S. territory by the end of this decade. If 
     so, this capability will have arisen only five years after 
     its discovery.''
       (10) Once the basics of missile technology are mastered, 
     adding more range to the missile is not a great technical 
     challenge. It can be accomplished by adding more thrust and 
     rocket stages. Further, it can be accomplished under the 
     guise of developing space launchers. Every booster capable of 
     placing satellites in orbit can deliver a warhead of the same 
     weight to intercontinental range. And missile sales can 
     create a new missile threat very quickly.
       (III) Others will argue that if the United States were 
     threatened by a nuclear weapon, it would be in the form of a 
     suitcase bomb, or errant aircraft, or fashioned like the 
     Oklahoma City bombing.
       (A) Each scenario represents a possible method of attack. 
     But, why is that an argument against BMD? We make great 
     strides to cope with these and other kinds of threats. We 
     have anti-aircraft weapons to shoot down hostile aircraft. We 
     suspend commercial flights from potentially dangerous 
     countries. The immigration and customs services monitor 
     people and goods coming to the United States. Law enforcement 
     agencies seek to identify terrorist groups before they act. 
     Our tools may be woefully inadequate, 

[[Page S11136]]
     but we make considerable efforts. Not so in defending the country 
     against ballistic missile attack.
       (IV) Moreover, the ballistic missile is the weapon of 
     choice in the Third World. Ballistic missiles signify 
     technological advancement, and are thus a source of prestige 
     in the developing world. Missiles have become symbols of 
     power, acquiring a mystique unrelated to their capabilities. 
     Regional powers that have acquired these weapons can threaten 
     the security of global powers and extend influence throughout 
     the region.
       (A) Jasit Singh, Director of the Indian Institute for 
     Defense Studies and Analysis, has pointed out that ``the 
     element which is tending to rapidly enhance the strategic 
     value of ballistic missiles . . . is there is yet no credible 
     defense against them.''
       (V) Others may argue that the arms control regimes will 
     protect us from threat from ballistic missiles. Not so.
       (A) The Non-Proliferation Threaty (NPT), provides a useful 
     barrier to discourage the transfer of technology concerning 
     weapons of mass destruction. It is not, however, leak proof, 
     and should not be relied upon as a primary element of 
     American and allied security. The NPT, for example, failed to 
     prevent Iraq or North Korea from developing their nuclear 
     weapons programs.
       (B) The Missile Technology Control regime (MTCR), founded 
     by Ronald Reagan in 1987, again, has admirable goals, but can 
     only slow the transfer of missile technology until more 
     effective measures can be developed. The MTCR is a weak 
     agreement that has no monitoring agency or enforcement 
     mechanism, does not incorporate all the world's missile 
     producers (most notably China), and cannot forbid 
     technologies that have civil uses.
       (C) Former CIA Director James Woolsey said on January 10, 
     1995, that, with regard to Russia, ``. . . we are 
     particularly concerned with the safety of nuclear, chemical, 
     and biological materials, as well as highly enriched uranium 
     or plutonium, although I want to stress that this is a global 
     problem.
       (D) We simply cannot rely on arms control to do the job.
       (VI) The Kyl/Inhofe amendment expresses the Sense of the 
     Senate that Americans should be defended--whether in foreign 
     lands or here at home.
       We can argue about how to do it: but we should not begin 
     this debate without at least agreeing on the basic premise 
     that Americans should be protected. Surely we can all agree 
     with that.
       There is nothing threatening about defenses. Missile 
     defense destroys only offensive missiles.

  Mr. KYL. These missiles are, unfortunately, becoming the weapon of 
choice of bullies in the world. Because they are relatively 
inexpensive, they can be used to great effect for blackmail purposes. 
The Iraqis demonstrated how even an errant launch, as the chairman of 
the committee noted in his eloquent opening statement, can cause great 
damage.
  Mr. President, 20 percent of all United States casualties in the 
Iraqi war were from one Scud missile attack, which killed 28 Americans 
with one missile, because we did not have the capability of defending 
against that.
  A question has been asked here, why now? Why are we so concerned 
about this now? Well, I did not realize until this morning, when radio 
reports carried the story, that it was 5 years ago today that Kuwait 
was invaded by Iraq. I think it is an anniversary worth reflecting on 
for a moment.
  One could easily ask what has changed, knowing that this kind of 
threat can materialize almost overnight; knowing that we need to be 
prepared to deal with it; knowing that 28 Americans at one time died 
from a Scud missile attack--20 percent of all of our casualties came 
from that--knowing of the destruction that the Scuds directed on the 
State of Israel; and knowing of our great concern about that, because 
we could not locate the missile.
  The only way we had to deal with it was to try to shoot it down, and 
finally, knowing after the fact that our Patriot missiles, designed to 
shoot down aircraft, not missiles, though pressed into action for that 
purpose, were really only effective to interdict about 30 percent of 
the Scuds that came their way.
  Knowing all of these things, one would imagine that 5 years later, we 
would have made great strides to protect ourselves against the threats 
that are posed. The fact of the matter is that virtually nothing has 
changed. Other than a slightly upgraded investigation of the Patriot 
missile, we do not have a missile defense. This is 5 years later, a 
period of time in which we should have been able to develop and deploy 
an effective missile defense against a weapon like the Scud. We have 
not done so.
  Just taking the theater context and forgetting for a moment the 
potential threat to the United States, it is clear that we have not 
adequately pursued a defense against this weapon of choice by the 
troublemaker nations of the world.
  We have not developed and deployed a new sensor. We have not 
developed and deployed a new missile. We have made some strides in the 
research, but part of the reason we have not done this is because there 
has been no clear national mandate, no clear national instruction, to 
get about the business of doing this. There are all kinds of reasons 
why.
  The fact of the matter is, we need to get on with the business of 
getting this done. That is why I compliment Senator Nunn and Senator 
Thurmond for much of what they have included in the bill this year.
  We have some small differences we will perhaps need to work on. One 
thing on which we can all agree at this beginning point of the debate 
is that there is a threat to be concerned about, and that we do need, 
as we begin this debate, to at least express the sense of this body 
that Americans need to be protected against an accidental or a limited 
ballistic missile attack.
  Mr. President, if we cannot agree on that, I suspect the American 
people would rightly question whether we are the body in which to 
repose confidence about their future security. I am confident that we 
can agree to this. Based upon that, we can make some sensible decisions 
about both the policy embodied in this year's defense bill and the 
expenditures inherent in the authorization bill.
  I look forward to working with the chairman, Senator Nunn, and other 
members of the committee, and other Members of this body, in working 
through this bill based on an understanding there is a threat to the 
United States from ballistic missile attack, and to our forces abroad, 
and our allies, and it is against this threat we should be protected.
  I hope when the time comes, Mr. President, my colleagues here will 
see fit to support the Kyl-Inhofe amendment, which expresses the sense 
of the Senate.


                Amendment No. 2078 to Amendment No. 2077

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2078 to amendment No. 2077.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 5, beginning with ``attack,'' strike out all down 
     through the end of the amendment and insert in lieu thereof 
     the following: ``attack. It is the further sense of the 
     Senate that front-line troops of the United States armed 
     forces should be protected from missile attacks.
       ``(c) Funding for Corps SAM and Boost-Phase Interceptor 
     Programs.--
       ``(1) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, of 
     the funds authorized to be appropriated by section 201(4), 
     $35.0 million shall be available for the Corps SAM/MEADS 
     program.
       ``(2) With a portion of the funds authorized in paragraph 
     (1) for the Corps SAM/MEADS program, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall conduct a study to determine whether a Theater Missile 
     Defense system derived from Patriot technologies could 
     fulfill the Corps SAM/MEADS requirements at a lower estimated 
     life-cycle cost than is estimated for the cost of the U.S. 
     portion of the Corps SAM/MEADS program.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall provide a report on the study 
     required under paragraph (3) to the congressional defense 
     committees not later than March 1, 1996.
       ``(4) Of the funds authorized to be appropriated by section 
     201(4), not more than $3,403,413,000 shall be available for 
     missile defense programs within the Ballistic Missile Defense 
     Organization.
       ``(d) Section 234(c)(1) of this Act shall have no force or 
     effect.''

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, very briefly, this adds back $35 million to 
what is the Corps SAM program. I know other people want to speak on the 
Kyl first-degree amendment. That is a good amendment. I support it.
  This amendment does not in any way strike or in any way change the 
first-degree amendment, but is directly relevant because this gives 
strong emphasis to the Corps SAM program, which is 

[[Page S11137]]
at the heart of our forward theater missile defense.
  I will explain this in more detail later. I know there are others who 
would like to speak, including the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I just have a little concern about the 
procedural step we started off with on the bill. At one point the 
manager of the bill on the majority side was properly recognized, as 
manager of the bill, for purposes of speaking. But during the process 
it appeared that the Senator sought to have another Senator recognized 
for purposes of offering an amendment. There was no unanimous consent 
requested for that purpose. I am sure this was inadvertent, but it 
becomes very, very difficult to have what we would like to call here a 
``jump ball'' on recognition if one Senator can sort of call on another 
Senator, in effect.
  I again say I do not think that was the intent, but I am concerned 
about the way we got started on this.
  Mr. President, I therefore ask unanimous consent that upon the 
disposition of the Kyl amendment that I be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do not think I can add a lot to what the 
very eloquent Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl, said about this sense-
of-the-Senate amendment.
  I do support the amendment and offer this with Senator Kyl. One of 
the reasons I came to the Senate in the first place, and one of the 
reasons I sought to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee, is a 
very deep concern over what has been happening to our Nation's ability 
to defend itself.
  I have watched the cold war leave us and many people, when I was 
serving in the other body, would stand up and say, ``There is no longer 
a necessity to have a very strong defense system. The cold war is over 
and the threat is not out there.'' I honestly believe, in looking at 
this, through my service on the Intelligence Committee as well as on 
the Senate Armed Services Committee and formerly on the House Armed 
Services Committee, that there is a threat to our country out there 
that is even more severe, more serious today than there was during the 
cold war, because in the cold war we could identify who the enemy was. 
As Jim Woolsey said, there are 20 to 25 countries, not two or three, 20 
to 25, that are working on or have weapons of mass destruction. That is 
not something that might happen in the future. That is something that 
is imminent and that is taking place today.
  It is interesting that the administration downplays another 
conclusion by the intelligence analysts; namely, that there are 
numerous ways for hostile countries to acquire intercontinental 
ballistic missiles far more quickly. We have watched this. We have 
watched the discussions take place. I think we can come to some 
conclusions, and those conclusions are that there is a multiple threat 
out there.
  The Senator from Georgia mentioned briefly the ABM Treaty. I think it 
is worth at least discussing in context with our need for a national 
missile defense system. I think at the time that the ABM Treaty went 
into effect, perhaps there was justification for that. There were two 
superpowers in the world--this was 1972--and the feeling was at that 
time, if neither of the superpowers were in a position to defend 
themselves from a missile attack, then there would not be any threat 
out there for the rest of the world. Maybe there was justification for 
that.
  I had a conversation with the architect of the ABM Treaty just the 
other day, Dr. Kissinger. He said, and I will quote him now, he said:

       There is something nuts about making a virtue out of our 
     vulnerability.

  That is exactly what we are saying when we say, by policy and by 
treaty, that we can defend our troops who might be stationed overseas, 
that we can pursue a theater missile defense system, but we cannot 
defend our Nation against a missile attack. There is something nuts 
about that. So we are going to have to address this.
  In the meantime, what can we do to put a national missile defense 
into effect in the next 5 years? We can do exactly what we are doing 
with this bill. I would like to move even quicker than we can move 
right now, but we feel what we are doing in this bill that we are 
looking at today is all we can do to prepare ourselves for what can 
happen in the next 5 years. So, when we are able to change this 
national policy, we will be in a position to not lose any time and do 
it in the next 5 years. I think the issue here is: Is it 10 years when 
the threat could be facing us or is it 5 years? I think it is 
incontrovertible it is closer to 5 years.
  Even if we were certain there is no new threat that would materialize 
for 10 years, there are two compelling reasons to develop and deploy a 
national missile defense system. First, it will take more than 5 years 
to develop and deploy the limited system, even when the Missile Defense 
Act of 1995 is passed. By then, we will most certainly be facing new 
ballistic missile threats to the United States.
  Second, deploying the national missile defense system would deter 
countries from seeking their own ICBM capabilities. A vulnerable United 
States invites proliferation, blackmail, and aggression.
  We are going to hear, during the course of this debate, people who 
really are not concerned about the threats that face the United States 
of America talking about the missile defense system as star wars. They 
have always downgraded it by using that term. Star wars should not even 
be used. We are talking about an investment that we have in this 
country, through the THAAD system, through the Aegis system that we 
have--22 ships that are currently equipped--we have a $38 billion 
investment. That investment can be protected merely by putting 
approximately $5 billion over 5 years in, and being able to deploy a 
national missile defense system.
  I implore my Senate colleagues in the strongest possible terms to 
wake up and see the world as it is and not the way arms control 
advocates in the Clinton administration would like it to be. The threat 
is clear. It is present. It is dangerous. That is why I strongly 
support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I urge swift adoption of the Kyl-Inhofe amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Arizona for a 
fine amendment. This provision makes it absolutely clear that the world 
is becoming increasingly dangerous with regard to missile proliferation 
and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. It also makes clear that 
the United States cannot wait around for a bunch of rogue states and 
possibly terrorists to acquire ballistic missiles capable of attacking 
American cities before we respond with a serious national missile 
defense system. Lest we want to invite another Oklahoma City bombing 
multiplied many times over, we must begin to take action to defend our 
country against this ever increasing threat.
  In my view, the Kyl amendment simply states the obvious: that the 
United States should be defended against accidental, unauthorized, and 
limited ballistic missile attacks, whatever their source. We have 
attempted to establish a path toward this end in the bill now pending 
before the Senate, so I am pleased to support this amendment.
  It has been argued that there is no threat to justify deployment of a 
national missile defense system to defend the United States. This view 
is strategically shortsighted and technically incorrect. Even if we get 
started today, by the time we develop and deploy an NMD system we will 
almost certainly face new ballistic missile threats to the United 
States. Unfortunately, it will take almost 10 years to develop and 
deploy even a limited system.
  As Senator Kyl's amendment so clearly establishes, the intelligence 
community has confirmed that there are numerous ways for hostile 
countries to acquire intercontinental ballistic missiles in much less 
than 10 years by means other than indigenous development. Basically any 
country that can deliver a payload into orbit can deliver the same 
payload at intercontinental distances. Space launch technology is 
fundamentally ballistic missile technology, and it is becoming more and 
more available on the open 

[[Page S11138]]
market. Russia has all but put the SS-25 ICBM on sale for purposes of 
space launch. China has repeatedly demonstrated a
 willingness to market missile technology, even technology limited by 
the missile technology control regime.

  In his last appearance before Congress as Director of Central 
Intelligence, James Woolsey stated clearly that countries working on 
shorter range ballistic missiles could easily transition to developing 
longer range systems. Saddam Hussein demonstrated that even countries 
without a high technology base could get into the missile modification 
and nuclear weapons business.
  North Korea has also demonstrated to the world that an ICBM 
capability can be developed with relatively little notice. The Taepo-
Dong II missile, which could become operational within 5 years, is an 
ICBM. Each new development on this missile seems to catch the 
intelligence community by surprise. It certainly undermines the 
argument of those who downplay the threat and the intelligence 
community's own 10-year estimate.
  Even if we knew with certainty that no new threat would materialize 
for 10 years there would still be a strong case for developing and 
deploying a national missile defense system. Deploying an NMD system 
would serve to deter countries that would otherwise seek to acquire an 
ICBM capability. A vulnerable United States merely invites 
proliferation, blackmail, and even aggression.
  For this reason, I strongly and enthusiastically support Senator 
Kyl's amendment. It is a reasonable statement for the Senate to make. 
Only those who believe that the American people should not be protected 
against the one military threat that holds at risk their homes and 
country should oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the second-degree 
amendment?
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to make a couple of comments 
about the Kyl-Inhofe amendment, and then also about an amendment that I 
intend to offer during the consideration of this legislation. I intend 
to offer an amendment that eliminates the $300 million that was added 
to national missile defense in the Armed Services Committee's 
deliberations.
  There is, as I understand it, $371 billion for the national missile 
defense research and development in the budget that was submitted by 
the President and requested by the Pentagon. In other words, the 
Pentagon said, Here is what we think is necessary for that program. The 
Armed Services Committee added $300 million above that for national 
missile defense.
  I listened to my friends from Arizona and Oklahoma, for whom I have 
great respect. We just disagree on this question. I intend to offer an 
amendment to strip the $300 million out of the bill because I do not 
think the national missile defense system described in this bill ought 
to be built or deployed, and I do not believe that the taxpayers should 
be asked to provide $300 million that the Pentagon says it does not 
need.
  The Kyl-Inhofe amendment has four pages of findings. And on page 5, 
it says, ``It is the sense of the Senate that all Americans should be 
protected from accidental, intentional, or limited ballistic missile 
attack.''
  It is hard to find fault with the language unless one asks the 
question: What does one mean by this? Is someone who suggests this 
saying that we should spend over $40 billion on a ballistic missile 
defense system, or star wars? I know that we were admonished not to use 
that term because that does not apply, we are told. This is in my 
judgment a star wars national missile defense proposal. It is that 
simple.
  The Congressional Budget Office in 1993 said the cost of building a 
national missile defense system at Grand Forks, ND and five other sites 
would be $34 billion. A March 1995 Congressional Budget Office review 
pegs the cost of that same site plus five others at $48 billion.
  If with this simple sense of the Senate on page 5 the Senate is 
saying, Yes, let us develop a program that costs the American taxpayers 
$48 billion, I think people here in the Senate ought to think long and 
hard about this.
  Sure everyone wants to be protected. Today, in the old Soviet Union, 
they are crushing and busting up missiles under a program that we are 
helping pay for. Missiles are being destroyed today as I speak in the 
old Soviet Union.
  What is the threat? Well, the Soviet Union has now disappeared. But 
we are not told that the threat is that some terrorist Third World 
country, perhaps Iraq, or Iran, maybe some would suggest Qadhafi, could 
get ahold of an ICBM and some weapons grade plutonium, build a nuclear 
bomb, put it on the tip of a intercontinental missile and shoot it 
toward the West. Maybe that is the threat.
  In my judgment, if the wrong people get ahold of enough weapons grade 
plutonium to build a nuclear bomb, it is far more likely that they will 
threaten this country by putting it in the trunk of a rusty Yugo parked 
on a dock of the New York City harbor. That is far more likely that the 
case in which they would acquire or be able to build an 
intercontinental ballistic missile with which to threaten the West.
  Frankly, this bill is interesting to me. People are saying that we do 
not have enough money, that we are up to our neck in debt, and that we 
must reduce the Federal deficit--and I agree with that. Then this bill 
says the Pentagon does not know what it is talking about on ballistic 
missile defense--$371 million, humbug. We want to add $300 million. And 
more than that, we have not learned our lesson about advanced 
deployment and emergency deployment. We also want to not only add $300 
million, we want to say to the folks who are building this star wars 
project that we want accelerated development for a limited deployment 
in 1999. And full deployment will follow in 2003. That is the scheme in 
this legislation.
  I thought maybe we learned something about those enhanced research 
schedules and accelerated deployment schedules with the B-1 bomber, and 
some other weapons programs, but maybe not.
  In any event, I think the question is not should we protect America. 
The question is why should we decide to spend $300 million more on 
national missile defense than the Defense Department says it needs? Why 
should we decide that we are going to dump in extra money beyond what 
the Secretary of Defense says he needs or wants?
  We have direct testimony from the Secretary of Defense saying I do 
not want this. This is not money that I am asking for. I do not need 
this. You are proposing, he says, to defend against a threat that does 
not exist. And you are proposing giving the Pentagon money it does not 
want.
  I just find it unusual that the same people who always tell us that 
the big spenders are on this side of the aisle are saying the Pentagon 
does not know what it is talking about; they want to provide the 
Pentagon $300 million more for this boondoggle, dollars they do not 
want. But that is not what I guess is so important today. The fact is 
that this extra $300 million is just lighting the fuse on a $40 to $50 
billion spending program that once underway will not be controlled, and 
all of us know that.
  I recognize that part of this deals with my State. My State was the 
site of the only antiballistic missile system in the free world. It was 
built in northeast North Dakota 25 years ago. I said at the time I did 
not think it should be built. It did not matter much what I said then; 
it was built. And after billions of dollars were spent and after the 
system was operational, within 30 days it was mothballed.
  Now, some might say, well, it was useful to spend all of that because 
we were creating bargaining chips with which to negotiate with the 
Soviets on an ABM Treaty. I do not know the veracity of that. But I do 
know that we were the site of the only antiballistic missile system 
built in the free world, the only one that has ever been built by the 
West. And it was mothballed 

[[Page S11139]]
within 30 days after being declared operational.
  Now we have a constituency to build a new ballistic missile defense 
system. This starts from President Reagan's announcement in the 1980's 
of a shield, sort of a national astrodome--I guess it was a national 
astrodome he was talking about, putting an astrodome over this country 
of ours so that no one could attack it. If an incoming intercontinental 
ballistic missile took aim on our country and took flight toward our 
country, we would have a system of defense, both ground based and space 
based, with which we would knock out those incoming missiles and 
protect our country forever.
  The result was that an enormous amount of money has been spent all 
around this country on research, engaging academic institutions, 
engaging companies all over, virtually every State in the Union, and a 
constituency has developed for this idea. It does not matter that times 
have changed. It does not matter there is no longer a Soviet Union. It 
does not matter there is no Warsaw Pact, the Berlin Wall is gone, 
Eastern Germany does not exist. It does not matter the world is 
changed. The folks who want to build a star wars, ABM, national missile 
defense program have not had their appetites satisfied. So they want to 
continue with this program, but they are not satisfied by the Defense 
Department doing research in this area. They will only be satisfied if 
they require deployment--on an interim basis so that by 1999, less than 
4 years from now, somehow, some way, someone will deploy the first 
contingent in any number of sites around the country of the national 
missile defense system.
  Again, I certainly respect the views of those who have great ardor 
and support for this program. I respectfully disagree however. We have 
so many needs that we must prioritize them. Do we care about education? 
If we do, is not the need to build star schools more important than to 
build star wars? Do we care about hunger and nutrition? If we do, is it 
not more important to make sure that we fund those programs so that 
people in this country are not hungry instead of taking $300 million 
that the Pentagon does not want and building a system the Pentagon says 
should not be built at this point? It is a matter of priorities, and we 
must begin choosing.
  I think those who push not only this but several other things in this 
legislation that go well beyond the funding request by the Pentagon are 
saying we do not have to make choices. We are not interested in 
prioritizing. Or at least if they are not saying that, they are making 
choices and prioritizing in kind of a burlesque way, saying, well, it 
is not important for a poor kid in school to have an entitlement to a 
hot lunch because we cannot afford it, and then changing suits, having 
a good sleep and coming back the next day saying it is important, 
however, to give the Secretary of Defense $300 million he does not need 
for a program he does not want to deploy at this point and for a 
program that he says is not going to be built to meet an existing 
threat.
  I am just saying to you that I think those priorities are wrong. If I 
read Senator Kyl's sense-of-the-Senate: ``It is the sense of the Senate 
that all Americans should be protected from an accidental, intentional 
or limited ballistic missile attack,'' I would say, oh, sure, it is a 
sense of the Senate all Americans ought to be protected. I understand 
that. That makes sense to me. If I change this and say it is the sense 
of the Senate that we begin embarking on a program that will eventually 
cost $40 billion to deploy in multiple sites around the country a 
ballistic missile defense system with a ground-based and a space-based 
component, have I changed the question? I think I have,
 because if I am asking the Senators in this room whether that is the 
way we ought to spend $40 billion in the coming years, they have to 
evaluate whether $40 billion spent for this versus $40 billion 
allocated for other competing needs in this country is the right 
choice.

  So, Mr. President, as I indicated when I began, I intend to offer an 
amendment to strip the $300 million in additional funding that has been 
put in the legislation before us for the national missile defense 
system. There will still remain $371 million, a substantial amount of 
money. But if my amendment is accepted, there will not remain $300 
million which the Secretary of Defense says he does not want, does not 
need, and did not ask for. We will, I am sure, have a rather 
substantial debate about this when I offer my amendment. I shall not 
pursue it further at the moment. But I could not help but comment on 
this amendment, which is a sense of the Senate with language seemingly 
so innocent but consequences so substantial. The consequences of this 
are to say, yes, we believe that it is appropriate to embark on a $40 
billion program with enhanced deployment to build a shield over the 
United States to protect us against incoming intercontinental ballistic 
missiles.
  Frankly, I think that is a misplaced priority. And I think we should 
have learned something in recent years that we must make very tough 
choices, all of us, very tough choices about what we spend money on. I 
think two questions ought to be asked on all of these proposals. Do we 
need it? And can we afford it? And with those two questions on the 
national missile defense system, nicknamed star wars--which is 
appropriate, because this talks about the potential of a space-based 
system--when we ask those two questions: Do we need it? And can we 
afford it? The first answer is answered by the folks that run the 
Pentagon. They have said, no, we do not need it. And they have not 
asked for it. The second answer ought to be answered by everybody who 
is in the U.S. Senate who is grappling with questions about can we feed 
our children through nutritional programs? Can we adequately educate 
our kids? And can we do all the things that are necessary? Can we 
adequately fund Medicare and Medicaid for the elderly and the poor?
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. The answer to my question is no. We cannot afford 
something we do not need when priorities require us to make a better 
judgment than this.
  I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  Mr. INHOFE. I am sure you heard several times----
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has yielded for a question.
  Mr. INHOFE. We have quotes by Jim Woolsey and John Deutch and other 
experts in this field. And in terms of the quote that was attributed to 
Jim Woolsey, there are between 20 and 25 countries that have developed 
or are developing weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deploy 
those.
  Do you not believe that statement by Jim Woolsey?
  Mr. DORGAN. Well, I would say to the Senator from Oklahoma that the 
statements that are made by--let me give you a statement by the head of 
the DIA. ``We see no interest in or capability of any new country 
reaching the continental United States with a long-range missile for at 
least the next decade,'' so on, so forth.
  But I would say this, that the Secretary of Defense, having evaluated 
all of these conditions, including the potential of other developments 
of ICBM's, has concluded that this is not in our interest. I mean, what 
the Secretary of Defense has said to you looking at all those things, 
``Don't do this. I don't want the money. I don't want the program as 
you constructed it. It doesn't make sense for this country's national 
security.''
  I would be happy to yield further.
  Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will allow me to read a statement--two 
statements. One is by James Woolsey concerning what is out there today. 
``We can confirm that the North Koreans are developing two additional 
missiles with ranges greater than 1,000 kilometers that it flew last 
year. These new missiles could put at risk all of Northeast Asia, 
Southeast Asia, and the Pacific area. And if we export, the Middle East 
could threaten Europe as well.'' Then further John Deutch says, ``If 
the North Koreans field the Taepo Dong 2 missile, Guam, Alaska, and 
parts of Hawaii would potentially be at risk.''
  So it is a two-part question. First of all, do you believe this? And, 
second, and most significantly, Mr. President, what if the Senator is 
wrong?
  Mr. DORGAN. Well, will someday some countries that we now consider 
terrorist countries or renegade countries have the capability of 
developing 

[[Page S11140]]
or buying intercontinental missiles? Maybe. Maybe.
  But I would say this. I ask if it is not the case, the single, 
strongest, best case that could ever have been made for a ballistic 
missile defense program, putting a shield over our country, will not be 
a case 5 years from now or 10 years from now or today. It would have 
been a case that you could have made 10 or 15 years previously when we 
had the proliferation of Soviet Union missiles, all of which were aimed 
at the United States, all of which the President said, at that point, 
required an umbrella around this country for protection.
  But what did protect our country? No, it was not an umbrella. It was 
not a new ballistic missile program or a star wars program. What did 
protect our country? Well, it was a triad, of ground-based 
intercontinental ballistic missiles with Mark-12A warheads that 
persuaded the Soviets--and I assume will now persuade any other country 
foolish enough to think about this sort of thing--that they will exist 
about a day or a two or three, beyond when they launch that kind of an 
attack.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield further?
  Mr. DORGAN. The point I make is this: We developed the triad, ground 
missiles, sea-based missiles and air-launched nuclear capability, which 
has for decades persuaded countries far better armed than the potential 
terrorists you suggest from not even thinking about attacking this 
country. And I am just saying this: When we start taking the potential 
of the North Koreans developing a missile and deciding the result is 
America ought to consign itself to a $40 billion new program, at the 
time we say to the American elderly that we have got to cut $270 
billion in Medicare because we do not have the money, or at the time we 
say to American kids that we are sorry about student aid, we do not 
have quite enough money, and quite enough money for nutrition programs, 
I am saying the priorities are out of whack.
  Am I saying defense does not matter? No. I am saying that the 
Secretary of Defense, the folks that know this program, the folks that 
have spent a long, long while concerned about and evaluating the need 
for a ballistic missile defense system are saying it is wrong. It is 
wrong what is being proposed. The extra money should not be spent. This 
program should not be deployed. And it is not in this country's 
national interest.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. They are the ones saying that, not me.
  Mr. INHOFE. Is the Senator aware or do you deny that the Taepo Dong 2 
is being developed today?
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me say this again. Is the Senator aware that 
Yugoslavia produced Yugos and they are shipped to the United States and 
some terrorist could put a nuclear device in it and ship it to New York 
City and terrorize New York and this country? Would that require a 
sophisticated ICBM for delivery? Of course not. Would it accomplish the 
same result? Of course it would.
  My point is, if you start taking a look at threats to this country, 
do not just look at the potential for developing an intercontinental 
ballistic missile. In fact, the Secretary of Defense and others are 
saying there is no realistic prospect within the next decade of that 
happening, No. 1. And No. 2, given all of the evaluations he and the 
folks in the intelligence community have made, he thinks what the 
Senator is proposing is not in this country's defense interests.
  So that is the way I would answer the question of the Senator. I 
understand the case both Senators have made. I think they made it very 
well. It is just I do not agree with them. I think this is a case where 
you say, if you have unlimited funds that you can take from the 
taxpayer, you say, ``Just keep giving us your money, because we have 
got plenty of opportunity and we have lots of needs.'' If you have 
unlimited funds, then build everything. That is fine. The problem is we 
do not have unlimited funds. We are forced--literally forced--to start 
choosing among wrenching, awful, agonizing priorities. I think when the 
Senator proposes this, what he is saying is, we do not intend to 
choose, at least not in defense; we intend to build it all.
  Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes.
  Mr. KYL. I know the Senator from Georgia is able to speak on his 
amendment. I can respond to each of the points that the Senator from 
North Dakota made in detail. But rather than doing that, I want to pose 
one quick question, because, frankly, it may not be necessary for us to 
do that.
  Is the Senator prepared to tell us whether he is going to vote 
against or for my amendment? If the Senator is going to vote for the 
amendment, I will not bother to respond to some of the points.
  Mr. DORGAN. I have not read the entire amendment. I read the sense of 
the Senate. It is hard to disagree with the sense of the Senate if you 
understand that the sense of the Senate says that ``It is the sense of 
the Senate that all Americans should be protected from accidental, 
intentional, limited ballistic attack.'' Yes, they ought to be 
protected.
  I ask you this question: Are you saying with this that it is your 
sense that we should spend $300 million extra next year and go to 
enhanced deployment of a ballistic missile defense system; that it is 
your intention with this amendment to put the Senate on record to go 
for early deployment and $300 million extra and the tens of billions of 
dollars that will be required in the years ahead to fully deploy this 
system; is that your intention?
  (Mr. CAMPBELL assumed the chair.)
  Mr. KYL. In response to the Senator's question, it is as you have 
noted. You are going to propose an amendment to strike $300 million 
that is already in the bill. My amendment does not add any money to the 
bill. My amendment simply expresses the sense of the Senate that all 
Americans deserve to be protected from missile attack. So when the 
Senator makes the argument about the $300 million, he is really making 
the argument in support of his amendment that is going to be offered 
later to the bill. That is why I said I could easily respond to some of 
the things you said, but I do not want to take the time if the Senator 
is going to end up supporting my amendment. I think we can move on----
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me just say this. The committee brought us $671 
million, as I understand it, in ballistic missile defense, $300 million 
of which the Pentagon said it does not want, does not need and did not 
ask for.
  My feeling is this country protects itself against nuclear threat, 
accidental, intentional, or ballistic missile attack by having 
intercontinental ballistic missiles in the ground, by having Trident 
submarines in the sea, and by having our bombers with nuclear 
capability in the air. In my judgment, the current triad, as I have 
indicated to you, has done that for 20 or 30 years.
  I have not read the rest of your findings. As soon as I read the 
findings, I will determine whether it comports with what I think we 
ought to go on record with in the Senate.
  Again, I ask the Senator from Arizona whether his intention with this 
is to provide support and comfort for and to assist in the accelerated 
deployment of a national missile defense system?
  Mr. KYL. And I say to the Senator, absolutely, bingo.
  Mr. DORGAN. If that is the Senator's intention, I will not want to be 
supportive of that, because I do not think that happens to make sense 
for this country.
  Mr. KYL. The Senator, obviously, has the right to vote for or against 
my amendment. I was curious. There is a lot that can be said. Perhaps 
the Senator could be thinking--I would like to hear from some of the 
other Senators--perhaps the Senator could be thinking how he will 
substantiate the claim he made repeatedly now that the Secretary of 
Defense does not want this, did not ask for it, and so on. If the 
Senator can find those statements, I would be curious because, of 
course, General O'Neill testified to the Armed Services Committee that 
he could spend $450 million and he does not do that without getting the 
concurrence of the administration.
  The administration's initial budget request did not ask for the 
money, I agree, but in last year's budget, the Clinton administration, 
in the 5-year defense plan, called for more than what is being 
requested----
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, I say it is good news 

[[Page S11141]]
  for the Senator from Arizona. In a body where there are so few answers 
and so much debate, he is about 50 paces from the answer. I will give 
him the telephone number. He can call the Secretary of Defense and ask 
the Secretary of Defense in the next 4 minutes, ``Do you want this $300 
million, did you ask for it, and do you think that it is necessary for 
this country's security?''
  His answer will be, ``No, I didn't ask for it; no, I don't want it; 
and I think it is a mistake.''
  So the Senator is very close to an answer, physically and also with 
respect to time. Maybe by the next time we have this spirited 
discussion, when I offer the amendment to strike the money, maybe the 
Senator will have spoken to the Secretary of Defense and will have that 
answer.
  Mr. COATS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be a happy to yield.
  Mr. COATS. The Senator from North Dakota, in answer to the Senator 
from Arizona as to what he would prefer, in response to what the 
Senator from Arizona has announced in terms of deterrence, he would 
prefer the deterrent that was used successfully for a long, long time, 
namely, we use the term ``mutually assured destruction.'' He said that 
our deterrence from submarines under the sea, missiles in the ground, 
and bombers in the air would be his proposed solution to a ballistic 
missile attack on the United States.
  My question to the Senator is, do you believe that mutually assured 
destruction is the preferred solution to, say, an accidental launch?
  Mr. DORGAN. Well----
  Mr. COATS. And do you believe that would be any kind of a deterrent 
or appropriate response to an accidental launch of a missile?
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator understands, I would judge successful the 
strategy that has been employed with the nuclear triad in order to 
avoid nuclear war over some 25 or 30 years. Would the Senator agree 
with that?
  Mr. COATS. I do, but the world has changed significantly since then. 
We are trying to deter something entirely different.
  Mr. DORGAN. If I may respond to that--I did not respond to the 
Senator's question about North Korea. I would like to add for the 
record something I will not read, a rather lengthy paragraph, about the 
capabilities of North Korea written by two Nobel laureates, two 
veterans of the Manhattan project, a total of seven eminent physicists, 
who are completely at odds with the Senator's representations about the 
capabilities of the North Koreans at this point.
  I guess the Senator from Indiana is standing up saying we need this 
system because it is the only way we can provide for an impregnable 
defense against the renegades, against terrorist countries; is that 
what the Senator is saying?
  Mr. COATS. I am saying the world has changed significantly since we 
employed the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, and the 
deterrent effect the Senator alluded to that would satisfy the concerns 
of the Senator from Arizona simply may not be applicable in today's 
world.
  Mr. DORGAN. It is interesting, what has changed it is quite 
remarkable--it is almost breathtaking in its scope--is that the Soviet 
Union does not exist any longer, and today we are cutting the tails off 
bombers, they are crushing their missiles, and we are taking warheads 
apart. What has changed dramatically is that we have stepped back from 
the brink, we have largely seen the cold war dissolve, we have a 
circumstance in this world today for which all of us should rejoice.
  The arms race is largely over, and the Senator raises the question, 
are there still not some other threats? Yes, there are. But you know 
what has not changed is the appetite for those who are parents of 
weapons programs, because those who have parentage of new weapons 
programs just cannot give up. It does not matter what the world is 
like, it does not matter what the need is; they have a weapons program, 
and they are going to build it.
  Mr. COATS. That may or may not----
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator at least acknowledge that the genesis of 
this kind of program came from Ronald Reagan, I believe, in 1982 or 
1983, in which he described the holocaust from a devastating full-bore 
Soviet Union ICBM attack on the United States? That is the genesis of 
the description of the umbrella with which to protect our country.
  Mr. COATS. That is true----
  Mr. DORGAN. Things have changed. The Senator makes a correct point. 
Things have changed. What has changed is that that threat has changed 
dramatically because it has lessened, a much lesser threat than existed 
before. In fact, we have Yeltsin over here, we are working with Yeltsin 
on all these things, we have Russians and Americans cavorting in space 
in a spacelab. Adversaries? No, hardly. We are working together. We are 
doing a lot of things together, including reducing the risk of an 
accidental nuclear attack.
  What has changed? Has the change occurred among those who said we 
need an umbrella for $40, $50 billion to protect America against a 
full-scale nuclear attack from the Soviet Union? No, the Soviet Union 
is gone, but it has not deterred by one step those who want to spend 
money on this program. They simply find another threat--North Korea, 
and the Nobel laureates and others tell us about North Korea.
  It is at odds, and I will put it in the Record because I do not want 
to read the whole thing.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this portion of the 
physicists' letter be inserted in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would say that if you do not want to use 
North Korea, then somebody else will come waltzing over here and say, 
``Well, maybe it's not Korea, maybe its Qadhafi.'' And the next person 
comes over and says, ``Maybe it's not Qadhafi, maybe it's Iran.''
  Do all of those prospects concern me? Sure; sure. Is the likelihood 
of nuclear attack or the nuclear threat from those kind of renegade 
countries the likelihood of an ICBM pointed at Gary, IN? Of course not.
 The likelihood is a terrorist act that----

  Mr. THURMOND. Will the Senator yield a minute to get somebody on the 
floor?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield, without losing my right to the 
floor.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael 
Matthes and Peter Simoncini, military fellows in Senator Warner's 
office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of Senate debate 
on S. 1026, the Defense Authorization Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will be brief. I say that the likelihood 
of the nuclear threat coming from a renegade country is not them 
getting hold of some sophisticated targeted intercontinental ballistic 
missile; it is that they would get hold of some weapons grade plutonium 
and the know-how, which pretty readily exists, to turn that into a 
nuclear device, and then in some ingenious way to hold some country 
hostage with that device. It is unlikely that it is going to be on the 
tip of an ICBM in flight. It is much more likely that it is going to be 
different circumstances, in which the $40 billion and the best star 
wars program ever conceived by man or woman will be irrelevant.
  I will make one other point to the Senator. On page 52 of the bill 
brought to us, on the bottom of the page, you are talking about 
deploying a system--deploy as soon as possible a highly effective 
system, and so on. Then it says, ``That will be augmented over time to 
provide a layered defense against larger, more sophisticated ballistic 
missile threats.''
  When you stand and say we are trying to respond to North Korea--which 
I think gives them far more credit than they deserve--your bill would 
do much more than that. The legislation suggests that if you want to 
fund a program that will provide a layered defense against larger 
ballistic missile defense threats over time. That goes back to the 
Reagan star wars concept in the eighties.
  My point is that nothing has changed with those that propose the 
program. They pull the wagon through here no matter what the climate 
is, whether 

[[Page S11142]]
the wind blows, or whether it rains, it is the same wagon. They just 
change the debate a bit. In my judgment, the taxpayers ought not to 
fund something that the Secretary of Defense says he does not want, the 
country does not need, and he says putting in this bill--I have not 
even talked about the things we will talk about later, about abrogating 
the ABM Treaty and other things; I have not even discussed that. But I 
think you ought to listen to the Secretary of Defense on this issue. 
You ought to listen to the taxpayers. I think they understand.
  Mr. COATS. If the Senator will yield, I am going to get off the 
floor. I just came over to ask a simple question. I got everything but 
the answer to my question. I did not mean to prompt the opportunity for 
the Senator from North Dakota to repeat what he already said earlier. I 
simply asked the question as to how the Senator proposed that we would 
deter an accidental launch of a ballistic missile toward the United 
States. I got everything but the answer to that particular question.
  The Senator from Arizona is more than capable of answering--and I 
believe he probably has already done it--the reasons why this program 
is significantly different from what Reagan or anybody else proposed in 
the early eighties. It is not the so-called umbrella defense star wars 
system that has been debated on the floor here for a decade and a half. 
It is much, much different from that. The threat is different from 
that. I do not disagree with the Senator that the threat we face 
includes options other than----
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the Senator would like to ask a 
question, I will be happy to answer a question. If not, I would like to 
regain the floor.
  Mr. COATS. How does the Senator propose to deal with an accidental 
ballistic missile launch in the United States? The Senator suggested 
that mutually assured destruction was the deterrent to that and the way 
to respond. I do not agree with the Senator. I wonder what his solution 
was to that question.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the query. The Senator from 
Indiana is now suggesting that the principal reason for spending $40 
billion is to protect against an accident. It occurred to me that the 
Koreans would not likely be involved in an accident, according to the 
Senator from Arizona. He is proposing that the Koreans might pose a 
threat. I assume when we hear discussions about other countries--Libya, 
Iran, or others --we are talking about a threat rather than an 
accident.
  The question of an accidental nuclear launch, I suppose, is a 
question others could ask of us and we could ask of many in the world. 
We have, it seems to me, very carefully, over many, many years, 
decades, in fact, worked to prevent that sort of circumstance from 
occurring on any side, with respect to the nuclear powers. I again say 
that I urge all of us to evaluate. When we start talking about the need 
now, when the Soviet Union is gone, to build a star wars program to 
react to North Korea and spend $40 billion we do not have, I urge 
everyone to understand that at the same time we are going to consign 
ourselves to spend $40 billion, we are going to say we cannot really 
afford Medicare and Medicaid, and that the old folks should pay more 
and get less, and we will cut $270 billion out of Medicare.
  We supposedly cannot afford all the other things we are talking about 
because we have to tighten our belts. It occurs to me that those that 
push this, especially in the year 1995, when the world has changed, but 
changed in a way that would augur for less incentive to need this kind 
of a program, those who push this are making an illogical argument. It 
seems illogical to me to be saying we have to tighten our belts here at 
home and have to worry about priorities, we have to make tough choices, 
and then pull a project like this to the floor and say, by the way, 
this is true for everything else, but we have $300 million here that 
that does not apply because this $300 million we will substitute our 
judgment for the judgment of the Secretary of Defense, and others, and 
say that we must now embark on an accelerated deployment of a national 
missile defense program, including star wars.
  I am just telling you that we will probably have a long discussion on 
the question of that $300 million. If I see the glint in the eye of the 
Senator from Arizona from across the room, I suspect he will have a 
spirited defense of spending that money. I will be here, as soon as it 
works into the schedule, to see where we all stand on spending money we 
do not have on something we do not need.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that portions of a July 7, 
1995 letter from seven eminent physicists, including two Nobel Prize 
winners and two veterans of the Manhattan project, who discuss 
accidental launch by Russia or China and the likelihood of a threat 
from a third country, particularly North Korea, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the excerpts were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       (I) Accidental launch of Russian or Chinese nuclear 
     missile:
       According to US intelligence officials, an accidental or 
     unauthorized launch from Russia or China is extremely 
     unlikely. Moreover, it is in the interests of Russia and 
     China to ensure that such launches do not occur. Indeed, 
     Defense Intelligence Agency Director Gen. James Clapper 
     testified in 1994 that ``Russian strategic missile systems 
     are currently considered to have very good control 
     mechanisms'' to prevent such launches, and the United States 
     is currently discussing sharing similar systems with China. 
     National missile defenses are the wrong solution to this 
     problem in any event since cooperative measures could be 
     implemented more quickly and cheaply, and would be more 
     effective than NMD. These include installing destruct-after-
     launch mechanisms on all missiles to abort an unauthorized 
     launch and separating nuclear warheads from delivery systems.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       (3) Deliberate missile attack by other country in the 
     future:
       Ballistic missiles are the least likely method a developing 
     country would use to deliver an attack. Long-range missiles 
     are more expensive and technically difficult to build and 
     deploy than other means of delivery, and are less accurate. 
     Since launches are readily detected by satellites, the United 
     States would pinpoint the origin of a missile attack and 
     could retaliate quickly with devastating force. Such 
     retaliation would have to be considered as certain by any 
     leader, and will always be a powerful deterrent to missile 
     attacks.
       Currently, no country hostile to the United States 
     possesses ballistic missiles that can reach US territory. 
     Even if such threats begin to emerge in the future, the 
     United States will have considerable warning since missile 
     development requires flight testing that can be monitored by 
     satellite. Although some 20 countries in the developing world 
     possess some type of short-range missile or space-launch 
     vehicle, only countries friendly to the United States--
     Israel, India, and Saudi Arabia--have deployable systems with 
     a range greater than 600 kilometers.
       North Korea, perhaps the most discussed threat, has 
     conducted one partial-range test of the 1000 kilometer range 
     Nodong missile, but does not have an operational version 
     after six to seven years of development. North Korea is 
     reported to be working on new missiles with ranges up to 
     3,500 kilometers, but such missiles would require new 
     technologies, such as staging and more powerful engines. 
     Judging from the long development time of past North Korean 
     missiles, deployment of such an intermediate-range missile is 
     many years off at least, and progress can be monitored 
     closely by satellite. In any event, none of these missiles 
     would have the range to strike the US homeland.
                               Conclusion

       Rather than devoting resources to national missile 
     defenses, the United States should instead focus on programs 
     to combat existing, more pressing threats. For example, a 
     higher priority should be placed on bringing military and 
     civil weapon-usable fissile material in the former Soviet 
     republics under better control and accelerating safe, 
     verified dismantlement of Russian nuclear warheads and 
     delivery vehicles.
       In sum, proposals to deploy NMD are misguided and 
     irresponsible. National missile defenses do not address the 
     existing and most likely future threats to the U.S. homeland 
     and are diverting valuable resources. Instead, NMD will 
     destroy much of one of the United States' primary tools for 
     maintaining and increasing national security: arms control. 
     We urge you to weigh carefully the negligible benefits and 
     substantial costs of deploying NMD. Thank you for your 
     attention to our views and please call on us if we can be of 
     assistance as you deliberate on this matter.
           Sincerely,
     Hans Bethe,
       Professor of Physics Emeritus, Cornell University.
     Richard Garwin,
       Adjunct Professor of Physics, Columbia University and IBM 
     Fellow Emeritus, IBM Research Division.
     Kurt Gottfried,
       Professor of Physics, Cornell University.
       
[[Page S11143]]

     Frank von Hippel,
       Professor of Public and International Affairs, Princeton 
     University.
     Henry W. Kendall,
       Chairman, Union of Concerned Scientists and Stratton 
     Professor of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
     Wolfgang K.H. Panofsky,
       Professor and Director Emeritus, Stanford Linear 
     Accelerator Center, Stanford University.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I have enjoyed the dialog on this subject. I 
think this is a good way to begin the defense debate. I inform all of 
my colleagues that the biggest challenges we have in this bill, in 
managing the bill--the chairman, Senator Thurmond and myself--is the 
whole theory of ballistic missile defense, theater missile defense, and 
the ABM Treaty. We are off on the subject that I think is going to be 
the toughest subject. It will take the most time for debate. I consider 
this a good dialog with which to begin the debate and get the views out 
on both sides of this issue.
  I am sure there will be other views as we go along. I would like to 
explain, in just a few minutes, the amendment I have offered, which is 
now the pending second-degree amendment to the Kyl first-degree 
amendment.
  This amendment is intended to restore funds for the program known as 
the Corps SAM program, which is also a cooperative program called 
MEADS. They are one and the same program, but the MEADS program is the 
name given for SAM that is designated as a cooperative program and 
supported by the Governments of Germany, France, and Italy, where they 
will be paying approximately 50 percent of the cost of the program, 
which is what we have been encouraging for the last several years in 
terms of allied participation.
  Corps SAM is a highly mobile theater missile defense system which is 
designed to defend our most vulnerable military forces, that is, our 
Marine and Army troops amassed at the very edge of the battle area. It 
is the only system under development that can meet this requirement. In 
addition to defending our forward troops from attack by short-range 
ballistic missiles, the Corps SAM/MEADS system will also replace the 
aging and outmoded and, in many cases, HAWK batteries that are now the 
Marines only defense against ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as 
enemy aircraft.
  Notwithstanding the importance of the requirement to defend these 
forward deployed troops, the committee bill before us, unless it is 
changed, will cancel the Corps SAM/MEADS program that was done during 
the committee markup. That is the provision of the bill now. The bill 
does not just zero funding in the report; it directs the Secretary of 
Defense, in permanent bill language, to terminate this international 
program.
  Mr. President, in my view, this is a shortsighted action and defies 
rational explanation. The Senate Armed Services Committee majority 
argued in their report accompanying our bill that 80 percent of the 
total ballistic missile defense funding goes to theater missile defense 
systems. And the majority of the report complains about both the number 
of the theater missile defense systems under development and their 
cost.
  This bill has shifted more funds to the national missile defense, 
which is the overall, rather than the theater defense. But what the 
majority report does not set forth, Mr. President, is the following set 
of important facts:
  First, the bill as it now exists, enshrines as the core theater 
missile defense program four programs to the exclusion of all the other 
programs.
  Second, the bill does not recognize that these four core theater 
missile defense programs provide overlapping coverage of the rear area 
in the theater but often no coverage for our front line troops.
  That is graphically shown on this chart, Mr. President. This is the 
forward battle area. These are various forms of attack coming from the 
enemy on a theoretical battlefield.
  This unprotected zone, this area right here in red, is the area where 
our forward troops are, usually Marine forces or Army forces. The white 
zone is the theater zone that is the support area, not on the forward 
area.
  The only system that is being designed now to protect these forces in 
the forward battle area is the Corps SAM system, which has been 
canceled in this bill and which I am seeking to add back in this 
amendment.
  The programs that are left in the bill are all designed to protect in 
this zone. We have the Patriot intercept zone in white. The Patriot 
system is designed to protect in that area. We have the Navy upper 
tier--very difficult to read here--but it is the outlined pink area in 
the outline here.
  That is the upper tier engagement. We have the THAAD intercept zone, 
the light green zone here. Then we have the Navy lower tier, which is a 
possible program, which is below here.
  These are overlapping programs. We want some overlap. We did not know 
which programs will end up being the best programs. I am not 
complaining about the overlap. What I am complaining about is leaving 
this area completely--not only unprotected except for HAWK batteries, 
which are limited in their effectiveness--but we do not have any 
program, even with all this money that is being complained about that 
is being added, to protect the troops on the forward battle area.
  There is a reference in the majority report to making the PAC-3 
mobile. There is no money to do that. We do not know whether that can 
be done. In my amendment, what I provide is $4.6 million to test that 
view. Can we make the PAC-3 program apply to this area?
  Right now the incoming missiles for this zone are only not protected 
now, if we have this bill without being changed, as it now exists, we 
will have no program being designed for that. We will cut out the only 
program that our international allies--at least three of them--have 
signed up for: Germany, France, and Italy.
  That is what our Congress has asked, for our allies to get involved 
in this. They finally get involved, it is the very beginning of the 
program, and what did we do? We cancel the program. I do not understand 
it. Perhaps someone can explain it.
  The third point I make is that the bill now makes the theater missile 
defense funding problem that is being complained about--that is, the 
majority report complains we are spending 80 percent of our money on 
overall defenses in the theater, but in this bill we add $215 million 
to the theater programs in this area while we cut out $30 million from 
the Corps SAM/MEADS program, which I seek to add back.
  If there is a problem--and I am happen to be one that believes 
theater missile defense should be the priority because that is where 
the immediate threat is and where we have a chance to get programs in 
the field in the next few years that can be effective--if there is a 
problem with 80 percent of the overall funding going to theater, what 
is done in this bill as it now stands, those programs are being added 
to what the program that goes to the heart of the forward battle area 
is cut out.
  The fourth point is that the bill argues that instead of pursuing 
Corps SAM, the ballistic missile defense office should begin 
development of a system based on making the Patriot PAC-3 technologies 
highly mobile to meet the Corps SAM requirement.
  I do not have a quarrel with that. Perhaps PAC-3 would be better than 
Corps SAM. We do not have money in the bill to test that. Right now it 
cannot protect in this area. It is not being worked on. I do not mind 
seeking an answer to that question, but no one knows the answer now.
  Why should we cancel the only program that is designed to protect 
this, and try the PAC-3, give them no money to try PAC-3, and in the 
meantime cancel the only program we have designed in that direction. I 
do not understand any logic in that.
  The fifth point, the bill right now, unless it is changed, rejects 
the cooperation with our allies on the MEADS program. That is the 
program that three of our allies have signed up for, saying they are 
willing to put some of their money into it. For the first time we have 
some of our allies willing to put money into these programs. They will 
pay 50 percent of the MEADS program. 

[[Page S11144]]

  Now, that is puzzling to me, because every Congress--and I do not 
know of any objection we have ever had from this on either side of the 
aisle--has requested that the administration, the Bush administration 
and the Clinton administration, and even the Reagan administration in 
the early 1980's, push hard for greater involvement of our allies in 
missile defenses.
  The allies finally, after a lot of urging, have voluntarily--we did 
not tell them which program to get involved in; they voluntarily chose 
this program. What do we do? The first thing we do after years of 
urging, we say, OK, you have signed up for this program, we will cancel 
it. We want you to now look at other programs, I assume. I do not think 
that makes any sense.
  Mr. President, the bill's decision to terminate the Corps SAM/MEADS 
program leaves our forward-deployed Marine and Army troops virtually 
unprotected for the foreseeable future from attacks by short-range 
ballistic missiles.
  I want no one to misunderstand. We are not talking about what the 
dialog was a little while ago, when we have a threat in 10 years 
against the Holy Land, the United States, or whether we have a threat 
in 12 years or 8 years, or a present threat. This is a present threat. 
It is today's threat. It is one in which the next time we have a 
conflict, we may well have a chemical weapon dropped on our forward 
battle troops by a delivery system, that the Corps SAM--which has been 
canceled under this bill--is designed to protect against.
  I emphasize the point about today's threat. This is a Defense Daily 
report dated July 6, and it is reporting on the Roving Sands exercise, 
which the caption says ``Roving Sands Exercise Reinforced Need for 
Corps SAM, the Army Says.''
  From the report, ``In a June paper, officials of the Army's Air 
Defense Artillery Center say that recently completed Roving Sands air 
defense exercise `reinforced the Army's need to field the Corps SAM 
[surface-to-air missile]'''--that is what SAM stands for, surface-to-
air missile--```to fill a void that exists as a result of emerging 
threats' from tactical ballistic missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, 
and cruise missiles.''
  ``During the Army's live Theater Missile Defense Advance Warfighting 
Experiment, which was conducted as a part of Roving Sands, SS-21 short-
range missiles employed by enemy red forces presented a particular 
problem for the friendly blue forces.''
  Mr. President, getting away from the quote, this is an exercise. We 
have enemy forces, we have friendly forces. They test the various enemy 
systems against our present capability. SS-21 has been produced by the 
Soviet Union for years and have been sold to numerous countries around 
the world. These are widely distributed missile systems that exist in 
many countries.
  ``The largest problem for the blue forces,'' that is, the friendly 
forces, ``came from the red Alpha Battery 1st Battalion, 914 SSM 
Brigade, which `successfully fired all missiles, many with chemical 
warheads, against some 20 Corps and Division targets.' The battery was 
not detected during a single mission, and they were not engaged by 
fixed wing aircraft, rotary aircraft,'' or the Army Tactical Missile 
System.
  In other words, they had 100 percent success rate in the shots that 
were postulated with existing technology against forward battle troops. 
Any one of those in a real battlefield would have contained chemical 
weapons.
  Continuing the quotation from this report:

       For the exercise, four Scud brigades--of which two were 
     simulated and two combined live and simulated equipment--and 
     one SS-21 brigade formed the theater ballistic missile 
     threat.
       Surrogates for cruise missiles formed during Roving Sands 
     ``also attacked Corps targets at will'' despite the 
     deployment of blue forces of an advanced technology sensor to 
     detect them.
       This inability to deal with the major elements of the 
     emerging threat during Roving Sands highlights a deficiency 
     in corps missile defense capabilities, air defense officials 
     conclude in the paper. The Army must field the Corps SAM 
     system to ensure protection of friendly forces and allow the 
     corps commander to accomplish his mission.

  Mr. President, there is much more that can be said about those 
testings, but I think those paragraphs pretty much capture the essence 
of what we are faced with.
  I am not going to get into a detailed comparison of the programs 
which are funded versus this program which is not funded. Suffice it to 
say, though, in my opinion we are pouring money into programs that are 
going to take a long time to develop, that are speculative in terms of 
whether they will work or not. I think some of them are worth some 
money. Some of them are worth putting money in, to see whether they 
will work or not. I do not disagree with that. But we are pouring in 
large sums of money, above the requests in those areas, and we are 
canceling the very program that our allies are working on with us, 
finally, that is designed to protect the frontline troops against 
today's threat. That does not make sense.
  Finally, the termination of the Corps SAM program in this bill is 
bound to have a chilling effect on further cooperation with our NATO 
allies on all defense programs, not just missile defenses. The actions 
in this bill are a complete reversal of the previous policy of 
cooperation. The Congress has been urging cooperation by the allies. 
Frankly, we want them to put some of their money into these programs, 
too. We do not want to be the only ones who ever put any money up. We 
want them to put some money up, because we are going to be fighting, in 
most conflicts, certainly in the European theater, side by side with 
our allies.
  Quoting from the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
1994, and I give this as the exact quote from that bill--I know of no 
Senator or Congressman who opposed this provision in any way:

       Congress encourages Allies of the United States, and 
     particularly those Allies that would benefit most from 
     deployment of Theater Missile Defense systems, to participate 
     in, or to increase participation in, cooperative Theater 
     Missile Defense programs of the United States.

  We have urged them to get involved. They have finally gotten involved 
and we are canceling the program. We are talking about $35 million in 
this amendment and we are talking about, not an add-on to this bill, 
this amendment would shift the money from the big pot of money, over $3 
billion that is provided in the overall missile defense area, and we 
leave it up to the Secretary of Defense, in this amendment, to 
determine how to shift those funds. But there is in my opinion 
sufficient funds for this purpose.
  Let me briefly summarize. My amendment restores the $30.4 million 
requested by the ballistic missile defense office for the Corps SAM/
MEADS program. We add another $4.6 million for the ballistic missile 
defense office to study the view of the majority that the PAC-3 system 
can also be made applicable to this. We say, ``OK, good idea. Take a 
look-see. But do not cancel this program while you are doing it because 
we do not know the answer.'' Thus, my amendment adds back a total of 
$35 million. Since the grand total of $770 million the majority has 
already added to the request for ballistic missile defense in my 
opinion is adequate, my amendment thus offsets the $35 million increase 
by an undistributed reduction of $35 million to the total BMD funding 
of $3.4 billion.
  We have $3.4 billion in this bill. Of that $3.4 billion, we would 
shift $35 million to restructure, repay, and reinsert this program.
  Mr. President, I should close by quoting from a number of letters of 
support for the restoration of the Corps SAM funding which I received 
both from the Pentagon and from our commanders in the field.
  The first letter is a letter from Secretary of Defense Bill Perry. I 
will just quote selectively from that. It is a 2\1/2\ page letter 
addressed to Senator Thurmond.

       Dear Mr. Chairman: As you continue your consideration of 
     the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Bill, I 
     strongly urge you and your colleagues to reconsider the 
     termination of the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) 
     program. The MEADS is a high priority advanced capability 
     tactical ballistic missile defense system that merits your 
     full support.

  Continuing to quote:

       The MEADS [program] represents an appropriate form of 
     allied cooperation in the development of a missile defense 
     system for which the United States and our allies share a 
     valid military requirement.

  Continuing to quote:


[[Page S11145]]

       The outcome of the internationally structured MEADS program 
     will be viewed on both sides of the Atlantic as one of the 
     most important tests of future trans-Atlantic defense 
     cooperation. At a time when both sides of the Atlantic are 
     experiencing declining defense budgets and smaller 
     procurements, we should welcome collaborative ventures where 
     there are compatible requirements. Failure to follow through 
     with this collaborative effort could significantly impact 
     prospects for future defense cooperation within the alliance, 
     jeopardize U.S. efforts to forge an alliance policy on 
     theater missile defense, and may hamper the ability of U.S. 
     defense industry to solicit joint programs with the allies in 
     other areas.
       The Senate report language specifies the United States 
     would be best served to work with the allies on theater 
     missile defense systems that would provide wide areas of 
     coverage, such as the Navy wide area or Army THAAD systems. 
     While future cooperative efforts in those programs may have 
     merit, I firmly believe that MEADS uniquely offers the best 
     opportunity for allied cooperation at this time. In a future 
     conflict, as in Operation Desert Storm, the United States and 
     our allies will likely be operating together in a theater of 
     operations as a coalition force. In this manner, our maneuver 
     forces will be vulnerable to attack by tactical ballistic 
     missiles, cruise missiles and other air-breathing threat. The 
     MEADS would allow the United States, French, German and 
     Italian forces operating the system to provide protection for 
     all coalition partners.

  Mr. President, next I will read from a letter from Gen. George 
Joulwan who heads up our European command. Quoting from General 
Joulwan:
       The recent Senate Armed Services Committee mark-up 
     concerning the MEADS/Corps SAM program directly impacts 
     USEUCOM and NATO's ability to fight and win on the future 
     battlefield. USEUCOM and NATO have a critical need for MEADS.
       Missile defense is one of my very top priorities. While the 
     ``Core'' US Theater Missile Defense (TMD) systems (PAC-III, 
     Navy lower-tier and THAAD) play a central role in defending 
     US interests and forces, they do not provide the mobility and 
     force protection required to defend against emerging air and 
     cruise missile threats. These limitations provide our 
     potential enemies a window of opportunity to attack perceived 
     vulnerabilities in protection of our forces and/or national 
     interests. Core TMD programs alone simply do not provide 
     sufficient operational capability to meet our security 
     requirements.
       The MEADS/Corps SAM program will enable the US to protect 
     its regional interests against a wide spectrum of threats. 
     Excepting long range strategic missiles currently deployed by 
     only a few countries, there is no direct missile threat to 
     the continental United States today. Conversely, this theater 
     faces a range of systems that could directly threaten US 
     interests and US/Allied forces. Many nations in and around 
     the European Theater (especially in our Southern Region) are 
     developing and employing short range Theater Ballistic 
     Missiles (TBM), cruise missiles and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 
     (UAV) to exploit perceived US and Allied vulnerabilities.
       In the European Theater, interoperability is absolutely 
     vital. Further, NATO is the enabler for coalition operations 
     elsewhere. The MEADS program improves both US and NATO 
     operational capability through total interoperability. Having 
     MEADS deployed with our allies would mean less reliance on 
     strictly US assets to defend US and Allied forces and 
     interests.

  Mr. President, next I would like to read a letter from General Luck, 
commander in chief, U.S. Army in Korea.

       This situation, especially on the Korean peninsula, 
     requires that we develop and field TMD systems that are 
     highly flexible, extremely mobile, capable of 360 degree 
     coverage and able to counter the full threat spectrum. Though 
     there is no system that can currently do this job for us, I 
     strongly believe the US Army has clearly articulated the need 
     for such a system through the Corps SAM program.
       I understand that recent action by the HNSC and the SASC 
     have essentially terminated the Corps SAM program. I would 
     think that the demise of that program should not be 
     mistakenly linked to the vital Corps SAM requirement. The 
     capability provided by Corps SAM represents one of our more 
     important needs in protecting the force on the peninsula 
     today and in the future.

  Mr. President, he goes on to say:

       While we do have Patriot PAC-2 assets in theater, we remain 
     at risk given the growing and rapidly improving nature of the 
     threat. The termination of Corps SAM continues and increases 
     that risk. I would strongly recommend that Congress 
     reconsider the Corps SAM requirement and restore appropriate 
     funding to protect our forces.

  Mr. President, I also would like to read a letter from Gen. Dennis 
Reimer, head of the U.S. Army:

       The predominant threats to Army and Marine Corps maneuver 
     forces are very short/short range tactical ballistic missiles 
     (VS/SRTBMs), cruise missiles (CMs) and unmanned aerial 
     vehicles (UAVs). Defense against these threats well forward 
     of our forces is clearly one of the greatest concerns facing 
     our Commanders-in-Chief (CINCs). The Corps SAM Operational 
     Requirements Document (ORD) specifies countering these 
     threats with a strategically deployable, tactically mobile 
     system providing 360 degree coverage. Existing/proposed 
     system configurations (PAC-3, THAAD, Navy Upper/Lower tier) 
     fail to provide the required protection due to deployability 
     and mobility limitations, lack of 360 degree coverage, and 
     lack of growth potential to meet these essential 
     requirements.
       This is a compelling requirement. Army and Marine Corps 
     forces are currently at risk, and will remain at risk with no 
     defense against VS/SRTBMs and only limited capability against 
     CM attacks.

  Mr. President, finally a letter from Robin Beard. Many of you know 
Robin Beard. He was a Congressman from Tennessee, a Republican 
Congressman, and now is the Assistant Secretary General, NATO. He 
writes the following letter. This letter is addressed to Senator Ted 
Stevens:

       Dear Senator Stevens:
       I am writing to express extreme concern with the Senate 
     Armed Services Committee's decision to terminate the Medium 
     Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) program and to urge you 
     and your colleagues to support the President's budget request 
     of $30.4 million for MEADS in the FY 1996 Defense 
     Appropriations Bill.
       While others have spoken to the U.S. military requirements 
     for MEADS/Corps SAM, I would like to offer a broader NATO 
     perspective on the matter. Canceling MEADS would send a 
     horrible message to the Allies. It would confirm their worst 
     fears regarding the lack of U.S. interest in cooperative 
     armaments projects and would seriously jeopardize on-going 
     efforts to develop a cooperative approach for meeting the 
     challenges posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass 
     destruction and their delivery systems.

  Mr. President, continuing to quote from Robin Beard who is now the 
Assistant Secretary General, NATO:

       In addition to the political track, NATO Military 
     Authorities have prepared a draft Military Operational 
     Requirement for Theater Missile Defense that calls for the 
     protection of NATO territory, forces and populations against 
     ballistic missiles. And efforts are also underway under the 
     auspices of the Conference of National Armaments Director 
     (CNAD)--where NATO's material development is focused--to 
     define future opportunities and mentors of collaboration in 
     the area of TMD.
       All of these efforts will lead, in the next couple of 
     years, to the development of an Alliance policy framework on 
     TMD cooperation endorsed by the North Atlantic Council. The 
     termination of MEADS, the first significant TMD collaborative 
     efforts, would be a serious setback for U.S. leadership in 
     this area.

  Mr. President, I also have a letter from General Shalikashvili, 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But I think I have probably 
given enough so that my colleagues have gotten the drift of the 
priorities for this program.
  I hope that the Senate will consider this carefully. I hope that this 
amendment could possibly be accepted. But, if it is not accepted, I 
urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  I think this is a very important program. A lot is at stake here. The 
lives of the battlefield troops at the front line are at stake, and the 
future of cooperative efforts in our alliance in terms of theater 
missile defense I think also will be very significantly affected by how 
we handle this matter.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all of the complete 
letters that I have read excerpts from be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    July 24, 1995.
     Hon. Sam Nunn,
     Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nunn: As you well know, our combined forces in 
     Korea face a significant threat from DPRK tactical ballistic 
     missiles, cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles. The 
     growing quantity and capability of this particular threat and 
     the restricted nature of Korean terrain amplify the risk to 
     our forces. This situation, especially on the Korean 
     peninsula, requires that we develop and field TMD systems 
     that are highly flexible, extremely mobile, capable of 360 
     degree coverage and able to counter the full threat spectrum. 
     Though there is no system that can currently do this job for 
     us, I strongly believe the US Army has clearly articulated 
     the need for such a system through the Corps SAM program.
       I understand that recent action by the HNSC and the SASC 
     have essentially terminated the Corps SAM program. I would 
     think that the demise of that program should not be 
     mistakenly linked to the vital Corps SAM requirement. The 
     capability provided by Corps SAM represents one of our more 
     important needs in protecting the force on the peninsula 
     today and in the future. In fact, TMD as a whole is a high 
     priority in our theater and has the support of USCINCPAC as 

[[Page S11146]]
     one of the top ten priorities within our FY96 integrated priority list.
       While we do have Patriot PAC-2 assets in theater, we remain 
     at risk given the growing and rapidly improving nature of the 
     threat. The termination of Corps SAM continues and increases 
     that risk. I would strongly recommend that Congress 
     reconsider the Corps SAM requirement and restore appropriate 
     funding to protect our forces.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Gary E. Luck,

                                               General, U.S. Army,
     Commander in Chief.
                                                                    ____

                                                        U.S. Army,


                                           The Chief of Staff,

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 1995.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Senate Armed Services Committee 
     (SASC) voted to terminate the Corps Surface-to-Air Missile 
     (Corps SAM) program, after the House National Security 
     Committee (HNSC) voted a $10 million decrement. However, the 
     critical warfighting requirement that Corps SAM intends to 
     fill remains completely valid.
       The predominant threats to Army and Marine Corps maneuver 
     forces are very short/short range tactical ballistic missiles 
     (VS/SRTBMs), cruise missiles (CMs) and unmanned aerial 
     vehicles (UAVs). Defense against these threats well forward 
     of our forces is clearly one of the greatest concerns facing 
     our Commanders-in-Chief (CINCs). The Corps SAM Operational 
     Requirements Document (ORD) specifies countering these 
     threats with a strategically deployable, tactically mobile 
     system providing 360 degree coverage. Existing/proposed 
     system configurations (PAC-3, THAAD, Navy Upper/Lower tier) 
     fail to provide the required protection due to deployability 
     and mobility limitations, lack of 360 degree coverage, and 
     lack of growth potential to meet these essential 
     requirements.
       This is a compelling requirement. Army and Marine Corps 
     forces are currently at risk, and will remain at risk with no 
     defense against AS/SRTBMs and only limited capability against 
     CM attacks. We strongly feel that development actions must 
     continue, and welcome the opportunity to work with the 
     Committee to demonstrate how we can leverage current 
     capabilities in order to meet this critical need in a rapid, 
     cost-effective manner.
           Sincerely,

                                             Dennis J. Reimer,

                                               General, U.S. Army,
     Chief of Staff.
                                                                    ____

                                                        U.S. Army,


                                           The Chief of Staff,

                                    Washington, DC, July 28, 1995.
     Memorandum for Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and 
         Technology).
     Subject: Army Position for Corps Surface-to-Air Missile 
         (Corps SAM)/Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS).
       1. The Army fully supports the current proposed Corps SAM/
     MEADS program. We need to proceed as rapidly as possible with 
     the Corps SAM program under any circumstances. The Army and 
     the Marine Corps have a compelling need for the only system 
     that can provide air and missile defense for maneuver forces 
     as well as serve as an effective lower tier Theater Missile 
     Defense (TMD) system under the Theater High Altitude Area 
     Defense (THAAD) umbrella.
       2. We have reviewed the current status of the Corps SAM/
     MEADS program with respect to the ongoing debate in Congress 
     and the mid and long-term funding of DoD's TMD programs. We 
     believe that the potential development cost savings and the 
     prospects of allied interoperability and operational burden 
     sharing in TMD fully justify pursuing the Project 
     Definition--Validation phase of MEADS. The initial phase will 
     define the program in terms of costs and other benefits to 
     the participating nations and allow for an informed decision 
     by all the countries involved regarding continuation of a 
     cooperative program. The Army has the mechanisms in place to 
     adequately address Congressional concerns with respect to 
     leveraging current TMD and cruise missile defense programs 
     while protecting our interests with respect to technology 
     transfer. The industry proposals currently being evaluated 
     reflect a high degree of leveraging of other programs and 
     will serve as a sound foundation for entering into the MEADS 
     program. We will provide full support to insure that MEADS is 
     begun expeditiously and in a manner that protects the best 
     interests of the United States. If efforts at a cooperative 
     program are unsuccessful, the Request For Proposal (RFP) 
     allows for a transition back to a U.S. only program.
       3. I appreciate your continued support of this critical 
     program for our warfighters.

                                             Dennis J. Reimer,

                                               General, U.S. Army,
     Chief of Staff.
                                                                    ____

                           North Atlantic Treaty Organization,

                                                    July 25, 1995.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ted: I am writing to express extreme concern with the 
     Senate Armed Services Committee's decision to terminate the 
     Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) program, and to 
     urge you and your colleagues to support the President's 
     budget request of $30.4 million for MEADS in the FY 1996 
     Defense Appropriations Bill.
       While others have spoken to the U.S. military requirement 
     for MEADS/Corps SAM, I would like to offer a broader NATO 
     perspective on the matter. Cancelling MEADS would send a 
     horrible message to the Allies. It would confirm their worst 
     fears regarding the lack of U.S. interest in cooperative 
     armaments projects and would seriously jeopardize on-going 
     efforts to develop a cooperative approach for meeting the 
     challenges posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass 
     destruction and their delivery systems.
       NATO is now closer than ever to formulating an Alliance 
     approach to theater missile defense. At the January 1994 NATO 
     Summit, Ministers recognized the dangers posed by 
     proliferation and directed that work begin on developing a 
     policy framework to reduce the proliferation threat and 
     protect against it. Supporting this effort is NATO's Senior 
     Defense Group on Proliferation, which recently concluded that 
     preventing the proliferation of WMD and their missile 
     delivery systems remains NATO's top counter proliferation 
     priority. Additionally, the June 1994 Alliance Policy 
     Framework on Proliferation and Weapons of Mass Destruction 
     recognizes the growing proliferation risks, especially with 
     regard to states on NATO's periphery, and called on the 
     Alliance to address the military capabilities needed to 
     discourage WMD proliferation and use, and if necessary, to 
     protect NATO territory, populations and forces.
       In addition to the political track, NATO Military 
     Authorities have prepared a draft Military Operational 
     Requirement for Theater Missile Defense that calls for the 
     protection of NATO territory, forces and populations against 
     ballistic missiles. And efforts are also underway under the 
     auspices of the Conference of National Armaments Directors 
     (CNAD)--where NATO's materiel development is focused--to 
     define future opportunities and methods of collaboration in 
     the area of TMD.
       All of these efforts will lead, in the next couple of 
     years, to the development of an Alliance policy framework on 
     TMD cooperation endorsed by the North Atlantic Council. The 
     termination of MEADS, the first significant TMD collaborative 
     efforts, would be a serious setback for U.S. leadership in 
     this area. The need to respond to the growing proliferation 
     threat, coupled with the high cost of new defensive systems, 
     means that we can't go it alone. We need Allied participation 
     and MEADS is a good place to start because it responds to 
     French, German and Italian requirements to develop a new 
     defensive capable of addressing the threat posed by aircraft, 
     ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles. And, as it has been 
     noted by U.S. military authorities, it fulfills the 
     requirement for a highly mobile TMD/cruise missile defense 
     system capable of protecting Army and Marine Corps maneuver 
     forces.
       The implications of canceling MEADS go well beyond NATO TMD 
     cooperation. As the centerpiece of the U.S. ``renaissance'' 
     in trans-Atlantic cooperation. MEADS is an experiment that is 
     being closely watched on both sides of the Atlantic. Failure 
     of the U.S. to follow through will stifle prospects for 
     future cooperation--such as with JSTARS--and play into the 
     hand of those advocating a strong European defense industry 
     at the expense of trans-Atlantic cooperation. U.S. industry 
     will then find it increasingly difficult to solicit European 
     cooperation across a broad spectrum of projects. It may well 
     spell the difference between trans-Atlantic cooperation and 
     competition.
       In closing, I would again urge you and your colleagues to 
     consider the broader geopolitical implications of this 
     cooperative program and support the President's budget 
     request. MEADS will pay dividends in the future both in terms 
     of its contribution to trans-Atlantic armaments collaboration 
     and as a military capability in support of out-of-area 
     operations--a central tenet of the Alliance's new Strategic 
     Concept.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                      Robin Beard,
     Assistant Secretary General, NATO.
                                                                    ____

                                             Chairman of the Joint


                                              Chiefs of Staff,

                                    Washington, DC, July 12, 1995.
     Hon. Sam Nunn,
     U.S. Senate, Committee of the Armed Forces, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nunn: Thank you for your letter of 11 July 
     regarding your concerns about theater missile defense (TMD) 
     priorities.
       The President's Budget submit represents a balanced 
     approach to satisfying our theater missile defense 
     requirements. In that document, CORPS SAM/MEADS research and 
     development was supported as a part of the integrated TMD 
     architecture. It will fill a critical need for mobile, self-
     defensive capability for maneuver forces, both Army and 
     Marine Corps. We support funding of this program at $30.4 
     million for FY 1996. In response to your questions, I support 
     funding Corps SAM/MEADS at this level since none of the 
     programs in the letter offer an alternative better than the 
     President's Budget.
       Current development efforts, new efforts in sophisticated 
     strike operations against mobile launchers, and the Ballistic 
     Missile Defense Organization-led TMD Cost and Operational 
     Effectiveness Analysis will enable the Department to make 
     critical TMD acquisition decisions in the FY 1998 budget 
     process consistent with funding constraints and 

[[Page S11147]]
     the CINCs' warfighting requirements. For now, I believe the DoD Budget 
     submit appropriately represents our TBMD warfighting 
     priorities.
       I discussed the above position with the Joint Chiefs and 
     our CINCs, and all are in agreement.
           Sincerely,
                                            John M. Shalikashvili,
     Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
                                                                    ____

                                     The Secretary of Defense,

                                    Washington, DC, July 28, 1995.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As you continue your consideration of 
     the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Bill, I 
     strongly urge you and your colleagues to reconsider the 
     termination of the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) 
     program. The MEADS is a high priority advanced capability 
     tactical ballistic missile defense system that merits your 
     full support.
       The Department's approach to the MEADS program has its 
     direct legacy in past Congressional direction that the United 
     States seek cooperation with our allies on the development of 
     tactical and theater missile defenses. I would cite the 
     provision from the Fiscal Year 1994 Defense Authorization 
     Conference Report that expressed the following sense of the 
     Congress:
       ``Congress encourages allies of the United States, and 
     particularly those allies that would benefit most from 
     deployment of Theater Missile Defense systems, to participate 
     in, or to increase participation in, cooperative Theater 
     Missile Defense programs of the United States. Congress also 
     encourages participation by the United States in cooperative 
     theater missile defense efforts of allied nations as such 
     programs emerge.''
       The MEADS represents an appropriate form of allied 
     cooperation in the development of a missile defense system 
     for which the United States and our allies share a valid 
     military requirement. As you are aware, MEADS will fulfill an 
     existing U.S. operational requirement for a rapidly 
     deployable, highly mobile, robust air defense system designed 
     to protect maneuver forces and expeditionary forces of the 
     U.S. Army and Marine Corps. Both Services are in strong 
     agreement on the need for protection against short- to 
     medium-range ballistic missiles and the full spectrum of air-
     breathing threats-aircraft, cruise missiles and unmanned 
     aerial vehicles. This is also a military requirement shared 
     by our European allies. In short, this is a valid 
     requirement.
       To satisfy this requirement and reduce costs, the committee 
     recommends a restructured program that would merge ongoing 
     efforts in PAC-3 and Theater High Altitude Area Defense 
     (THAAD) to produce a mobile, hybrid system. The acquisition 
     strategy for the current MEADS program does, in fact, 
     leverage off existing ballistic and cruise missile defense 
     programs as the committee suggests. During the MEADS program 
     definition phase, we have planned to evaluate all viable 
     options including hybrid solutions. Each approach will be 
     assessed and its advantages in terms of costs and commonality 
     will be compared to other system concepts. At least one of 
     our partners, Germany, which already has PATRIOT, would most 
     likely respond eagerly to any PAC-3 option which would 
     provide part of a cost and operationally effective MEADS 
     architecture. Additionally, any potential cost saving derived 
     from unilateral development are more than offset by the 
     political, operational and diplomatic benefits of 
     international collaboration.
       The outcome of the internationally structured MEADS program 
     will be viewed on both sides of the Atlantic as one of the 
     most important tests of future trans-Atlantic defense 
     cooperation. At a time when both sides of the Atlantic are 
     experiencing declining defense budgets and smaller 
     procurements, we should welcome collaborative ventures where 
     there are compatible requirements. Failure to follow through 
     with this collaborative effort could significantly impact 
     prospects for future defense cooperation within the alliance, 
     jeopardize U.S. efforts to forge an alliance policy on 
     theater missile defense, and may hamper the ability of U.S. 
     defense industry to solicit joint programs with the allies in 
     other areas.
       The Senate report language specifies that the United States 
     would be best served to work with the allies on theater 
     missile defense systems that would provide wide areas of 
     coverage, such as Navy wide area or Army THAAD systems. While 
     future cooperative efforts in those programs may have merit, 
     I firmly believe that MEADS uniquely offers the best 
     opportunity for allied cooperation at this time. In a future 
     conflict, as in Operation Desert Storm, the United States and 
     our allies will likely be operating together in a theater of 
     operations as a coalition force. In this manner, our maneuver 
     forces will be vulnerable to attack by tactical ballistic 
     missiles, cruise missiles and other air-breathing threats. 
     The MEADS would allow United States, French, German and 
     Italian forces operating the system to provide protection for 
     all coalition partners. At the same time, THAAD and Navy Wide 
     Area Defenses could provide a defensive overlay. Hence, MEADS 
     supports coalition efforts, joint operations and 
     interoperability of tactical ballistic missile defenses. 
     These could be critical features in a future conflict.
       I urge you to support the full budget request for MEADS, 
     our centerpiece of Theater Missile Defense cooperation with 
     our European allies.
           Sincerely,
     William J. Perry.
                                                                    ____

                                               Commander in Chief,


                                        U.S. European Command,

                                                    July 20, 1995.
     Hon. Sam Nunn,
     Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nunn: The recent Senate Armed Services 
     Committee mark-up concerning the MEADS/Corps SAM program 
     directly impacts USEUCOM and NATO's ability to fight and win 
     on the future battlefield, USEUCOM and NATO have a critical 
     need for MEADS.
       Missile defense is one of my very top priorities. While the 
     ``Core'' US Theater Missile Defense (TMD) systems (PAC-III, 
     Navy lower-tier and THAAD) play a central role in defending 
     US interests and forces, they do not provide the mobility and 
     force protection required to defend against emerging air and 
     cruise missile threats. These limitations provide our 
     potential enemies a window of opportunity to attack perceived 
     vulnerabilities in protection of our forces and/or national 
     interests. Core TMD programs alone simply do not provide 
     sufficient operational capability to meet our security 
     requirements.
       The MEADS/Corps SAM program will enable the US to protect 
     its regional interests against a wide spectrum of threats. 
     Excepting long range strategic missiles currently deployed by 
     only a few countries, there is no direct missile threat to 
     the continental United States today. Conversely this theater 
     faces a range of systems that could directly threaten US 
     interests and US/Allied forces. Many nations in and around 
     the European Theater (especially in our Southern Region) are 
     developing and employing short range Theater Ballistic 
     Missiles (TBM), cruise missiles and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 
     (UAV) to exploit perceived US and Allied vulnerabilities.
       In the European Theater, interoperability is absolutely 
     vital. Further, NATO is the enabler for coalition operations 
     elsewhere. The MEADS program improves both US and NATO 
     operational capability through total interoperability. Having 
     MEADS deployed with our allies would mean less reliance on 
     strictly US assets to defend US and Allied Forces and 
     interests.
       MEADS has potentially significant economic and political 
     benefits, as well. New TMD systems are so expensive that 
     unilateral development and fielding often makes them 
     unaffordable. Yet, with the Germans, French and Italians 
     picking up 50% of the MEADS program costs, it appears that we 
     can protect our forces and interests while realizing 
     potentially large savings.
       Politically, MEADS is a visible and important illustration 
     of the US commitment to missile defense, to NATO, and to 
     Europe. MEADS is a model for future transatlantic cooperation 
     efforts. Terminating MEADS now would have serious 
     ramifications in other ongoing cooperative ventures and raise 
     yet another round of poignant questions about US intentions 
     regarding leadership in NATO. Consequently, to protect US 
     forces and our national interests, we must maintain the 
     leadership and momentum for MEADS. Congressional support is 
     critical. With it, MEADS can protect US interests and US/
     Allied forces from adversaries equipped with short range 
     TBMs, cruise missiles and UAVs. Without MEADS, we will place 
     future US and Allied forces at a serious risk. I urge 
     continued development of MEADS.
           Sincerely,
                                                George A. Joulwan,
                                               General, U.S. Army.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise in support of this very important 
Department of Defense authorization bill. I think outstanding work has 
been done on this bill, and I commend the very distinguished chairman 
of the full committee, the Senator from South Carolina, Senator 
Thurmond, who really provided true leadership on this bill. He allowed 
the subcommittees to do their work. We had a lot of very good hearings. 
All of the Members were engaged and involved. And I think we have 
produced a good bill. Obviously, there are some points we disagree on. 
But I think we can work out some of those disagreements, and we will 
have votes on others and move forward.
  I want to thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia, who has 
always done good work on the important defense of our country, and I 
look forward to working with him on a number of issues that are still 
outstanding that I think we can resolve.
  I want to make the point at the beginning that we have already had a 
lot of negotiations and addressed a number of concerns in the 
Department of Defense authorization bill. I believe we are going to be 
able to make a number of changes in the Department of Energy portion of 
the DOD authorization bill that will address concerns of Senators on 
both sides of the aisle, and from States as divergent at South 

[[Page S11148]]
Carolina, Idaho, New Mexico, and Tennessee.
  We have tried to list all of the various concerns. We have resolved 
all of these issues except maybe one or two where we just need to have 
a good debate and have a vote and see how it turns out.
  So I am pleased with the bill that we have produced. I think we 
should not lose sight of the fact that we need to move it on through in 
a reasonable time, get it into conference where we will continue to 
work out differences, and produce a bill that I feel confident that 
hopefully the President will be able to sign.
  Also I would like to urge my colleagues to try to limit the number of 
amendments. Let us get right down to the basic issues and vote so we 
can finish up the authorization bill in the next 3 days and move on to 
the appropriations bill.
  From an authorization standpoint, I think we need to remember that we 
are right on top of the appropriations process now. If we dally along 
very much, we will wind up on a side track, and the appropriators move 
forward. So let us work together and resolve these issues the best way 
we can.
  But I would like to address the issue that has been discussed a lot 
here today--a couple of the issues that will be debated later on, and 
we will have amendments on it. That is the Missile Defense Act of 1995. 
Since there have been a number of assertions that I think are not 
true--I think they are false--concerning the content and the intent of 
this legislation, I would like to explain actually what it does and 
does not do in my opinion,
  The Missile Defense Act of 1995 would replace the Missile Defense Act 
of 1991 which was a bipartisan effort that was developed in 1991 with 
more up-to-date legislation intended to respond more completely to the 
challenges and opportunities of the post-cold-war era--times have 
changed--and establish a more focused course for theater and national 
missile defenses.
  The new legislation also addresses the growing cruise missile threat 
that we have around the world, for the first time establishing an 
integrated approach to ballistic and cruise missile defense.
  Programmatically, the Missile Defense Act of 1995 has three pieces: 
One that focuses our efforts in the area of theater missile defense; 
one that establishes a clear policy to develop and deploy a limited 
national missile defense system; and, one that establishes the cruise 
missile defense initiative.
  With regard to TMD, the legislation establishes a top priority corps 
program consisting of the Patriot PAC-3 system, the theater high 
altitude area defense system, or THAAD, the Navy lower tier system, and 
the Navy upper tier system. To allow us to maintain this high priority 
program and to make room for programs to defend American territory, the 
legislation also proposes to terminate two unfocused and relatively low 
priority programs--although its value or priority has already been 
discussed, and we will talk more about it in a moment--that is, the 
airborne boost-phase interceptor, and the Corps SAM system.
  Each year, several of our colleagues say that, well, you never cancel 
any defense programs even when they have had problems or when their 
future is not clear, or regardless of what the cost is. Well here is a 
case where we are trying to terminate one that has been unfocused and 
has some problems.
  We want to work with Senator Nunn on the Corps SAM issue and I think 
maybe we can find a way to work through this. But keep in mind, this is 
not some $30 million program or $35 million program. This is a program 
that leads us to over $10 billion now. If it is an international 
program that involves some of our allies in Europe, presumably they 
would take up some half of the costs of that Corps SAM program. But 
this is potentially a big dollar program.
  So what I would like to see us do is let us look at the problems it 
has had, let us ask some questions about why it has moved on into the 
international arena without us I think directly acting on that, and see 
if we can understand where we want to go before we get started toward a 
program that could cost a lot.
  I am impressed, we are all impressed, when the frontline commanders 
say we need this. We listen to that. But here is a case where we said 
we just do not feel we can afford this one in view of the way it has 
been developed and some of the problems it has had.
  With regard to the national defense, I am amazed at what I hear on 
this. Listen to what I said: ``National defense.'' The Missile Defense 
Act would establish a policy to deploy a multiple-site ground-based 
system by the year 2003. This is not star wars but a modest and 
responsible answer to a growing threat.
  After considering all the alternatives, the Armed Services Committee 
felt that the United States should move directly to a multiple-site 
system, since a single-site system would just not be capable of 
defending all Americans. We are thinking about a system that is going 
to allow some Americans to be defended and not others? Somebody want to 
defend that?
  We felt it was inappropriate morally and strategically to select a 
subset of the American population for defensive coverage while leaving 
some undefended. You better check and see if you would be undefended or 
not. We are talking about national defense of our country and by one 
that could have more than one site so that everybody could be covered. 
This decision seems even more correct given that the most unpredictable 
and dangerous new ballistic missile threats will be capable of reaching 
States like Alaska and Hawaii before the continent itself becomes 
vulnerable. I am referring to the North Korean intercontinental 
ballistic missile program which the intelligence community believes 
could become operational within the next 5 years.
  This is not some far-off potential threat. This is very close. An NMD 
system consisting of the only site in the middle of the United States 
simply cannot defend Alaska and Hawaii and would not do a very good job 
of protecting the coastal regions where most Americans live, including 
this Senator. I live on the Gulf of Mexico. I look at the areas 
covered. We probably would not be covered. I am uncomfortable with 
that.
  In the area of cruise missile defense, the legislation would require 
the Secretary of Defense to focus U.S. activities and coordinate the 
various efforts within the Department of Defense. It would require the 
Secretary to integrate U.S. programs for ballistic missile defense with 
cruise missile defense to ensure that we leverage our efforts and do 
not waste resources through unnecessary duplication. It also requires 
the Secretary to study the current organization for managing cruise 
missile defense and recommend changes that would strengthen and 
coordinate these efforts.
  There have been a number of other statements I just do not agree with 
raised against this legislation, most of them having to do with the ABM 
Treaty. Let me set the record straight. Nothing in this bill advocates 
or would require violation of the ABM Treaty. Every policy and goal 
established in this bill can be achieved through means contained in the 
ABM Treaty itself. The argument this bill would force us to violate the 
ABM Treaty is like arguing that one must drive off a cliff just because 
there is a bend in the road where the cliff is.
  This bill recommends that we gradually and responsibly turn the 
wheel. Can we improve on it? Let us work at it. Maybe we can. I think 
we have got some scare tactics here with regard to what we are trying 
to do, and that is not what we want to do.
  Let me also say that it is not this bill first and foremost that 
forces us to reconsider the ABM Treaty. Such a reexamination is 
warranted, indeed required, as a result of the end of the cold war and 
the growing multifaceted ballistic missile threat characterizations of 
this new era. The ABM Treaty with its underlying philosophy of mutually 
assured destruction, MAD, practically defined the cold war 
confrontation. Why would anybody argue that we should now reexamine 
that agreement? Times are different.
  Let us be clear about what this bill in fact calls for. It recommends 
that the Senate undertake a comprehensive review of the continuing 
value and validity of the ABM Treaty. It suggests that the Senate 
consider creating a select committee to undertake a 1-year assessment. 
Let us not run up to the point where in the year 2002 or 2003 we 

[[Page S11149]]
may actually want to move toward deployment.
  Let us think about it. Let us have a group, and if this is not the 
way to set it up, set it up somewhere else. Get the various committees 
that would have jurisdiction involved. Let us start thinking about and 
talking about what we want to do with the ABM Treaty. So what we are 
recommending is a careful examination of all issues before making a 
specific recommendation to the President on how to modify our current 
ABM Treaty obligations.
  By establishing a policy to deploy a multiple-site NMD, national 
missile defense system, this bill does assume that eventually we will 
need to amend or otherwise modify the ABM Treaty, but let me repeat 
that the means to achieve this are contained in the ABM Treaty itself. 
The treaty in no way limits the establishment of policies. It limits 
the deployment of ABM systems.
  In the case of ground-based systems, the treaty in no way limits 
deployment or development or testing. Therefore, we can proceed 
simultaneously to develop the system called for in this bill while we 
figure out the best approach dealing in the future with the treaty.
  We should remember that the ABM Treaty was meant to be a living 
document that can be changed as circumstances change. Anyone who argues 
that the strategic and political circumstances have not changed since 
1972 is living on another planet.
  Article XIII of the treaty envisioned possible changes in the 
strategic situation which have a bearing on the provisions of this 
treaty. So I wish to just emphasize again as I move forward that there 
are various treaty compliant ways to modify our current obligations 
under the treaty and we would like to work toward.
  For those who are upset by the fact that this bill would establish a 
policy to deploy a multiple-site NMD system, I would point out that the 
ABM Treaty signed and ratified in 1972 did permit development and 
deployment of multiple sites. I would also remind my colleagues who 
seem to fear the prospect of amending the treaty that in 1974 the 
Senate approved a major amendment to the treaty. So we are not 
suggesting something happened that has not already happened before and 
we would not suggest doing it for quite some time.
  Let me also briefly address another provision in the Missile Defense 
Act of 1995 which relates to the ABM Treaty. Section 238, which is 
based on legislation introduced earlier this year by Senator Warner, 
would establish a clear demarcation line between TMD systems which are 
not covered by the treaty and the ABM systems which are explicitly 
limited. This provision is also consistent with the letter and the 
spirit of the treaty, and I know we will talk more about that later on.
  Now, with regard to this specific amendment that is pending, I wish 
to commend Senator Kyl for his amendment. How could anybody disagree 
with it? It says the purpose of this amendment is to state the sense of 
the Senate on protecting the United States from ballistic missile 
attack. That seemed like a very worthwhile proposal to me. The Senator 
from Arizona has clearly demonstrated that there is a real and growing 
threat to the security of the United States posed by ballistic missiles 
of all ranges. I fully conquer with his sense-of-the-Senate language 
that all Americans should be defended against this potential limited 
ballistic missile attack.
  This week we will have a lot of debate on this subject and others 
related to it. One argument that will surface over and over is that 
there is no threat to justify the deployment decision of the national 
missile defense program. The Kyl amendment clearly establishes that 
this is an erroneous assumption. The United States currently faces 
ballistic missile threats from Russia and China, if only the threat of 
accidental or unauthorized attack.
  Just as important, the missile technologies that these two countries 
possess have ended up or are likely to end up in the hands of countries 
that would like nothing more than to blackmail, if not attack, the 
United States. North Korea has also demonstrated that any country that 
has a basic technology infrastructure can develop long-range ballistic 
missiles without providing significant warning.
  Saddam Hussein, I heard earlier today some Senators kind of seeming 
to brush off Saddam Hussein or what he might do. But he proved to the 
world that modifying existing missiles is not, you know, something we 
should take lightly. It can happen. High technology is not needed if 
the intent is to terrorize, if not directly act.
  Since we will debate this issue at length, I will limit my remarks at 
this point. But I do think that the Kyl amendment is a good amendment 
to sort of lay out the parameters of this debate. I hope it will pass. 
I understand there has been a second-degree amendment by the Senator 
from Georgia that would put back in the Corps SAM funding at the $35 
million level, as I understand it, which is $5 million more than what 
the administration asked for. Now, I understand that extra $5 million 
is so we can have a study of the potential problems and where we are 
headed.
  My only suggestion would be here that maybe we are kind of getting 
the cart before the horse. Let us take a look at it and see where the 
problems are. Let us see how it is developing internationally.
  Again, I sympathize with what the Senator from Georgia says on the 
front-line need for this. But I just have to ask if there is not a 
better way we can do it. Have we looked at the problems it has? And 
have we evaluated the fact that this could wind up costing $10 billion? 
I think we will talk about that some more. But again, my disposition on 
that is let us try to find a way to work it out, if we can. Let us go 
ahead and agree to the Kyl basic language and then get to some of the 
specifics. I think that, generally speaking, Senators on both sides of 
the aisle in the committee are comfortable with the dollar amounts, but 
we are still--and I know there will be some amendments to change the 
dollar amounts, but the big question is the policy we are establishing 
here. We could work on the language. That will allow us to move forward 
with the agreed-to policy.
  Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Kyl amendment. The 
Senator from Arizona has clearly demonstrated that there is a real and 
growing threat to the security of the United States posed by ballistic 
missiles of all ranges. I fully concur with his Sense of the Senate 
language which states that all Americans should be defended against 
limited ballistic attack, whatever its origin and whatever its cause.
  This week we will have extensive debate on this subject and a variety 
of related matters. One argument that will surface over and over is 
that there is no threat to justify a deployment decision on national 
missile defense. The Kyle amendment clearly establishes that this is an 
erroneous assumption. The United States currently faces ballistic 
missile threats from Russia and China, if only the threat of accidental 
or unauthorized attack. Just as important, the missile technologies 
that these two countries possess have ended up or are likely to end up 
in the hands of countries who would like nothing more than to 
blackmail, if not attack, the United States.
  North Korea has also demonstrated that any country that has a basic 
technology infrastructure can develop long-range ballistic missiles 
without providing significant warning. Saddam Hussein proved to the 
world that modifying existing missiles is not a serious challenge. High 
technology is not needed if the intent is to terrorize.
  Since we will debate this issue at length, I will limit my remarks at 
this point. Later in the debate I will present a detailed rational for 
the missile defense provisions in the Defense authorization bill and 
respond to the many red herring arguments that have been made in 
opposition. Let me close by saying that the Kyl amendment is warranted 
and long overdue. I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.
  This is not star wars but a modest and responsible answer to a 
growing threat. After considering all alternatives, the Armed Services 
Committee felt that the United States should move directly to a 
multiple-site system, since a single site system would just not be 
capable of defending all Americans. We felt that it would be 
inappropriate morally and strategically, to select a subset of the 
American population for defensive coverage while leaving some 
undefended.
  This decision seems even more correct given that the most 
unpredictable and dangerous new ballistic missile 

[[Page S11150]]
threats will be capable of reaching States like Alaska and Hawaii 
before the continent itself becomes vulnerable. I am referring to the 
North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile program, the so-called 
Taepo-Dong, which the intelligence community believes could become 
operational within the next 5 years. An NMD system consisting of only 
one site in the middle of the United States simply cannot defend Alaska 
and Hawaii, and would not do a very good job of protecting the coastal 
regions where most Americans live.
  In the area of cruise missile defense, the legislation would require 
the Secretary of Defense to focus U.S. activities and to coordinate the 
various efforts within the Department of Defense. It would require the 
Secretary to integrate U.S. programs for ballistic missile defense with 
cruise missile defense to ensure that we leverage our efforts and do 
not waste resources through unnecessary duplication. It also requires 
the Secretary to study the current organization for managing cruise 
missile defense and recommend any changes that would strengthen and 
coordinate these efforts.
  There have been a number of other false arguments raised against this 
legislation, most having to do with the ABM Treaty. Let me set the 
record straight: nothing in this bill advocates or would require a 
violation of the ABM Treaty. Every policy and goal established in this 
bill can be achieved through means contained in the ABM Treaty itself. 
The argument that this bill will force us to violate the ABM Treaty is 
like arguing that one must drive off a cliff just because there is a 
bend in the road. This bill recommends that we gradually, and 
responsibly, turn the wheel.
  Let me also say that it is not this bill, first and foremost, that 
forces us to reconsider the ABM Treaty. Such a reexamination is 
warranted, indeed required, as a result of the end of the cold war, and 
the growing multifaceted ballistic missile threat characterizes this 
new era. The ABM Treaty, with its underlying philosophy of mutual 
assured destruction, practically defined the cold war confrontation. 
Why would anybody argue that we should not reexamine such an agreement.
  Let us be clear about what this bill in fact calls for. It recommends 
that the Senate undertake a comprehensive review of the continuing 
value and validity of the ABM Treaty. It suggests that the Senate 
consider creating a select committee to undertake a 1-year assessment. 
What we are recommending is a careful examination of all issues before 
making a specific recommendation
 to the President on how to modify our current ABM Treaty obligations.

  By establishing a policy to deploy a multiple-site NMD system, this 
bill does assume that eventually we will need to amend or otherwise 
modify the ABM Treaty. But let me repeat, the means to achieve this are 
contained in the ABM Treaty itself. The treaty in no way limits the 
establishment of policies, it limits the deployment of ABM systems. In 
the case of ground-based systems, the treaty in no way limits 
development or testing. Therefore, we can proceed simultaneously to 
develop the system called for in this bill while we figure out the best 
approach to dealing with the treaty.
  We should remember that the ABM Treaty was meant to be a living 
document that could be changed as circumstances changed. Anyone who 
argues that the strategic and political circumstances have not changed 
since 1972 is living on another planet. Article XIII of the treaty 
envisioned ``possible changes in the strategic situation which have a 
bearing on the provisions of this treaty.'' Article XVI specifies 
procedures for amending the treaty. Article XV specifies procedures for 
withdrawal from the treaty. As we debate the Missile Defense Act of 
1995, therefore, we must bear in mind that there are various treaty-
compliant ways to modify our current obligations under the treaty, 
including withdrawal if we are unable to achieve satisfactory 
amendments. Talk of violation or abrogation at this time is nothing 
more than hyperbole.
  For those who are upset by the fact that this bill would establish a 
policy to deploy a multiple-site NMD system, I would point out that the 
ABM Treaty, as signed and ratified in 1972, did permit deployment of 
multiple sites. I would also remind my colleagues who seem to fear the 
prospect of amending the treaty that in 1974, the Senate approved a 
major amendment of the treaty.
  Let me also briefly address another provision in the Missile Defense 
Act of 1995, which relates to the ABM Treaty. Section 238, which is 
based on legislation introduced earlier this year by Senator Warner, 
would establish a clear demarcation line between TMD systems, which are 
not covered by the treaty, and ABM systems which are explicitly 
limited. This provision is also consistent with the letter and spirit 
of the treaty. It simply codifies what the administration itself has 
identified as the appropriate standard. This provision is required to 
ensure that the ABM Treaty is not inappropriately expanded or applied 
in ways and in areas outside the scope of the treaty. In essence, it 
would prevent the ABM Treaty from being transformed, without Senate 
concurrence, into a TMD treaty.
  Mr. President, before yielding let me briefly address one 
particularly flawed argument that is commonly used against this bill 
and missile defense programs in general. It has been asserted that this 
bill would undermine START II and perhaps even damage broader United 
States-Russian relations. There is no substantive basis to this 
argument. It is a red herring that has been used by some Russians and 
repeated by more than a few Americans including the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  Fundamentally, this argument is rooted in the cold war. It assumes an 
adversarial and bipolar relationship between the United States and 
Russia. Rather than repeat stale arguments, the Russians and the 
Clinton administration, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, should be seeking to change the basis of our strategic 
relationship to one based on mutual security rather than mutual assured 
destruction. I would agree with Defense Secretary Perry's recent 
statement that ``the bad news is that in this era, deterrence may not 
provide even the cold comfort it did during the cold war.''
  If we look closely at the argument that this bill undermines START 
II, we see no substantive content. The type of defense envisioned in 
the Missile Defense Act of 1995 should in no way undermine Russian 
confidence in strategic deterrence. We must remember that President 
Yeltsin himself proposed a Global Defense System and that, in the early 
1990's, the United States and Russia had tentatively agreed to 
amendments to the ABM Treaty to allow deployment of five or six ground-
based sites. According to
 testimony the Armed Services Committee received earlier this year from 
Mr. Sidney Graybeal, who was a senior United States ABM Treaty 
negotiator, the Russians were not opposed to permitting five or six 
sites in the original ABM Treaty. How is it, then, that today such 
deployments will upset stability and arms control? It simply will not.

  Of course, we should seek to cooperate with Russia and take into 
account legitimate security concerns. But this is what START II is all 
about. That agreement is manifestly in both countries' interest and 
should not be held hostage to any other issue. Unfortunately, the 
Russians have linked it to a variety of issues including expansion of 
NATO. We must reject this linkage, lest we encourage the Russians to 
believe that they possess a veto over a wide range of United States 
national security policies.
  Admittedly, START II is in trouble in the Russian Duma, but this has 
nothing substantively to do with the United States missile defense 
program. Stated simply, Russian hard-liners are intent on undoing START 
II so they can retain some or all of their multiple-warhead ICBM force. 
The United States should strongly oppose this effort to undo START II. 
But legitimizing the false argument about ABM Treaty linkage only 
obfuscates the issue. The United States should not participate in a 
clouding of the issue by repeating Russian arguments about ABM Treaty 
linkage. This is simply a distraction from the central problem.
  As we proceed to debate the various aspects of the Missile Defense 
Act of 1995 and consider implications for START II, we should bear in 
mind that 

[[Page S11151]]
today the United States has no defense against ballistic missiles. 
Russia, on the other hand, has an operational ABM system deployed 
around Moscow, which has been modernized and upgraded over the years. 
We should not feel threatened by the existence of this system. Indeed, 
we should encourage the Russians to invest in this system instead of 
their destabilizing strategic offensive forces. Likewise, the United 
States should develop and deploy a national missile defense system. 
Such a system would provide greater security for all Americans than an 
outdated theory of deterrence that does not even apply other countries. 
The Missile Defense Act of 1995 clears the way for a world that is 
safer and more stable for the United States and Russia.
  I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Georgia if he would like 
to respond.
  Mr. NUNN. Yes. First, I appreciate all his good work on this bill. He 
has done a yeoman's job in helping the chairman and all of us on this 
legislation. I do not think the Senator from Mississippi was here when 
I mentioned we have a total of four systems that are in the bill. Of 
all of those, as the Senator noted, this one could cost a good bit of 
money before it is over. The allies hope to pay about half of it. But 
this is the only system that is designed to protect the front-line 
troops. The rest of these systems are in the theater support area.
  We have the Navy upper tier program, which is in this envelope. We 
have the THAAD intercept program, which is in this green envelope. We 
have the PAC-3 right in this envelope, and then a possibility of maybe 
a Navy lower tier in this envelope.
  So my point is, this system should not be canceled unless we can find 
one of these systems that could also cover this. Now, I believe the 
majority report indicated that perhaps the PAC-3 system could. I am 
perfectly willing to have that study. That is what the extra $5 million 
is for, is to see if that idea really will be proven to be workable. I 
would also be willing to have this study take place and hold back some 
of this money. I think that has been suggested by the staff of the 
Senator from Mississippi. We could work on some fencing amendment so we 
make sure we are getting the best program. I certainly share that, but 
I do not think we should cancel this program when it is the only one, 
until we get some affirmative answer, which we do not have now, on 
something that could take its place.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I may respond to the Senator's comments 
there, I do think there is a possibility that we could do that PAC-3 
modification. But we do not know yet that it could provide that 
additional coverage. We should look into that to see if it can be done. 
Perhaps we can work out a way not to completely cancel the Corps SAM 
while we take a look at that. But again, my argument is before we start 
down this trail that could lead to $10 billion, I think we need to look 
and see if there are other options.
  I would like some clarification of how we got into this international 
agreement. What is that international agreement? What extent of 
commitments do we have from our allies about being willing to pay up to 
$5 billion of the cost of this program? There are just a number of 
questions in that area that I think we need to get clarified.
  But we will work with the Senator from Georgia as the day progresses, 
and hopefully we can work something out.
  Mr. NUNN. I say to my friend from Mississippi, each of these other 
programs is going to involve billions and billions of dollars, also. We 
know we will not be able to afford them all. We know that.
  Mr. LOTT. Which one do we not want to afford?
  Mr. NUNN. Well, right now we have four programs that cover the same 
area, and they are fully beefed up and funded, while the only program 
that covers the forward battlefield is being canceled. So we have 
tremendous redundancy here. I do not mind some redundancy, because we 
do not know which of these programs is going to work and be the most 
cost-effective program.
  But we do not have any redundancy here and no coverage here. The 
problem is the majority suggestion about PAC-3 possibly covering this 
area. We need to get some funding into a study for that, if that is 
going to be done. Perhaps we can work on something while we are 
continuing the debate.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor at this time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, before we went to a vote on any of the 
amendments, I just wanted to ask the Senator from Georgia a few 
questions about his understanding primarily of the Kyl amendment. I 
certainly support his perfecting amendment as I understand it, and 
believe it is well considered. But I have some concerns about the Kyl 
amendment, which it is an amendment to. And I wanted to just clarify 
the thinking of the ranking manager on this bill as to what his 
thoughts were on the import of the Kyl amendment.
  It seems harmless enough in some respects. When you read it, it says 
it is a sense of the Senate that all Americans should be protected from 
accidental, intentional, limited ballistic attack. I agree with that. 
But I add to that that we also ought to protect all Americans from 
cruise missile attack, terrorism, and from a variety of other potential 
hazards.
  I guess my concern is that, as the Senator from Georgia knows very 
well, and all of us on the Armed Services Committee know, there is 
considerable controversy about the provisions in the bill that we are 
now beginning to debate regarding ballistic missile defense.
  We have a letter from Secretary Perry to Senator Nunn, and I am sure 
to the chairman of the committee as well, dated the 28th of July, where 
Secretary Perry makes a variety of points or a series of points about 
this. He says he wants to register strong opposition to the missile 
defense provisions of the Senate Armed Services Committee defense 
authorization bill. In his view, they would institute congressional 
micromanagement of the administration's missile defense program and put 
us on a pathway to abrogating the ABM treaty.
  I am concerned that I do not want to support the Kyl amendment if it 
puts us on a pathway to abrogating the ABM Treaty. I would be 
interested in the Senator from Georgia giving me his perspective on 
that as to whether I could vote for the Kyl amendment with confidence 
that it was not an endorsement of the various ballistic missile 
provisions in this bill, many of which I intend to join with Senator 
Exon and others to strike here when the opportunity arises.
  Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield for an additional question before 
the----
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would say to my friend from the State of 
Georgia, I have the same concern about this, basically, as posed in the 
question by the Senator from New Mexico. I am for and wish to make a 
short statement in support of the Nunn underlying amendment.
  But if I understand the procedures, the Kyl amendment is a sense-of-
the-Senate resolution that I would strongly oppose because of its 
implications, even though it is only a sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
  What would be the situation if the Nunn amendment in the second 
degree to the Kyl amendment passes, and then the Kyl amendment itself 
falls? Obviously, it would take the amendment that I support, offered 
by the Senator from Georgia, along with it, would it not?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I guess we have six or eight questions 
posed to the Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. I am sorry. I must ask the Senator from Nebraska, and I 
apologize, if he will repeat that question. He has gotten to be such a 
good--almost like a lawyer since he has been here. I am sure he can 
reframe that question.
  Mr. EXON. I resent that statement.
  Mr. NUNN. I knew the Senator would resent that statement. I said 
``almost,'' not quite. Does the Senator mind repeating that, if he 
would?
  Mr. EXON. I was simply saying to the Senator from Georgia, I was 
asking the same basic question just a little differently than the 
Senator from New Mexico. I am strongly in support of the 

[[Page S11152]]
amendment by the Senator from Georgia, and would like to make a 
statement in support of that amendment.
  As I understand the procedure, though, it is attached as a second-
degree amendment to a sense-of-the-Senate amendment offered by the 
Senator from Arizona. I am questioning what the situation would be if 
we vote on the second-degree amendment, which I support, then vote on 
the Kyl amendment, which is a sense of the Senate. If the Kyl amendment 
fails, that would take along with it the amendment that I support 
offered by the Senator from Georgia. I am wondering if I properly 
understand the procedure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Mexico yield the 
floor?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield for a response from the Senator from Georgia, 
because I have two or three other questions I want to ask.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I will say first to my friend from New 
Mexico, his question was, does the amendment breach the ABM Treaty. We 
are talking about the Kyl amendment now.
  As I outlined in my opening statement, I feel that the provisions of 
the underlying bill create what I would call a very high risk that it 
would be perceived as an anticipatory breach of the ABM Treaty. That is 
the underlying bill. I do not think there is anything in the Kyl 
amendment, and the Senator from Arizona is not on the floor now, but I 
do not read anything in the Kyl amendment that would either breach the 
ABM Treaty or suggest breaching the ABM Treaty.
  The operative paragraph in the Kyl amendment is the one at the end 
that says:

       It is the sense of the Senate that all Americans should be 
     protected from accidental, intentional, or limited ballistic 
     missile attack.

  Like the Senator from New Mexico, if I were drafting this, I would 
certainly add cruise missile in there, perhaps some other threats. I 
see nothing wrong with the way it is worded in terms of in any way 
creating the impression that the ABM Treaty would be breached by this 
amendment.
  I also note the paragraph just before the sense-of-the-Senate 
operative paragraph, paragraph 12, page 5 of this amendment says, 
explicitly:

       The United States and Russia have the opportunity to create 
     a relationship based on trust rather than fear.

  So it seems to me there is nothing in this amendment that would in 
any way breach the ABM Treaty or that would in any way violate the 
conditions that the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Perry, has laid 
down in his letter.
  I made a lengthy statement about what my fears were about the course 
this bill takes, and we will have amendments dealing with that on the 
ABM Treaty. So I do have very similar concerns as the Senator from New 
Mexico on the underlying bill, but I do not have such concerns on this 
amendment.
  I will also say, if you look at the findings in paragraphs 1 through 
12, I think the findings I generally agree with. Everyone will have to 
read them to see if they agree with them. But the findings I personally 
agree with.
  I say to my friend from Nebraska, he is correct. If my amendment, the 
second-degree amendment, were adopted and became part of this Kyl 
amendment, then if the Kyl amendment were defeated, it would take down 
the second-degree amendment. In that case, what I would do is propose 
it again, and I hope that will not happen. I really believe careful 
reading of the Kyl amendment will not have many people taking exception 
to it. Everyone will have to judge some of the findings.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, can I pose one additional question to 
the Senator from Georgia? Senator Exon, Senator Glenn, Senator Levin, 
and myself intend to offer an amendment at some stage to strike various 
of the provisions that are contained in this bill at the present time, 
particularly the ones under subtitle C on missile defense. I think that 
striking those is totally consistent with the letter we have received 
from Secretary Perry.
  As the Senator from Georgia sees this Kyl amendment, it would not be 
inconsistent for a person to support the Kyl amendment and still vote 
to strike those provisions relative to missile defense when that 
amendment comes up?
  Mr. NUNN. I say to my friend from New Mexico, I do not see any 
inconsistency there. As long as the Senator from New Mexico really 
agrees with the bottom paragraph, that it is the sense of the Senate 
that all Americans should be protected from accidental, intentional, or 
limited ballistic missile attack, this Kyl amendment does not say how 
that should be done. It does not refer to the ABM Treaty. It does not 
set up any kind of anticipatory breach of the ABM Treaty. It does not 
say anything should be done in terms of deployment or testing that 
would violate the ABM Treaty. It simply states that we would like to 
protect Americans. So I do not see any inconsistency.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me clarify one more time. My own 
position is that I do support the existing law with regard to the ABM 
Treaty, which I gather was adopted by us in 1991. And as the Senator 
from Georgia reads the Kyl amendment, the adoption of that amendment 
would be consistent with existing law and with the 1991 language which 
we put on the books; is that correct?
  Mr. NUNN. As I read it--I will not pretend to the Senator from New 
Mexico that I have made a detailed sentence-by-sentence analysis of 
this amendment--I read it hastily, I read it again, my staff has read 
it. I see nothing in here that would contravene--in fact, the basic 
premise of this amendment is also the basic premise on which the 1991 
Missile Defense Act passed, which I coauthored.
  I see nothing inconsistent in that. Most of the findings in the Kyl 
amendment reference various statements Secretary Perry has made or that 
various military witnesses have made or simply statements that, for 
instance, the head of CIA has made and the statements that have been 
adopted, some in conference between the President of the United States 
and the President of Russia. I do not see that it contradicts.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate those responses, and I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Nunn amendment, 
that I just referenced, to make $35 million available to continue the 
funding on the Corps SAM Program, also known as the MEADS or Medium 
Extended Air Defense System.
  This program will provide a rapidly deployable, highly mobile 360-
degree coverage defense system to protect our maneuver forces against 
short- to medium-range ballistic missiles.
  Corps SAM will also defend against a full spectrum of air breathing 
threats against our troops, including advanced cruise missiles. The 
committee decision to terminate this joint NATO program is a mistake. 
Corps SAM will provide missile defense for our troops that other 
systems, such as the Patriot or the THAAD will not. Corps SAM will have 
the mobility necessary to advance with U.S. and allied ground forces in 
the field of battle. Sometimes Patriot's protective umbrella cannot 
provide this, and certainly not against short-range missiles that would 
otherwise underfly the THAAD Missile Defense System, as important as 
that system might be.
  Corps SAM is what the Congress has been pushing for for many years, a 
cooperative trans-Atlantic defense program. Pulling out the program now 
will harm ongoing, as well as future, cooperative ventures with our 
allies. More important, it will deny--I emphasize, Mr. President--it 
will deny our forces in the field of battle an important layer of 
defense against missile attack that does not otherwise exist.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this modest addition. At a 
time when we are unwisely throwing billions of dollars, in my opinion, 
on unnecessary full-blown national missile defense systems, I believe 
we can afford this small investment in the protection of our troops 
overseas in battle conditions.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOtt addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wonder if we are perhaps ready to go with 
a modification and perhaps a couple of votes on the pending amendments?
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I have asked the staff to check with the 
leadership. I recommend that we go ahead 

[[Page S11153]]
with the modification and have a rollcall vote on the second-degree and 
on the first-degree amendment.
  I have talked to the Senators from Mississippi and South Carolina 
about modifying the pending second-degree amendment which is related to 
Corps SAM.
  I will soon send a modification of the amendment to the desk. It 
basically says that we will defer $10 million of the $35 million until 
such time as we have the report referred to in subsection (c)(2). That 
is the report, as I explained in my remarks, to determine whether the 
PAC-3 system could basically also cover that unprotected forward area 
that the Corps SAM system is designed to. This is acceptable to me.
  Mr. NUNN. Assuming the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from 
South Carolina concurs, I will send a modification of my amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2078), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 5, beginning with ``attack,'' strike out all down 
     through the end of the amendment and insert in lieu thereof 
     the following: ``attack. It is the further Sense of the 
     Senate that front-line troops of the United States armed 
     forces should be protected from missile attacks.
       ``(c) Funding for Corps SAM and Boost-Phase Interceptor 
     Programs--
       ``(1) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, of 
     the funds authorized to be appropriated by section 201(4), 
     $35.0 million shall be available for the Corps SAM/MEADS 
     program.
       ``(2) With a portion of the funds authorized in paragraph 
     (1) for the Corps SAM/MEADS program, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall conduct a study to determine whether a Theater Missile 
     Defense system derived from Patriot technologies could 
     fulfill the Corps SAM/MEADS requirements at a lower estimated 
     life-cycle cost than is estimated for the cost of the US 
     portion of the Corps SAM/MEADS program.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall provide a report on the study 
     required under paragraph (2) to the congressional defense 
     committees not later than March 1, 1996.
       ``(4) Of the funds authorized to be appropriated by section 
     201(4), not more than $3,403,413,000 shall be available for 
     missile defense programs within the Ballistic Missile Defense 
     Organization.
       ``(d) Section 234(c)(1) of this Act shall have no force or 
     effect.
       ``(e) Of the amounts referred to in section (c)(1), $10 
     million may not be obligated until the report referred to in 
     subsection (c)(2) is submitted to the Congressional defense 
     committees.''

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could comment briefly, our staffs--
Senator Thurmond's, mine, and Senator Nunn's--have discussed this, and 
I think this is acceptable, from my viewpoint. If the chairman is 
comfortable with that, it makes the amendment acceptable.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after we 
take the vote on Senator Nunn's amendment that we take the vote on 
Senator Kyl's amendment, back to back, to save time.
  Mr. NUNN. Reserving the right to object, I will ask the leadership to 
respond. I propose that we vote on both of those. I would like to 
accommodate the Senator.
  I have received word, so I will not object.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the second degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. On behalf of the Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], I ask for 
the yeas and nays on his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Vote On Amendment No. 2078, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 2078, as modified.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. DeWine] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 350 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--1

       
     Brown
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     DeWine
       
  So the amendment (No. 2078), as modified, was agreed to.
                 Vote On Amendment No. 2077, As Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Kyl 
amendment, No. 2077, as amended.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. DeWine] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 94, nays 5, as follows:
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 351 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--5

     Breaux
     Byrd
     Dorgan
     Ford
     Johnston

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     DeWine
       
  So, the amendment (No. 2077), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair reminds the majority leader that 
under the previous order the Senator from Wisconsin is to be 
recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield to the majority leader for 
purposes of making remarks without losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. I think we have worked out an agreement that might not 
require the introduction of an amendment and second-degreeing it, and 
that is in the process of being typed, so if we could just have a brief 
quorum call, I think it would be a matter of 2 minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for a 
question?
  Mr. DOLE. Yes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I would like to offer the amendment at some point, but 
if 

[[Page S11154]]
there is an agreement, I can hold off and offer this particular 
amendment later in the process.
  Mr. DOLE. This would not prejudice the Senator's right to offer the 
amendment as far as I am concerned immediately after disposition of the 
other two amendments.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I would clarify, upon the disposition of the unanimous-
consent agreement, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for the 
purposes of offering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grassley). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, in reference to the pending bill, let me 
encourage my colleagues--I know we have lost a little time here, but we 
started on the bill at 9 o'clock. We have had two rather, I guess, 
important votes, but one was a sense of the Senate; one was concerning 
$35 million. So this is a big, big piece of legislation. We are going 
to shut her down on Friday night. I hope that we can accept some of 
these amendments, and others who feel--we are not going to shut down 
the Senate Friday night; we are going to shut down this bill on Friday 
night.
  I hope we can get time agreements on amendments. It seems to me that 
most have been argued every year for the past 10, 15 years. If we can 
get time agreements, I think it is the hope of the managers, Senators 
Thurmond and Nunn, that they can complete action by Friday evening, and 
then we can go to either Treasury Department appropriations bill or 
Interior. And then, Saturday, we will start on the welfare reform 
package. Later next week, we will take up the DOD appropriations bill, 
along with the legislative appropriations conference report, I guess, 
and maybe--depending on Bosnia--maybe a veto override.
  In any event, I urge my colleagues that if we can cooperate with the 
managers, they are prepared to work late late this evening and late 
late tomorrow night and late late Friday night and would really 
appreciate your cooperation.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer be 
recognized to offer an amendment regarding ethics and that no second-
degree amendments be in order to the Boxer amendment, and immediately 
following that, her amendment be temporarily laid aside and Senator 
McConnell be recognized to offer an amendment regarding ethics, and 
that no amendments be in order to the McConnell amendment, and that the 
time on both amendments be limited to a total of 4 hours, to be equally 
divided between Senators McConnell and Boxer.
  I further ask unanimous consent that following the conclusion or 
yielding back of time on both amendments, the Senate proceed to vote on 
or in relation to the Boxer amendment to be followed immediately by a 
vote on or in relation to the McConnell amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object. Perhaps I did not hear it, 
but is this the unanimous-consent request on the two amendments? May I 
ask who will control time?
  Mr. DOLE. You will control time on that side and Senator McConnell 
will on this side.
  Mrs. BOXER. Two hours per side. We will debate those simultaneously?
  Mr. DOLE. Yes, that is what the agreement says.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to consult 
with a number of our colleagues, and we find that this unanimous-
consent agreement is agreeable, and we would like to proceed.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object. I want to ask one more 
question of both leaders. Is a motion to table in order here?
  Mr. DOLE. Just what the agreement says, ``on or in relation to.''
  Mrs. BOXER. I do not have a copy of the agreement.
  Mr. DASCHLE. ``On or in relation to'' would include a motion to table 
on each amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. I thank the Democratic leader and the other people 
involved. I hope this will not take 4 hours. This is another half day 
off of the August recess, which we hope will start sometime in August.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Parliamentary inquiry. Does the Parliamentarian have a 
copy of the Boxer amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not a copy here at the desk.


                           Amendment No. 2079

       (Purpose: To require hearings in the investigation stage of 
     ethics cases.)

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2079.
     SEC.   . ETHICS HEARINGS.

       The Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate shall hold 
     hearings in any pending or future case in which the Select 
     Committee (1) has found, after a review of allegations of 
     wrongdoing by a Senator, that there is substantial credible 
     evidence which provides substantial cause to conclude that a 
     violation within the jurisdiction of the Select Committee has 
     occurred, and (2) has undertaken an investigation of such 
     allegations. The Select Committee may waive this requirement 
     by an affirmative record vote of a majority of the members of 
     the Committee.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is 
temporarily set aside, and the Senator from Kentucky is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2080

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2080.
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert:
       (A) The Senate finds that:
       (1) the Senate Select Committee on Ethics has a thirty-one 
     year tradition of handling investigations of official 
     misconduct in a bipartisan, fair and professional manner;
       (2) the Ethics Committee, to ensure fairness to all parties 
     in any investigation, must conduct its responsibilities 
     strictly according to established procedure and free from 
     outside interference;
       (3) the rights of all parties to bring an ethics complaint 
     against a member, officer, or employee of the Senate are 
     protected by the official rules and precedents of the Senate 
     and the Ethics Committee;
       (4) any Senator responding to a complaint before the Ethics 
     Committee deserves a fair and non-partisan hearing according 
     to the rules of the Ethics Committee;
       (5) the rights of all parties in an investigation--both the 
     individuals who bring a complaint or testify against a 
     Senator, and any Senator charged with an ethics violation--
     can only be protected by strict adherence to the established 
     rules and procedures of the ethics process;
       (6) the integrity of the Senate and the integrity of the 
     Ethics Committee rest on the continued adherence to 
     precedents and rules, derived from the Constitution; and,
       (7) the Senate as a whole has never intervened in any 
     ongoing Senate Ethics Committee investigation, and has 
     considered matters before that Committee only after the 
     Committee has submitted a report and recommendations to the 
     Senate;
       (B) Therefore, it is the Sense of the Senate that the 
     Select Committee on Ethics should not, in the case of Senator 
     Robert Packwood of Oregon, deviate from its customary and 
     standard procedure, and should, prior to the Senate's final 
     resolution of the case, follow whatever procedures it deems 
     necessary and appropriate to provide a full and complete 
     public record of the relevant evidence in this case.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 4 
hours of debate on the Boxer and McConnell amendments, 2 hours under 
the control of the Senator from Kentucky and 2 hours under the control 
of the Senator from California.
  Who yields time?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for 
15 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there is a big difference between these 
two 

[[Page S11155]]
amendments. The reason we took a little time on our side looking over 
the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky is because, at first blush, 
you think all this sounds good, but when you get to the end of it, you 
learn quickly that it is essentially a ``feel good'' amendment, a 
``cover yourself" amendment. It is the ``no public hearing'' amendment. 
It is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment which has no force of law, no 
requirement.
  On the other hand, the Boxer amendment, which I believe will have 
strong support here today, will require that if the Ethics Committee 
wants to close the door on a case that has reached the investigative 
phase where there is credible, substantial evidence of wrongdoing 
against the Senator, they need a majority vote to close those doors.
  I think that is very reasonable. I think the fact that we have a 
deadlock in this case is very serious. It is the first time in history 
this has happened. This matter deserves our attention.
  I also think it is important to note that the amendment of the 
Senator from Kentucky deals with one specific case, the case pending 
before it, whereas the Boxer amendment talks to the issue in generic 
terms. In other words, what we are saying is that in every case that we 
visit this stage, there should be public hearings, unless the committee 
votes by majority vote to slam those doors shut.
  Today, the Senate can break the deadlock. It is up to each and every 
Senator to decide that issue. I think the message that has been sent on 
a deadlock vote by the Republicans on the Ethics Committee is a message 
that does not sit well with the American people.
  Let me read from just a few individuals today. Sometimes I think if 
we would listen to the voices of America, we can learn a lot. The 
question in the USA Today poll of average people: Should the Packwood 
ethics hearings be forced open?
  I will read a couple of these responses. A young man aged 19, a 
student in Florida:

       They definitely should be open. He is an elected official 
     and a public servant. People should know what is going on. 
     Government already has a bad name for being secretive.

  A woman, a 32-year-old from Oregon:

       Keep them open to take the mystery out of what is going on. 
     Women have a particular interest and may not be well 
     represented behind closed doors.

  John Larson, 55, a financial planner in Bloomington, MN, says:

       They should be open so the public would have more 
     information about what is going on in Government. Ethics 
     should be on a high level for everybody. Whatever happened to 
     honesty? If we are not honest at the top, what do we expect 
     our young people to do?

  I think the people of America understand this. I just hope and pray 
that Senators do.
  As we debate this today, I think we are going to hear very reasoned 
voices on this side of the aisle. So much for comments that if this was 
a secret ballot, 98 Senators would vote against open hearings. That 
notion will be dispelled here today when we see the kind of eloquence 
we will see on the floor on this matter.
  Now, I have to make a point. When the Ethics Committee voted 3-3 and 
deadlocked, they made a big point of saying, the chairman did, of how 
he was going to release all the materials in the case. As a matter of 
fact, a couple of the members from the Ethics Committee have said to 
the press, ``I feel really good. We are disclosing everything.'' Making 
people believe that there was something unique about this, that the 
papers were being released.
  Mr. President, if we look over here--I can barely see over this--here 
we have the pile of materials that have been released in every other 
ethics case that has reached this stage. They are always released. They 
have never been withheld. Papers are always released. This is every 
case in history--these are the papers that have been released.
  Of course, that is a precedent. So is public hearings. Every one of 
these cases also had public hearings. In this case, the doors have been 
slammed shut. I just hope that is a temporary glitch that we can 
straighten out here today.
  There are a number of points, I know, that my Democratic colleagues 
on the Ethics Committee will make more eloquently than I, because they 
understand the precedence of the committee better than I, because it is 
their job to serve on the committee, to study the committee, and to act 
in the best traditions of the committee.
  I have to say, as one U.S. Senator who is going to vote on how to 
dispose of this matter in a fair and just fashion to all concerned, I 
do not want to base my vote on a stack of papers. I know that the 
Senator in the case had a chance to go before the committee and look 
them in the eye and explain any discrepancies, in fact, if any; and 
when you read the papers, clearly there are. I do not know for a fact, 
but if you read the papers, there are discrepancies, in fact.
  Yet, those on the other side have no chance to walk into that room, 
look in the eyes of the Senators, and tell their story. It reminds me 
of a trial where one side is heard and then they just say, OK, the jury 
should go in now, sequester itself and vote a penalty.
  Excuse me, a juror might say, I never heard from the victims. I never 
heard from the victims. Yeah, I read what they said. But the defendant 
has said No, in certain cases, that is not what happened. I need to 
find out for myself. That would be a mistrial, and it would be 
unprecedented. That is what we are dealing with here.
  I cannot believe that some Senators, from what I hear, are going to 
vote against public hearings and cast a vote without all the facts. I 
think this is something extremely important.
  Now, I want to point out in my amendment I have bent over backwards 
to be fair to the Ethics Committee. As a matter of fact, it is a very 
respectful amendment. It says that the committee, by majority vote, can 
vote to close the hearings, and it underscores the fact that rule 26 
will allow the committee to protect witnesses if they decide that must 
be done.
  We are in no way in this amendment being disrespectful of the Ethics 
Committee. We are being respectful of the Ethics Committee.
  For some to say Go away and never comment, would be a dereliction of 
constitutional responsibility of each and every Senator, if you read 
article V, section 1, that says, ``We are responsible in this Congress 
to police ourselves.''
  Here we have an unprecedented circumstance where, for the first time 
in history, a case that has reached the investigative stage will not 
have public hearings. And then we must ask ourselves the next question: 
Why? Why? That is the question.
  The question is not about Senator Boxer or any other Senator, or 
about what the record is in the House in holding hearings. The question 
is, why would the Republicans on the Ethics Committee vote not to 
proceed to public hearings when every single time in history--and it 
goes back to the day the Ethics Committee was formed--there have been 
public hearings.
  I want to say, there were some who said, ``Wrong, Senator Boxer, 
there were not any on this or that case.'' I will ask to have printed 
in the Record the dates of every public hearing, of every single case. 
You cannot argue with the facts. This would be the first time.
  When you answer that question--why--the only thing I can think of are 
a few responses. One is, protect this particular Senator from something 
we never protected any other Senator from. The second is, it is 
embarrassing. Well, that is no answer, Mr. President. The Senators 
should have thought of that before.
  Is the message that if you do something and it is embarrassing, there 
will not be public hearings? That is a swell message to send. That is 
the message that is being sent unless we break the deadlock here today.
  I was going to quote from Senator Bryan, in his letter that he sent 
when five Senators were concerned about this matter, but he is here and 
rather than quote him, I know he will have much to say on the subject.
  But I want to personally thank the courage, the courage of the Ethics 
Committee members who were fighting hard in a very difficult situation 
for what is justice and what is right. What the Republicans have done 
by voting against public hearings is a miscarriage of justice any way 
you slice it. The best face you can put on it is a miscarriage of 
justice to allow the Senator to come before the committee and not allow 
the victims--and not allow factual differences to be explored by 

[[Page S11156]]
the committee. That is wrong. And if Senators want to hide behind a 
feel-good amendment, a sense of the Senate that does nothing on this 
matter, so be it. So be it. But let there be no mistake, that is what 
we are facing: An amendment that says there shall be public hearings 
unless a majority vote says no by the committee; and a feel-good 
amendment that is a sense of the Senate that does nothing.
  Mr. President, it has been a very long road for me to get to this 
point, and it has been a harsh road, and it has taken many turns, some 
of them quite personal. But I am so honored that I am a Member of the 
U.S. Senate and that, because the people of my State sent me here and 
believe that I have a right to be here, that is all it took for me to 
hold my ground. You cannot be intimidated when you know you are doing 
what you think is right. So this has been, in many ways, a very 
important debate, just getting to this point.
  In concluding my remarks, before I yield 30 minutes to the vice 
chairman of the Ethics Committee, Senator Bryan, let me summarize. 
There are four main reasons to support public hearings in this case.
  First of all, honor Senate precedent. Do not make an exception in one 
case. That is a very perilous path, because the message that it could 
send is: The more embarrassing the transgression, the more protected 
you will be. And if it is sexual misconduct, you can count on it being 
behind closed doors. And that is wrong, not only to the women of this 
country, but to their husbands, to their sons, to their fathers, to 
their uncles. We are all in this together.
  Second, public hearings will clarify the issues that are in dispute.
  Third, it is a question of fairness. The Senator got his chance to 
appear before the committee. The accusers did not.
  Finally, we should fully air our problems. This is not a private 
club. This is the people's Senate, and we ought to act that way and 
open up the doors. We can handle it. My God, the Republicans voted for 
hearings and hearings and hearings and hearings on Whitewater, on 
Foster, on Waco. I voted with them. Open up the doors. Do not let 
problems fester. But do not suddenly close them when it comes to sexual 
misconduct. That is wrong, and a terrible signal for us to send.
  Mr. President, I yield 30 minutes to the distinguished and eloquent 
vice chairman of the committee, Senator Bryan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I firmly support the amendment offered by 
the distinguished Senator from California. For more than six decades, 
the U.S. Senate has held public hearings on all major ethics cases. The 
committee counsel again confirmed this fact to each member of the 
committee earlier this week at our Monday meeting. So there can be no 
misunderstanding, what Senator Boxer seeks to accomplish with the 
amendment she is offering this afternoon is to continue that unbroken 
precedent of public hearings.
  I embrace this position after considerable reflection. I can assure 
my colleagues that no one is more anxious than I to have this matter 
concluded without further delay. My service as chairman of the Ethics 
Committee for 2 years, and more recently my service as vice chairman 
over the past 7 months, has not been a pleasant experience.
  Yet, I am firmly convinced that public hearings are essential if the 
integrity of the Senate and of the ethics process are to be sustained. 
There are many reasons to hold public hearings. There is no credible 
reason to make an exception in this one case.
  On May 17, the Ethics Committee released the charges it was bringing 
against Senator Packwood. The Ethics Committee found substantial 
credible evidence providing substantial cause for the committee to 
conclude that Senator Packwood may have engaged in a pattern of sexual 
misconduct between 1969 and 1990, and may have engaged in improper 
conduct and/or violated Federal law by intentionally altering 
evidentiary materials needed by the committee; and may have 
inappropriately linked personal financial gain to his official position 
by soliciting offers of financial assistance from persons who had 
legislative interests.
  Following its rules, the committee then offered Senator Packwood an 
opportunity to appear before the committee to make a statement and to 
answer committee questions. That occurred over a 3-day period, from 
June 27 to June 29.
  In addition, Senator Packwood was also offered his right to a 
hearing, which would involve cross-examination and appearances by those 
who had brought the charges against him. He declined this opportunity.
  When the Senate returned from the Fourth of July recess, it was the 
point in the process for the committee to make a decision on what else 
needed to be done in the final investigation and final stage, including 
the all-important question as to whether or not public hearings should 
be held; in other words, to complete the evidence phase.
  On July 31, the Ethics Committee voted on the question of holding 
public hearings. The committee was split, deadlocked at 3-3.
  So here we are today with a deadlock in the committee. In my view, it 
is entirely appropriate that the question now come before the full 
Senate for its determination.
  I want to address the question of delay which has been raised. There 
is, in my view, no delay or improper interference with the committee 
process for the Senate to debate and vote on an amendment as to whether 
public hearings should be held.
  In fact, this is the proper time for the Senate to make that 
decision. Otherwise, the committee will move ahead on making the 
decision on sanctions without holding customary and traditional and, in 
my opinion, needed hearings.
  As for the delay in completing this case, I am confident the 
committee can hold public hearings, bring this case to the Senate, and 
the Senate can resolve it without undue delay. I have suggested we put 
a time limit on the hearings, say, no more than 3 weeks. During those 3 
weeks, we can call witnesses the committee needs to hear, we can hear 
from them in person, we can examine their demeanor, we can test their 
believability. We can attempt to resolve discrepancies in previous 
testimony and to give to the alleged victims--the point made by the 
distinguished Senator from California--the same opportunity that 
rightfully we extended to our colleague from Oregon, who faces these 
accusations; in effect, to give the victims their opportunity to be 
heard.
  I would like to put the process in some perspective, if I may. We 
deadlocked on the decision for public hearings. The committee, after 
that deadlock, did vote to release all relevant evidentiary materials 
to the public.
  Some have suggested this is an unprecedented action. I assure my 
colleagues, this is consistent with the practice followed in the past; 
namely, that all evidentiary material is released.
  I asked that this material be released as soon as possible, as 
opposed to waiting until after these proceedings are concluded, and the 
committee agreed. The committee counsel has told us it would take about 
a week to compile and print the documents.
  I fully support the release of all evidentiary materials, as did each 
and every member of the Ethics Committee.
  However, the release of all evidentiary materials is not and cannot 
be a substitute for public hearings. I can tell you unequivocally that 
there is a world of difference between reading a transcript and holding 
a hearing.
  Release of the evidentiary material has been standard operating 
procedure in all previous major ethics cases, the same cases where 
public hearings were held. Release of all evidentiary material is the 
precedent. The release of all evidentiary material was done in the 
seven major ethics cases that the Senate has dealt with in this 
century. Indeed, if the Ethics Committee had not voted to do what it 
did yesterday, it would have broken yet another precedent in this one 
case.
  What was done by the decision of the Ethics Committee earlier this 
week to release the evidentiary materials is a minimum public 
disclosure standard. I do not believe that the U.S. Senate wants to be 
judged by a standard of minimum public disclosure. I believe the 
appropriate standard is public disclosure and is consistent with the 
history and the practice of the Ethics 

[[Page S11157]]
Committee. That requires public hearings.
  I would like to briefly run through some of the reasons why I think 
public hearings are important--indeed, necessary--in this case. And I 
would suggest to my colleagues that this will be one of the most 
important ethics votes that will be cast in this session of Congress, 
or perhaps in their congressional careers.
  First, the precedent of the ethics process has been to hold public 
hearings in every major ethics case in this century. As you know, those 
of you who have served on the Ethics Committee were often guided by 
precedent just as courts are in legal matters. Indeed, few decisions 
are made by the committee without first inquiring of the staff to state 
the precedent or case history. The precedent on the question of holding 
public hearings is clear. The committee has always held public 
hearings.
  Since 1929, seven Senators--Senators Bingham, McCarthy, Dodd, 
Talmadge, Williams, Durenberger, and Cranston--have been the subject of 
disciplinary proceedings on the floor of the U.S. Senate. All first 
faced public hearings. The pending case against Senator Packwood has 
now moved into the final investigative phase. Since the three-tiered 
ethics process was adopted in 1977 setting up the investigative phase, 
public hearings have been held in all four cases--Talmadge, Williams, 
Durenberger, and Cranston--matters which reached this very serious 
stage.
  Let me briefly review the major cases.
  In 1929, the Hiram Bingham hearings were held between October 15 and 
October 23 on charges of employing on his committee staff an employee 
of a trade association which had a direct interest in legislation then 
before the committee.
  In 1954, the celebrated Joe McCarthy hearings began August 31 and 
ended on September 13 on charges of obstructing the constitutional 
process.
  In 1966, the Dodd hearings of March 13 to 17 on charges of converting 
political contributions to personal use.
  In 1978, the Talmadge hearings, 27 days of hearings between April 30 
and July 12 on charges of submitting false expense vouchers and misuse 
of campaign funds.
  In 1981, the Senator Harrison Williams hearings were held, July 14, 
15 and 28, on the question of misuse of his official position to get 
Government contracts for a business venture in return for a financial 
interest.
  In 1989, Durenberger, June 12 and 13, hearings on charges of 
accepting excess honoraria and illegal reimbursement of personal living 
expenses.
  In 1991, in the Keating matter, in which only the Cranston case 
entered the investigative phase, had 26 days of hearings beginning on 
October 23, 1990, on conduct which linked campaign fundraising and 
official activities.
  There were no other ethics cases which entered the investigative 
phase or which came before the Senate for a proceeding. In short, there 
has been no exception in holding public hearings in any major ethics 
case in this century.
  I suggest that is the standard by which the Senate ought to act today 
in supporting the Boxer amendment which seeks to continue that unbroken 
precedent.
  Second, I ask myself: Is there some reason, some compelling or 
persuasive reason, as to why we ought not to hold a hearing in the 
Packwood case in light of the fact that there has been a clear and 
undeniable precedent?
  I have given that considerable thought. And I must say I can find no 
justifiable reason for not holding a hearing in this case. I have heard 
no credible reason offered from any of my Senate colleagues.
  I would ask you to ask yourself: Why would we make an exception in 
this one case? I do not think by and large you will be pleased with the 
only answer that I believe exists, and that is, the Senate does not 
want to hold public hearings in this case because it deals with sexual 
misconduct. In my view, that is not a persuasive reason to depart from 
our honored tradition of the past.
  Third, I think this case presents an even more compelling reason for 
holding public hearings because of the alleged victims. This, to the 
best of my ability to review the record of the ethics process in the 
Senate, is the first case in the history of the Senate in which there 
are alleged victims that have come forward and filed sworn charges 
against a U.S. Senator for actions that have been directed against them 
individually and personally.
  This is a case of first impression on two aspects--because they are 
alleged victims and because of the finding of substantial evidence of 
sexual misconduct. From a public credibility standpoint, there should 
be no doubt about the need to hold public hearings on a matter of this 
magnitude.
  What message will the Senate be sending to those who have come 
forward in this case or anyone who dares to come forward in the future? 
If there are victims, we do not want to hear from you, so we will close 
the door? Mr. President, that is the standard that we invite if we 
decline to hold public hearings in this case.
  Fourth, this is not just a question of the future of one Senator. 
This decision speaks to the fundamental question of whether the Senate 
as an institution is capable of disciplining its Members and itself in 
a manner which merits public confidence. This is far more important 
than any one of us individually.
  In the most recent serious ethics case before the Senate, the so-
called Keating case, all six Ethics Committee members voted to hold 
public hearings--Senators Heflin, Pryor, Sanford, Rudman, Helms, and 
Lott.
  In the opening statements of the first day of those hearings, no 
Senator was more eloquent nor more persuasive nor more to the point 
than our colleague Senator Lott, who said it best in focusing on the 
need for hearings for the sake of public credibility of the 
institution, when he said:

       It may be necessary to hold these public hearings if for no 
     other reason than to remove the cloud that has come over the 
     Senate and to clarify the basis for decisions on whether 
     violations of laws or rules have occurred. These proceedings 
     will mean that the public will have a full opportunity to 
     hear and view for itself the evidence in each case.

  I wish I were so eloquent. That is, in my view, a compelling and 
riveting reason for the public hearing process in this case and all 
cases which reach this stage in the ethics process.
  This debate is not based upon ideological division. Four Christian 
pro-family groups have called for hearings. Gary Bauer of the Family 
Research Council told the Hill, a newspaper publication, on June 7, and 
I quote:

       We are an organization that talks about values . . . I've 
     urged my Republican friends that the party ought to err on 
     the side of being aggressive in removing any cloud over it. 
     These charges are serious enough to warrant full hearing and 
     investigation.

  Eight women's law or advocacy groups have called for public hearings. 
Nine of the women who have made charges to the Ethics Committee have 
publicly called for hearings.
  Let me comment here on an objection which some have made to holding 
public hearings. I am afraid I think it is more of an excuse rather 
than a reason. It is argued by some that we should not hold public 
hearings because we need to protect the women who have filed charges. I 
point out again that 9 of the 17 women have called for hearings. I am 
not aware that any of the others have expressed opposition.
  I am not unmindful of the need to protect victims.
  In order to protect women who come forward with complaints of sexual 
misconduct I asked the committee to adopt the principles of the Federal 
rape shield law. As the author in 1975 of Nevada's State rape shield 
law, I feel strongly about these principles. Rape shield laws are 
designed to protect victims of sexual misconduct from unfair cross 
examination when there are attempts to inquire into the most personal 
and intimate relationships totally unrelated to the current allegation.
  There is no issue which should be before the committee or the Senate, 
nor should any other issue be referred to by any Senator or anyone 
involved in this case, except the issue of the specific allegation made 
by a woman against Senator Packwood.
  The issue of public hearings, some have tried to claim, is strictly 
an issue within the beltway. To the contrary, editorials from 
newspapers throughout the country, every geographical region, have 
called for public hearings.
  USA Today, July 14:

       Open the Packwood hearings; this isn't a personal matter


[[Page S11158]]

read their headline. And the editorial went on to say,

     No doubt public testimony about such acts may prove 
     embarrassing. But the Senate can be shamed only if it tried 
     to deal with the allegations behind closed doors.

  Cincinnati Enquirer, July 1:

       So why the soft glove treatment and protection for Senator 
     Packwood? Perhaps the mostly male, starched-shirt proper 
     Senate is embarrassed or scared at being criticized and 
     scrutinized over this matter.
       The way Packwood's alleged exploits are being treated by 
     the Senate, there's room for suspicion--suspicion that could 
     be quelled if the hearings were open.

  Charlotte Observer, May 26:

       As committee members move to the next phase of the Packwood 
     case, the public is watching how they treat their own.

  San Francisco Chronicle, May 19:

       The system has worked and the process should now move to 
     the final, necessary stage . . . the public forum for which 
     Packwood has so often pleaded.

  Atlanta Constitution; June 10:

       Word has it around the Capitol that the Senate Ethics 
     Committee is under considerable pressure to spare the upper 
     Chamber, and perhaps Packwood himself, the embarrassment of a 
     public inquiry. . . . Some Packwood allies are hopeful of 
     arranging a settlement, presumably including some sort of 
     penalty, so as to avoid a messy hearing and clamor for 
     Packwood's ouster. . . . He's entitled to the best defense he 
     can muster, but that must be a public defense if he is to 
     minimize suspicions of favoritism.

  A fifth reason for public hearings is that the hearings will build 
upon the evidence already before the committee, and give committee 
members an opportunity to listen to and see the reactions of witnesses 
firsthand, not just read a report, and also ask questions to follow up 
on earlier interviews by our committee counsel.
  As a former prosecutor, I know a little about evidence. I know that 
sometimes when a witness faces a jury in person, he or she provides 
additional information or gives additional insight from what can be 
gathered from reading a written report.
  I know that if there are conflicting explanations, I want to question 
all parties in person about those conflicts.
  I am familiar with the depositions of the women who have made charges 
of sexual misconduct. However, in the interest of fairness and judicial 
prudence, they should be given the right to come before the committee, 
just as Senator Packwood was given that right.
  It is equal justice that we seek here. We are rightly concerned about 
being fair to our colleague who is being charged by others. We need to 
be fair to those who have come forward at considerable personal risk 
themselves and who have made very specific allegations and seek the 
opportunity for a public hearing.
  Some reports today are stating the committee hearings will be in 
private. Let me correct that impression. The committee voted to hold no 
hearings, public or private, not to hear in person from anyone involved 
in this case except Senator Packwood.
  So those are the reasons, Mr. President, I feel very strongly that 
public hearings should be held. First, it has been the precedent of 
this institution in major ethics violations for this century.
  Second, I know of no justifiable reason for not holding public 
hearings. The only answer that has been suggested is that somehow the 
Senate ought to avoid embarrassment because this issue deals with 
sexual misconduct. I believe that is unacceptable rationale.
  Third, this is a case of first impression in which we have victims 
coming before the Senate Ethics Committee and hopefully to be heard by 
the entire Senate and the American people who have made sworn charges 
against a U.S. Senator for actions directed against them. And this is 
also the first time the Senate will judge a Senator who has been 
charged by the Ethics Committee with sexual misconduct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Chair reminds the Senator that 
he has spoken now for 30 minutes and the Senator from California could 
yield more time.
  Mr. BRYAN. May I have 3 more minutes?
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield 3 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BRYAN. Fourth, the credibility of the institution to deal with 
this issue is very much irreparably damaged without public hearings.
  Fifth, as I have indicated, I think each of us needs an opportunity 
to evaluate credibility.
  I will conclude by noting: What kind of message does the Senate want 
to send to the citizens we serve? This is really our opportunity to 
send a message to the American people that fits the message they sent 
to each of us last November. The public expects their Government to be 
open and to hold Members accountable to a proper standard of behavior. 
The message the Senate risks sending today, however, is that in 
disciplinary matters involving Members, we have chosen to retreat and 
to close the door tighter than it has ever been before.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BRYAN. I will be happy to yield for a question. I only have a 
couple more minutes, so if I am abrupt with the Senator, I do not mean 
to be rude.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am concerned about whether there is 
any issue of material fact--I do not know what the Senator can tell me 
about that. I know there is some privilege. But can the Senator tell me 
whether there is an issue of material fact which by having a hearing 
the Senate would be further instructed as to the different sides of 
that material fact?
  Mr. BRYAN. Let me just respond as I have tried to do in my statement 
that I believe the Ethics Committee, the Senate, and the American 
people would be further enlightened if we heard the testimony of the 
witnesses. I cannot get into the specifics of the evidence, but I must 
say that this is not in my view a circumstance in which nothing is to 
be gained by holding public hearings because I believe there are points 
at issue that, indeed, would be clarified.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Just one further question. Has Senator Packwood 
publicly pleaded guilty in effect to the charges? Does the Senator know 
whether that is so?
  Mr. BRYAN. I do not believe--I think the answer to that is no.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BRYAN. In terms of public statements, those would be for each 
Senator to interpret.
  I yield the floor. I thank the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, may I ask the manager of the amendment for 
the majority if he is interested in taking any time to discuss this 
matter?
  The point is I do not want to use all the time up on our side, but 
want to see if there are any speakers on the other side.
  I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two 
important documents here which I believe go to the question of finding 
of fact that the Senator from Louisiana spoke of. In other words, his 
concern is, is there a need to have hearings to figure out if there are 
discrepancies?
  In an AP story, an Associated Press story that was reprinted in one 
of the newspapers on July 29, Senator Packwood is quoted as saying:

       If there was a hearing, we'd finally have a right to 
     question the complainants. We've been unable to do that.

  So I think that sentence alone says to me that there are differences 
of fact. And second, there is documentation from a ``Nightline'' 
appearance that I was on with Senator Simpson in which Senator Simpson 
says:

       If they want to come forward in a public hearing, they got 
     to get their right hand up and be cross-examined with the 
     rules of evidence. The last one,

meaning women,

     made moves on Bob Packwood. You'll find that in the 
     deposition.
  Now, this raises a lot of other questions, but it certainly raises 
the issue that there are differences of fact here.
  The point made by the Senator from Nevada, who is very careful on 
what he says on this floor--I am only amplifying his answer by showing 
you two very important statements, one by Senator Packwood himself 
quoted in the AP story, the other by Senator Simpson which indicates 
that there is, in fact, a dispute over what occurred.
  And I now ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record at 
this time. They are identified as the actual words from the 
``Nightline'' appearance and the AP wire story.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S11159]]


              [From ABC News ``Nightline'', July 27, 1995]

                  The Dawdling Packwood Investigation

(This transcript has not yet been checked against videotape and cannot, 
for that reason, be guaranteed as to accuracy of speakers and spelling. 
                                 (JPM))

       Announcer. July 27th, 1995.
       Sen. Mitch McConnell, (R), Chairman, Select Ethics 
     Committee. This has been the mother of all ethics 
     investigations.
       Chris Wallace [voice-over]. The sexual misconduct 
     investigation into Senator Bob Packwood: why won't the Ethics 
     Committee conduct public hearings?
       Sen. Barbara Boxer, (D), California. I don't want to tell 
     the Ethics Committee what to do, I want them to do the right 
     thing.
       Paul Jigow [sp?]. The demand for a public hearing is real 
     low-ball, hardball politics.
       Chris Wallace [voice-over]. Tonight, the Packwood 
     investigation; is it a case of the old boys' network looking 
     after one of its own?
       Announcer. This is ABC News Nightline. Substituting for Ted 
     Koppel and reporting from Washington, Chris Wallace.
       Chris Wallace. The veil of decorum in the U.S. Senate was 
     pulled back ever so slightly today in a debate over what to 
     do about Bob Packwood. While maintaining all the practiced 
     civilities of the Senate floor, the Republican head of the 
     Ethics Committee, Mitch McConnell and a Democratic freshman 
     from California, Barbara Boxer, were very politely sticking a 
     shiv in each other. McConnell said the Ethics Committee 
     wasn't about to be pushed around in deciding to deal with the 
     Packwood case. Boxer said she respects the committee, but if 
     it doesn't decide to hold public hearings on its own, she 
     will bring the issue to the Senate floor.
       Ever since the Clarence Thomas hearings, there's been a 
     charge that the Senate--made up overwhelmingly of white 
     middle-aged men--is insensitive to issues of sexual 
     misconduct. Now, as the Packwood case is well into its third 
     year, and so far, all the proceedings have been behind closed 
     doors, that charge of insensitivity is being heard again. As 
     ABC's Michel McQueen reports, the investigation of one 
     senator is now putting some heat on all of his colleagues.
       1st former Packwood Staff Member. There was no warning. He 
     suddenly grabbed me by the hair and forcefully kissed me, and 
     it was very hard to get him off.
       2nd former Packwood Staff Member. He stood on my feet, 
     pulled my hair, pulled my ponytail, my head back, was 
     forcefully trying to kiss me, and with his other hand----
       3rd former Packwood Staff Member. In his offices, did grab 
     me at the shoulders and kiss me forcefully.
       Michel McQueen, ABC News [voice-over]. There isn't much 
     doubt about what he did.
       Sen. Bob Packwood, (R), Oregon. [NBC, 1992] My actions were 
     just plain wrong, and there is no other, better word for it.
       Michel McQueen [voice-over]. The question has always been 
     what to do about it.
       [on camera] For two and a half years, the Senate Ethics 
     Committee has investigated charges that Republican Bob 
     Packwood of Oregon repeatedly harassed the women around him, 
     and then tried to tamper with evidence to cover it up. In 
     May, the Ethics Committee issued a finding that there was 
     substantial credible evidence to warrant a formal 
     investigation, the equivalent of a pretrial indictment or 
     charge. But little has happened since then, and many people 
     are getting impatient.
       [voice-over] Last week, Senator Packwood's accusers and 
     some of the congresswomen who support them held a press 
     conference.
       Rep. Nita Lowey, (D), New York. Let me be very clear. The 
     women of America will not tolerate politics as usual. We will 
     not tolerate politics as usual in the good old boys' club. We 
     will not stand for another Anita Hill. Whether it's in the 
     Senate or in the office, the American people understand that 
     sexual harassment is a serious abuse of power.
       Michel McQueen [voice-over]. What the lawmakers and many of 
     Senator Packwood's accusers want are public hearings to air 
     the allegations against him. An Oregon women's group paid for 
     this ad in The Washington Post, designed by Democratic media 
     consultant Mandy Grunwald.
       Mandy Grunwald. For 40 years, the Ethics Committee has had 
     public hearings every time they've found credible evidence. 
     They put out a public report saying they found credible 
     evidence of abuse of office tampering with evidence, and 17 
     counts of sexual misconduct. I think getting these things out 
     in the open is appropriate, I think actions should have 
     consequences, and he should be held accountable.
       Michel McQueen [voice-over]. The battle was joined on the 
     Senate floor last week when five women senators [Boxer, 
     Moseley-Braun, Feinstein, Murray, Snowe] led by California 
     Democrat Barbara Boxer, strongly urged the Ethics Committee 
     to hold public hearings.
       Sen. Barbara Boxer, (D), California. I have written the 
     Ethics Committee and informed them that if no public hearings 
     were scheduled by the end of this week--and that means the 
     end of today--I would seek a vote on the matter by the full 
     Senate.
       Michel McQueen [voice-over]. Senator Boxer's demand 
     triggered threats to reopen past Democratic scandals, and 
     complaints about her respect for protocol.
       Sen. Bob Dole, Majority Leader. Well, I believe in the 
     integrity of the committee process. I don't believe that 
     every time a senator doesn't like
      what the committee does, they come out with some motion.
       Michel McQueen [voice over]. Senator Boxer, who is not a 
     member of the Ethics Committee, said Senate rules and the 
     precedent set by previous cases demand public hearings.
       Stanley Brand [sp?]. The line of precedent is unbroken on 
     the fact that this stage of the procedure occurs in a public 
     hearing.
       Michel McQueen [voice over]. Stanley Brand is a former 
     Democratic counsel to the House of Representatives. He now 
     represents both Democrats and Republicans before the ethics 
     committees.
       Stanley Brand. It really has nothing to do with partisan 
     politics. These have been the rules through both Democratic 
     and Republican control of the House and Senate, and in fact, 
     these committees are evenly split along party lines, to 
     prevent partisanship from taking control, if you will.
       Michel McQueen [voice over]. Not so fast, says Wall Street 
     Journal editorial writer Paul Jigow.
       Paul Jigow. What we're seeing here is the politics of 
     ethics. If you don't have an issue, you can use personal 
     politics, personal foibles of politicians. It was elevated to 
     an art form in the 1980s against people like John Tower, 
     Clarence Thomas, and in Bob Packwood's case, it's being used 
     again, not to say that there's not real allegations here, but 
     the public hearing aspect, the demand for public hearing, is 
     real low-ball, hardball politics.
       Michel McQueen [voice over]. Whether it was politics or 
     process, the argument erupted on the Senate floor today 
     between Ethics Committee chairman Mitch McConnell and Senator 
     Boxer.
       Sen. Mitch McConnell. This has been the mother of all 
     ethics investigation. It is also the first full-fledged 
     investigation of sexual misconduct ever conducted in the 
     Senate. Although allegations of sexual misconduct were 
     leveled against two other senators in the past, the committee 
     dismissed both of these cases rather than proceed to an in-
     depth inquiry.
       Sen. Barbara Boxer. I'm glad that the committee is meeting, 
     but I'm not backing off one bit. If they don't vote for 
     public hearings, I'll be back here with an amendment, so 
     let's keep the wheels turning.
       Michel McQueen [voice over]. Senator McConnell said that 
     the committee would resume its work on the Packwood case next 
     week, after what he called a ``cooling-off period.'' But 
     there was no word on how the committee will handle the 
     question of public hearings. This is Michel McQueen for 
     Nightline, in Washington.
       Chris Wallace. When we come back, we'll be joined by one 
     senator who's defending Senator Packwood's right
      to private hearing and by another who's pressing for them to 
     be made public. [Commercial break]
       Chris Wallace. Senator Alan Simpson is a supporter of 
     Senator Packwood's attempt to have his hearings held in 
     private. He joins us now from our Washington bureau, as does 
     Senator Barbara Boxer, the Senate's most vocal supporter of 
     public hearings.
       Senator Boxer, let's start with this issue of public 
     hearings. The Ethics Committee has conducted a thorough 
     investigation, they've issued what amounts to a tough 
     indictment. Why not let them finish this matter in private? I 
     mean, what good does it do either the Senate or Bob Packwood 
     to have a public spectacle?
       Sen. Barbara Boxer, (D), California. What I want is for the 
     Ethics Committee to do the right thing, and the right thing 
     is what ethics committees have always done in the entire 
     history of the United States Senate, and that is, when you 
     get to this phase of an investigation where there is 
     credible, substantial evidence that a senator has committed 
     wrongdoing, that there are public hearings. It's the way the 
     Senate has always been. And by the way, I think it's 
     important to note, even with that, the Senate, under Rule 26, 
     could close those hearings if there was a sensitive matter or 
     to protect a witness, so I think I'm just being very 
     reasonable and, frankly, conservative, because that's what 
     the ethics committees have always done throughout Senate 
     history.
       Chris Wallace. Senator Simpson, this is a public official 
     charged with misconduct. Personally painful as it may be, 
     doesn't this have to be conducted out in the open?
       Sen. Alan Simpson, (R), Wyoming. Well, let's let the Ethics 
     Committee finish their work. They're not finished with their 
     work, and this is unprecedented, that a member of the Senate 
     would ask and try to go past the Ethics Committee. If that 
     ever happens, I can tell you who'll be the losers. The losers 
     will be those who in the minority of the U.S. Senate, 
     Election time comes, just roll one up and fire the shot, and 
     let'em dig out from under the rubble. I'm not suggesting that 
     we go--that we don't have private or public. I'm just saying 
     let them finish their work, and Senator Boxer said that on 
     the floor in November of '93, let them finish their work.
       Chris Wallace. But Senator Simpson, isn't this the point at 
     which the committee has to decide, or the Senate has to 
     decide, whether or not to hold hearings, in private or in 
     public?
       Sen. Alan Simpson. But that will come when the committee 
     has finished their work. If you allow a single senator to 
     subvert the process at this point, the only losers will be 
     those who are in the minority. Senator Boxer's party is in 
     the minority. Can you imagine what happens if this gets done? 
     I can tell 

[[Page S11160]]
     you, there are plenty of people on our side who, in a personal 
     vendetta, would simply file grievances and reports against 
     Senator Boxer. Then, when we're in the minority, that's the 
     purpose of the Ethics Committee.
       Chris Wallace. But Senator Simpson, let's not get bogged 
     down in the procedural issue. Let's talk about the
      actual decision as to whether to hold public or private. You 
     favor private hearings, do you not?
       Sen. Alan Simpson. I have--I have never--I have never 
     objected to public hearings. I say let the Ethics Committee 
     finish its work. I know you'd like me to say that I don't 
     want them to have public hearings, but I don't know.
       Chris Wallace. No, I want you to say whatever you--whatever 
     you feel, Senator.
       Sen. Alan Simpson. I just believe that the Ethics Committee 
     should finish its work. If you--if you shortcircuit the 
     investigatory process right now, you're--you're dooming the 
     U.S. Senate. That's what you're doing.
       Chris Wallace. Let me ask you about this, Senator Boxer, 
     because since you called for public hearings, some of your 
     Republican colleagues have warned about possible 
     repercussions. In fact, Senator Simpson took you aside the 
     other day off the Senate floor. What did he----
       Sen. Alan Simpson. No, that's not true. I never warned 
     Senator Boxer at all. I have the highest regard for her, and 
     respect. We don't agree with things, but you can ask her--
     she's here----
       Chris Wallace. Well, I just----
       Sen. Alan Simpson [continuing]. I never warned her about--
     --
       Chris Wallace [continuing]. I was just trying to, Senator.
       Sen. Alan Simpson [continuing]. No, but I get offended by 
     that, because that didn't happen. I've already written a 
     letter about the reporter that reported it that way.
       Chris Wallace. Well, Senator Boxer, what--whether it's a 
     warning or whatever he said to you, what did Senator Simpson 
     say?
       Sen. Barbara Boxer. Well, Senator Simpson and I are 
     friends, and he gave me some friendly advice. The friendly 
     advice was, essentially, to lay off. And I have to say this. 
     I find it offensive. I had----
       Chris Wallace. To lay off?
       Sen. Barbara Boxer [continuing]. The advice. Because I 
     think it's wrong, I think, to tell a senator to back off when 
     she thinks something is important. I'll tell you what's 
     unprecedented, not a senator making a view known on an 
     important issue like this; what's unprecedented is that, in 
     fact, in fact, we already had Trent Lott, who is a leader of 
     the Republicans in the Senate, say he favors private 
     hearings. It's no great secret that Mitch McConnell, the head 
     of the Ethics Committee, favors private hearings. Listen, I 
     wasn't born yesterday. That's where it's moving. That would 
     be a change in precedent, and that would be wrong. The Senate 
     is not a private club, as much as some would like to see it. 
     It is the people's United States Senate, and we cannot sweep 
     these things under the committee room rug, and that's exactly 
     where this was going unless I had spoken up, and I'm really 
     proud that I have.
       Sen. Alan Simpson. Well, let's get the record straight. I 
     never said to Barbara Boxer to lay off, and Barbara Boxer was 
     a member of the House of Representatives while they did five 
     of these kind of hearings, and she never once asked for a 
     public hearing, and voted on the rules to prohibit public 
     hearing.
       Sen. Barbara Boxer. That's incorrect. That is incorrect.
       Sen. Alan Simpson. Well I can read and write, too.
       Sen. Barbara Boxer. Well, that is so incorrect, that--in 
     1989 we changed the rules in the House to force public 
     hearings, and in the two sexual misconduct cases that came 
     before me, Chris, what I did is vote for tougher penalties, 
     and that was against a Democrat and a Republican. But what 
     happens is, when you're winning an argument, my mother always 
     taught me, your opposition is going to change the subject. I 
     am not the subject. The subject is can the Senate police 
     itself, and will they, in this one case, make an exception 
     and close the doors? That would be wrong, and I'm not going 
     to be intimidated.
       Sen. Alan Simpson. Well----
       Chris Wallace. Senator Simpson, let me ask you, there have 
     been reports--and we're asking you about them so you can tell 
     us if they're true or not--that you and other Republicans 
     have suggested that if Barbara Boxer goes ahead with her call 
     for public hearings on Packwood, that the Republicans might 
     have public hearings on every Democratic scandal since 1969. 
     First of all, did you say it?
       Sen Alan Simpson. No, I've never said that. I think that'd 
     be a real mistake. I heard 'em mention Ted Kennedy. I heard 
     'em mention Tom Daschle. I think those things would be a real 
     mistake. But I'll tell you one thing we could do. We could go 
     back just as far as the statute of limitations on these cases 
     in every other jurisdiction in America, and the longest one 
     is three years, and they're back in 1969 on this one. How 
     many of--in the people in this audience can pass that little 
     test, as to what they were doing in 1969?
       Sen. Barbara Boxer. Well----
       Sen. Alan Simpson. And remember, he was not charged with 
     sexual harassment, it is sexual misconduct. You want to get 
     back to the real specter of this, Anita Hill and Clarence 
     Thomas, remember that Anita Hill never charged Clarence 
     Thomas with sexual harassment, either.
       Chris Wallace. Senator Simpson. Senator Boxer, we have to 
     break in here for a moment, but when we return, I want to 
     bring up the Hill-Thomas hearings and ask you just how 
     enlightened the Senate is these days when it comes to matters 
     of sexual misconduct, and we'll be back in just a moment. 
     [Commercial break.]
       Chris Wallace. and we're back now with Senators Alan 
     Simpson and Barbara Boxer.
       Senator Boxer, you were elected to the Senate in the wake 
     of the Clarence Thomas hearings, and there was some feeling 
     then that a lot of senators, quote, ``Didn't get it,'' when 
     it came to matters of sexual misconduct. Are we still seeing 
     some of that here in the Packwood case?
       Sen. Barbara Boxer. Well, I have to say that we are, 
     although I'm very hopeful, because now that Senator Bryan, 
     who's the vice chair of the committee, has called for 
     meetings, and Mitch McConnell agreed today that they will 
     vote to have public hearings, but let me tell you this. 
     Supposing they vote not to, and it's a 3-3 deadlock, 'cause 
     there's three Republicans and three Democrats, and they
      don't move forward, and this is the first time in history, 
     as I've said, that they would have closed hearings. What 
     is the message? That if you violate ethics and it has to 
     do with mistreating women that you get the privacy behind 
     closed doors to look at those charges? I think that would 
     be awful. If it's embarrassing, the more embarrassing it 
     is, the more it's behind closed doors? And I think it's 
     important to note that the charges against Senator 
     Packwood where the committee found substantial credible 
     evidence in three areas, not just sexual misconduct, but 
     tampering with evidence, and then trying to get his wife a 
     job so, presumably, he could lower his alimony payments, 
     and going to lobbyists, those are the charges that are 
     before us here. They're serious, and the last one was in 
     1990, in terms of the sexual misconduct, so it isn't that 
     it just was in 1969.
       Chris Wallace. Senator Simpson, is this, as some have 
     charged, a case of the boys' club protecting one of its own?
       Sen. Alan Simpson. No, you know, that's really old stuff. I 
     have a mother, a wife and a daughter, one of whom has been 
     subjected to much more than anything I ever heard in the 
     Anita Hill issue or this issue. This is absurd. This is a--an 
     elitist, sexist statement, and it's not true.
       Sen. Barbara Boxer. Well, you don't know what happened in 
     this issue, Senator Simpson.
       Sen. Alan Simpson. I do know what happened to people in my 
     own family, and I do know----
       Sen. Barbara Boxer. No, I said----
       Sen. Alan Simpson [continuing]. That this man has not been 
     charged with sexual harassment, and sexual harassment, as a 
     statute of limitations, is three years in every other 
     jurisdiction in America.
       Sen. Barbara Boxer. The women haven't had a chance to come 
     forward before the committee. Senator Packwood has----
       Sen. Alan Simpson. Well, I'll tell you, there are going to 
     be a couple of 'em that won't want to come forward, and the 
     last one, which was the charge--
       Sen. Barbara Boxer. Well, what does that mean?
       Sen. Alan Simpson. Just what I said. If they want to come 
     forward in a public hearing, they got to get their right hand 
     up and be cross-examined with the rules of evidence. The last 
     one made moves on Bob Packwood. You'll find that in the 
     deposition.
       Chris Wallace. Senator Boxer?
       Sen. Barbara Boxer. Well, I'm just saying this. In every 
     single case that has come before the Senate Ethics Committee, 
     we've had public hearings. In every single----
       Sen. Alan Simpson. That's not true.
       Sen. Barbara Boxer [continuing]. In every single case. I 
     put that in the record today. The vice chairman of the 
     committee has stated that, Richard Bryan, very well-
     respected. It's been stated by Senate historians. I am not 
     partisan. The amendment that I plan to offer if, in fact, we 
     don't get the hearings, just says, in every case, be it 
     against a Democrat or a Republican, if it gets to the stage--
     --
       Chris Wallace. Senator----
       Sen. Alan Simpson. Barbara's gonna get----
       Sen. Barbara Boxer [continuing]. If it gets to the stage 
     where there's substantial credible evidence, there should be 
     public hearings.
       Chris Wallace. Senator Simpson, I want to ask you about the 
     last comment you made, because there was a lot of feeling 
     after the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings that in some 
     sense--and this part of, I think,the anger of some people on 
     one side, you would certainly say--was a feeling that some 
     Senate members tried to make Anita Hill, through cross-
     examination, tried to make her into the transgressor. What 
     you seem to be saying is, if this becomes public hearings, 
     there's going to be a kind of fierce cross-examination of 
     some of Bob Packwood's accusers.
       Sen. Alan Simpson. Of course there will. What do you think 
     happens in these kind of situations where you're trying to 
     destroy a person? People get destroyed in the process. Is 
     anyone so out of that they don't understand that?
       Sen. Barbara Boxer. Well, you know----
       Sen. Alan Simpson. Barbara Boxer is going to have her 
     chance too anything she wants, bring up any amendment, bring 
     up any argument, tear the joint down, tear it up, but not 
     until the committee is through with their work.

[[Page S11161]]

       Chris Wallace. Senator Simpson, you know, for all the talk 
     about issues of sexual misconduct and enlightenment and all 
     that, is this just pure politics? Is this just Democrats 
     looking for a way to embarrass a big Republican and 
     Republicans looking for a way to sweep it under the rug?
       Sen. Alan Simpson. I don't know, but I do know this that my 
     friend from California is a highly partisan individual. She 
     has said remarks on the floor since she come here, and 
     they're hard, and I know hard politics, 'cause I do it 
     myself. But Barbara Boxer is one of the toughest partisan 
     shooters in this building.
       Sen. Barbara Boxer. Well, first of all----
       Chris Wallace. Senator Boxer, is it just politics?
       Sen. Barbara Boxer. This is ridiculous. I already showed 
     you where, when I was in the House and the Ethics Committee 
     was too soft on a Democrat who I felt committed sexual 
     misconduct, actually worse than that, I voted for a tougher 
     penalty. My amendment isn't aimed at Bob Packwood. It is a 
     generic amendment that just says we shall have public 
     hearings in any case that gets to the stage of the 
     investigation. I am stunned to hear my colleague say some of 
     the things he has said tonight, turning the tables on this 
     situation, making women look like they're the problem. Here--
     --
       Sen. Alan Simpson. See, there's the argument, there it 
     goes.
       Sen. Barbara Boxer [continuing]. No, well, Alan----
       Sen. Alan Simpson. Now you're getting the argument.
       Sen. Barbara Boxer [continuing]. Well, Alan, Alan, if you 
     would give me a chance.
       Sen. Alan Simpson. I've heard that one.
       Sen. Barbara Boxer. You bet you have.
       Sen. Alan Simpson. Yeah, you bet.
       Sen. Barbara Boxer. And you're going to hear it again, and 
     here's what it is.
       Sen. Alan Simpson. Well, I've heard it enough.
       Sen. Barbara Boxer. Here's what it is. Well, one more time, 
     just for the road.
       Sen. Alan Simpson. Yeah, well, trot it out one more time.
       Sen. Barbara Boxer. One more time for the road. The fact 
     is, Mitch McConnell and his Republicans on the Ethics 
     Committee, Richard Bryan and his colleagues on the Ethics 
     Committee, found substantial credible evidence.
       That's a very high level of proof----
       Sen. Alan Simpson. Yes.
       Sen. Barbara Boxer [continuing]. That there was wrongdoing. 
     It is time for the light to be shined on this matter, so that 
     senators know how to vote, so that the public can understand 
     it. Today we learned the vast majority of the American people 
     agree they ought to have a chance to know more about this. 
     After all, we are not a private club, we are not a country 
     club where guys put their feet on the table, light up a 
     cigar, and disguise it.
       Chris Wallace. Senator Simpson, you've got 30 seconds for 
     the final word.
       Sen. Alan Simpson. Well, that's pretty sexist. I've been in 
     these a lot, you know, and I know that finally they flee to 
     this one about bald white guys that don't understand 
     anything, and really, I practiced law for 18 years, I 
     understand an awful lot about sexual issues.
       Sen. Barbara Boxer. You sure do.
       Sen. Alan Simpson. And molestation.
       Sen. Barbara Boxer. You do.
       Sen. Alan Simpson. And rape and incest, that's what I did 
     in my practice, so I've heard all that guff before. Let's get 
     down to the point. This senator is going to have her chance 
     to do whatever she wishes when they finish the investigation, 
     and there was only one charge of sexual misconduct in the 
     last 13 years, and if that's a pattern, I'll buy the drinks.
       Chris Wallace. Well I think we're going to have to leave it 
     there, but I think I'd point out, as a point of information, 
     Senator Simpson, that I think there were a half-dozen 
     allegations of sexual misconduct----
       Sen. Alan Simpson. No, there were not. In the last----
       Chris Wallace [continuing]. In the--during the course of 
     the '80s.
       Sen. Alan Simpson [continuing]. Thirteen years, one.
       Chris Wallace. I know, but there were a lot in between '80 
     and '83, so the question----
       Sen. Alan Simpson. Yeah, but in the last 13 years, one.
       Chris Wallace. Well, you can divide it where you want to.
       Sen. Alan Simpson. Yeah, I will divide it.
       Chris Wallace. Sentor Simpson----
       Sen. Alan Simpson. It's called fairness.
       Chris Wallace [continuing]. Senator Boxer, thank you both 
     very much for joining us.
       Sen. Barbara Boxer. Thank you.
       Chris Wallace. And I'll be back in just a moment. 
     [Commercial break]
       Chris Wallace. Tomorrow on 20/20, an exclusive interview 
     with David Smith. Barbara Walters talks with the ex-husband 
     of convicted murdered Susan Smith. That's tomorrow, on this 
     ABC station.
       And that's our report for tonight. I'm Chris Wallace in 
     Washington. For all of us here at ABC News, good night.
                                                                    ____

                  [From the Fresno Bee, July 29, 1995]

               Packwood Sees Benefits to a Public Hearing

       Washington.--While not endorsing the public hearings being 
     demanded by Democrats, Sen. Bob Packwood said Friday they 
     would give his lawyers their first chances to cross-examine 
     some of the women accusing him of sexual and official 
     misconduct.
       ``If there was a hearing, we'd finally have a right to 
     question the complainants. We've been unable to do that,'' 
     the Oregon Republican said in an interview with The 
     Associated Press.
       Packwood's lawyers earlier told the Senate Ethics Committee 
     that the senator would not exercise his right to ask for a 
     public hearing. The senator refused Friday to say whether he 
     wanted a public hearing.
       ``It's up to the Ethics Committee to decide whether there 
     is anything to be gained by that. I'm not sure any new 
     information would be gained,'' Packwood said.
       Two Democrats on the panel, Richard Bryan of Nevada and 
     Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, have called for public 
     hearings. Committee Chairman Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., opposes 
     the idea.
       Packwood said he would make clear in any hearing that most 
     of the allegations were more than a decade old.

  Mrs. BOXER. Is there anyone on the other side who wishes to take some 
time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Right now, there is no one to answer that.
  Mrs. BOXER. There is no one to answer that. I say to my colleagues 
that this is a very important debate that is going on. And I think in 
fairness we ought to go back and forth, side to side, here. I find it 
very strange, given all the criticism of this Senator's amendment in 
the press, personally, publicly, every which way you could send a 
message to somebody, that they are not here to talk about it.
  But in any event, at this time I am going to yield 30 minutes to the 
Senator from Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much. I thank the Senator who has 
sponsored the resolution for yielding me this time.
  I rise to speak in favor of the Boxer resolution. The purpose of this 
resolution states: ``To instruct the Select Committee on Ethics of the 
Senate to hold hearings on certain allegations of wrongdoings by 
Members of the Senate.'' I want to commend Senator Boxer for her 
efforts in pursuing this issue. Senator Boxer has been persistent and 
clear. She says we must hold public hearings in order to defend the 
integrity of the U.S. Senate and follow its historic precedent. I agree 
with her purpose.
  I regret that some have made Senator Boxer the issue. Senator Boxer 
is not the issue. And I would like to compliment Senator Boxer on her 
stamina and on her strength in resisting the abuse that has been hurled 
at her because she wishes to exercise her prerogative as a Senator and 
offer legislation on the floor. I compliment her that she refused to 
have her voice silenced on behalf of defending the women who have been 
the victims in this ethics proceeding. As we both know, whenever women 
are assaulted, battered, they themselves are always made to look like 
they are the problem rather than the victim. So I thank Senator Boxer. 
I thank her for not having her voice silenced, and I thank her for 
offering an amendment to ensure that the voices of the women are not 
silenced.
  And I say that because as we look at what has been happening, we now 
see that as a Member--as it currently stands, the voices of the women 
will be silenced. As a member of the Ethics Committee, I voted to 
support public hearings in the Packwood case. Unfortunately, that 
motion failed on a 3 to 3 vote, strictly on party lines. I wanted 
public hearings to occur because I felt it was important for the honor 
and integrity of the U.S. Senate. I also voted to release all relevant 
information to the public as soon as physically possible.
  Let me clarify that this release of information is the usual practice 
of the Ethics Committee. It is neither unusual nor is it unprecedented. 
It is the committee's customary practice that this type of information 
has been released to the public in the seven major cases in this 
century--involving Senator Hiram Bingham, Senator Joe McCarthy, Senator 
Thomas Dodd, Senator Herman Talmadge and Senator Harrison Williams, as 
well as Senator David Durenberger and Senator Alan Cranston.
  I want to emphatically state that I do not believe that the release 
of this information is a substitute for public hearings. I do not 
believe that it is in lieu of public hearings. And, also, it is 

[[Page S11162]]
not a proxy for public hearings. It is the minimal acceptable form of 
disclosure.
  Now, why is this not a substitute for public hearings? As my 
colleagues know, I am always for public hearings, public hearings to 
protect the honor of the Senate and because it is important to give 
voice and value to the charges brought by women. These women are the 
first actual victims ever to bring complaints against a U.S. Senator to 
the Ethics Committee. It is the case of first impression. And if we 
silence them now on the issue of sexual misconduct, will victims ever, 
ever again bring a charge to the Ethics Committee because they believe 
they will be treated as the problem or that they will be silenced 
because of the kind of vote that we saw?
  I voted for public hearings because I wanted to be sure that women 
got a fair shake and that they got a fair shake in the U.S. Senate, 
that, as we know, when again women are ever assaulted, battered, or 
abused they are told to be silent or there is institutional forums to 
be silent. I want to assure them that their voices were not silenced, 
that they were treated with respect and dignity, that their allegations 
were taken seriously and would have value.
  I never met these women. I have only heard their stories through 
depositions, affidavits, and through the summaries of their 
testimonies. I do not want their stories to be filtered. I also did not 
have a chance to personally hear the other witnesses, whether it was 
related to diary tampering or solicitation of jobs for Senator 
Packwood's wife to have a job to lower the alimony. I did hear Senator 
Packwood's statements.
  There has been no opportunity to cross-examine or ask questions of 
the women or other witnesses in this area of investigation. I did not 
get to talk to the women. I did not get to talk to the lobbyists that 
Senator Packwood spoke to about a job for his former wife. I did not 
get a chance to talk to the woman who has been typing Senator 
Packwood's diary for all of these years and whether, in fact, there has 
been diary tampering and why. Because that is the way the committee 
works.
  The committee first functions like a grand jury. We listen to the 
issues and concerns through depositions, through affidavits. And then 
we come to a conclusion. Is there substantial, credible evidence to 
present a bill of particulars to the U.S. Senate? We did do that. Now 
we have to decide whether there is clear and convincing evidence on 
those allegations to determine the sanctions. Now, how can we decide 
whether something with a higher standard of evidence is clear and 
convincing unless we follow the practice that has been done by the 
Senate in each and every one of those cases? That is the purpose of 
public hearings.
  I also believe that the public hearings will help restore the honor 
and integrity of the U.S. Senate. We all know the American people have 
little confidence in their elected representatives and little 
confidence in the institution of Congress. They do not believe that we 
can police our own. The American people believe that, given a choice, 
we will always protect our own at the expense of others. They believe 
we meet in backrooms, behind closed doors, cut the deals, circle the 
wagons to protect our own. We must demonstrate by our actions this is 
not so. And this is why we need public hearings.
  Now, I lived through the Anita Hill debacle. To many, the Senate did 
not deal fairly with Miss Hill's allegations. The Senate trivialized 
what Miss Hill had to say. Anita Hill was put on trial and treated very 
shabbily. She was shamed here in the U.S. Senate. And the institutional 
behavior of the U.S. Senate raised questions whether this institution 
could ever deal with allegations related to sexual misconduct.
  Now, I want the American people to believe that we can act 
responsibly, and we do that not with words, but with deeds, and the 
most important deed we can do today is to vote for the Boxer resolution 
on public hearings.
  I support public hearings because it will allow all of us, Members of 
the Senate and the American public, to judge for ourselves what has 
happened, to show that we can hold hearings that are neither a 
whitewash nor a witch hunt. No matter what we decide, the full Senate 
and the American people have a right to know the facts on these cases, 
a right to know how we arrived at those facts and reached our 
decisions. And they should have confidence that we have done the right 
thing.
  Now, why do the arguments against hearings not hold up? Some say this 
will be a spectacle. I say it is going to be a spectacle if we do not 
hold public hearings. No matter what the Senate decides, I believe that 
there will be a public forum held on this matter.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is right.
  (Mr. SMITH assumed the Chair.)
  Ms. MIKULSKI. We need to have a fair format, to make sure the format 
and tone is fair for the victims telling their stories, and a fair 
format for Senator Packwood. Public hearings are the best way to ensure 
that there is no spectacle and that all parties are treated fairly. s
  To say that those hearings will debase and sensationalize the Senate 
and that the Senate will compete with the O.J. trial--hey, let me say 
this. No one seems very concerned about the Whitewater hearings 
debasing the U.S. Senate. No one seems concerned that the Whitewater 
hearings are debasing the Presidency.
  No one seems very concerned about debasing the Congress through the 
Waco hearings. Nobody seems very concerned that at the Waco hearings, 
one of the purposes is to demean another woman, the Attorney General of 
the United States.
  Nobody seemed to be concerned when a Senator stood on one side of the 
aisle and chanted, ``Where's Bill? Where's Bill?''
  No one seemed concerned about the Senate when another Senator stood 
on the floor and sang ``Old MacDonald Had a Farm,'' concluding with 
``oink, oink, oink.''
  Well, there is a question about where the barnyard really is.
  So I think we should stop these arguments that are filled with 
fallacy. If we want to honor the Senate, let us follow its historic 
precedents.
  I think we further debase the Senate if we do not hold these 
hearings, precisely because citizens have come forward, they believed 
in us, they believed in the process, and the procedure. This is the 
first time that citizens have come forward and made statements about 
misconduct, the first time victims have come and asked us to listen to 
them, to allow them to tell their story, and this must occur.
  Let me be clear, a public hearing at this point in the proceedings 
has been the practice of the Senate. If the Senate does not hold public 
hearings in this matter, the Senate would deviate from its own 
precedent.
  In every case where the Ethics Committee has reached the 
investigation stage, where the Packwood case now stands, there have 
been public hearings. Those cases were Senators Tom Dodd, Herman 
Talmadge, Harrison Williams, David Durenberger, the cases involving 
Charles Keating--Senators DeConcini, McCain, Riegle, Glenn, and 
Cranston.
  Let me be clear that in this case the Ethics Committee found 
substantial credible evidence of misconduct and has moved to the 
``investigation'' stage.
  This resolution sets forth the committee findings in three areas: 
Sexual misconduct, diary tampering, and jobs for Mrs. Packwood.
  Let me remind my colleagues what the committee members found. We 
found substantial credible evidence that Senator Packwood may have 
engaged in a pattern of sexual misconduct spanning 20 years, 18 
instances involving 17 women. Let me give an example, just so it 
refreshes everybody's memory.
  Out of our bill of particulars, we found substantial credible 
evidence that in the basement of the Capitol, he walked a former 
staffer into a room, where he grabbed her with both hands in her hair 
and kissed her, forcing his tongue into her mouth.
  We also found that in his Senate office in DC, he grabbed a staff 
member by the shoulders, pushed her down on a couch and kissed her. 
When the staffer tried to get up, he repeatedly pushed her down.
  In the Capitol, he grabbed an elevator operator by the shoulders, 
pushed her to the wall, kissed her on the lips, followed her home, 
tried to kiss her and elicit her to engage in an intimate relationship.
  I cannot bring myself to read more of these cases on the floor of the 
U.S. 

[[Page S11163]]
Senate, but I think if you read the bill of particulars, you will see 
what this is.
  Then we find there is a strong possibility that Senator Packwood 
tampered with his diaries; that he fought the committee 1 year--1 
year--and this is why it has taken so long.
  Then there are the allegations he improperly solicited job offers for 
his former wife so he could reduce his alimony payments.
  All I see for the Senate to do is what it has done before, to hold 
public hearings in a case where we also found substantial credible 
evidence of misconduct, to then determine what is clear and convincing 
so we can come to what sanctions we need to recommend to the Senate. 
Hearings will allow all of us--Members of the Senate and the American 
public--to judge for ourselves what happened.
  No matter what we decide, the American people have a right to know 
how we reached our decision. They should have confidence in us that we 
did the right thing.
  As we try to then judge for ourselves what happened in the Packwood 
matter, know today when this vote is taken, it will be the Senate that 
will be judged and the criteria will be: Can the Senate police its own? 
Can it follow its precedent, and can it do its business in an open, 
public, fair format?
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. How much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from Maryland has 15 
minutes left.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I reserve my time for later on in the debate.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, that means I will hold that time for the 
Senator from Maryland; is that appropriate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California controls that 
time.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will reserve that time for my friend.
  Let me just say to my friend from Maryland, who for so long carried 
issues for the women of this country, in many ways by herself that her 
courage and her conviction and her sense of fairness pervade this 
institution. I know how lonely the fight can get, and I was not nearly 
as lonely as the Senator from Maryland was for a long time. So I want 
to thank her.
  Mr. President, I note there is not one Republican on the floor, 
except the good Senator in the chair. I wonder whether or not the 
Republican Senators would yield me additional time, because I have a 
number of people who wish to speak and it does not appear that any 
Republicans wish to speak. There is much debate in the media.
  I see now the manager. I was going to ask the manager of the 
amendment, if he did not have many speakers if he would yield me an 
additional 30 minutes of time, because I have more speakers than I 
thought.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from California, I understand her 
request, but I am going to have to reserve the 2 hours for this side 
and hope that she will be able to work everybody in under the agreement 
that we entered into.
  Mrs. BOXER. Does the Senator have speakers at this time to take any 
time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator will be using the time or controlling the 
time, and that is his prerogative.
  Mrs. BOXER. My question is, does the Senator have any speakers at 
this time? Does the Senator from Kentucky have any speakers at this 
time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have said three times that I have 2 
hours under my control under the unanimous-consent agreement. I was 
trying to respond to the request from the Senator from California. I 
believe I did that. I retain the 2 hours for this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was trying to find out in the spirit of 
running this place if the Senator had any particular speakers at this 
time, I would defer. How much time does the Senator from California 
have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixty-two minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield 5 minutes to the good Senator from Wisconsin, 
Senator Feingold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I especially thank 
the Senator from California, Senator Boxer, for her courage and 
tremendous leadership on this issue, a painful issue but something that 
absolutely has to come before the Senate.
  Mr. President, let me say how much I admire the work of the Senator 
from California, the courage, really, in this case. This is a hard 
thing to do. It is a hard thing to have to come before this collegial 
body and force an issue about public hearings that I think just 
comports with the common sense of every American.
  As I look out at the room and see no one--no one--from the other side 
prepared to speak, I wonder if this is really a debate at all. Several 
of us have already spoken. The Senator from Maryland made a very 
eloquent, clear presentation; the Senator from Nevada; the Senator from 
California; others here are ready to speak.
  What I understood was that they were going to have a back-and-forth 
debate for the American people to see about whether or not we should 
have public hearings in this Packwood case.
  I recognize that this is a very emotional and painful matter for 
every Member of the U.S. Senate. These kinds of charges and the 
appropriate response by this institution is something that no one can 
enjoy considering. We are uncomfortable with the subject of the 
charges, with the task of judging one of our colleagues and with the 
taking of responsibility as a body with what is the proper format for 
dealing with this issue.
  For some, Mr. President, there is a tremendous desire to just let the 
Ethics Committee decide whether there should be public hearings. Some 
say let Senator Packwood make the decision. Some say let someone else 
take responsibility for this difficult question.
  Mr. President, as the Senator from California pointed out so well, 
this is really an abdication of our responsibility to the American 
people and to the countless number of women and, yes, men, who have 
been the victims of the kind of conduct which is alleged to have been 
committed in this case.
  The question before this body today is not whether Senator Packwood 
is guilty, not whether the punishment proposed fits the alleged 
misconduct; the question, rather, is whether those who have alleged 
that they have been the victims of misconduct should have the right to 
a public hearing in which they have the opportunity to present their 
evidence and be heard.
  I am pretty sure, Mr. President, if Senator Packwood had requested a 
public hearing to clear his name or his reputation, there is little 
question that these women would be required to present public testimony 
supporting their charges. There could be no doubt of that, as I know 
the Senator from Maryland is very aware. Yet, Mr. President, in this 
instance, it is apparent that the Ethics Committee intends to break 
with a longstanding tradition of holding public hearings when a case 
reaches this stage of the proceedings.
  Our current rules provide for a three-tiered process for examining 
allegations of misconduct. First, the preliminary inquiry; second, 
initial review; and, third, the investigative stage. A case reaches the 
investigative stage only if there is substantial, credible evidence 
that misconduct has occurred. Heretofore, when a case reached this 
stage, every time public hearings have taken place, even before the 
current system was adopted, public hearings have been held in cases 
involving serious allegations of misconduct. Yet, Mr. President, 
somehow, despite this history, the Ethics Committee is currently 
deadlocked on whether to order such hearings.
  Mr. President, the Senate has an obligation to make a decision on 
whether such hearings should be held. We should not try to hide behind 
the Ethics Committee for excuses that we should not interfere with its 
processes. The Senate, as a whole, is responsible for establishing what 
are fair procedures--fair to those directly involved and fair to the 
American public.
  So, Mr. President, as we look at this whole picture here, with all 
the Senators on this side ready to speak and debate, the Senators on 
the other side not even present, I ask, what is the image that is being 
presented in an institution that prefers to conduct its 

[[Page S11164]]
business behind closed doors, an institution that believes that 
scandalous charges should not be publicly discussed, even after its own 
factfinding body has determined that there is substantial, credible 
evidence to support those charges?
  Mr. President, let me repeat that phrase: Substantial, credible 
evidence to support the charges. This is not a request for a public 
hearing on every libelous or baseless charge made against any elected 
official. This is a request only for public hearings in a case which 
has advanced to the final stages.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair reminds the Senator that his 5 
minutes have expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will yield 2 additional minutes to the Senator from 
Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for an additional 2 
minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator. Now we are asking the American 
public to allow the Senate to make its decision on this case behind 
closed doors, without public testimony. Little wonder that the public 
is so disillusioned about our political process. We are so concerned 
about protecting the image of this institution that we seem to forget 
one big thing, and that is that we are a public entity that is 
responsible to the American public. This is not a private club where 
the rules are made to please ourselves or to protect ourselves from 
public scorn.
  The charges are sexual misconduct. There is little doubt but for the 
nature of the charges, the public hearings would have been scheduled 
quickly. That has been the practice of the past. We do ourselves no 
great service by this debate.
  We should not seek to hide this matter behind closed doors. Public 
hearings should take place, and obviously the committee has the 
authority to close those portions of the hearings that would be 
prejudicial, or otherwise be appropriately closed. But to say that no 
public hearings at all should be held in this matter because of the 
nature of the charges is just plain unacceptable.
  Across America, countless women are watching how this institution 
handles this matter. What is the message we send to those women who 
have been subjected to sexual misconduct if we refuse to air those 
charges in a public format? What are we telling our daughters about 
what can happen if you are the victim of this kind of misconduct and 
bring charges against a powerful person?
  So, Mr. President, the Senate should go on record now, today, making 
it clear that this institution is prepared to hold its disciplinary 
process up to the plain light of day and to public scrutiny.
  I again thank my colleagues on the floor, and especially the Senator 
from California for her persistence in this matter.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I asked for 3 minutes because there is 
really no one to debate. I do not want to use up any more time on this 
side.
  I voted for and support public hearings in the case of Senator 
Packwood.
  There are two values to which I hold fast as a U.S. Senator: fairness 
and accountability. This is the commitment I have made to Minnesotans 
who sent me here.
  Refusing to hold public hearings on this matter runs contrary to 
these values and what, I believe, the American people expect of this 
institution. Given the committee's refusal to hold public hearings, I 
am very concerned about the message we are sending to the public.
  We are now in the final investigative stage where there is precedent 
in the Senate for public hearings on ethics cases. It is time to move 
forward.
  Shining the light of day on Senate proceedings is very important. I 
voted for public hearings because it is important to show that this 
investigation has not been held behind closed doors. While I commend 
the committee for unanimously voting to release all relevant documents, 
it is not sufficient. There simply is no substitute for full and open 
hearings at this stage of the proceedings before the committee and then 
the Senate are called upon to render our judgment about this case. I 
believe full and open hearings will help to ensure the public's 
confidence that we can--and will--police the conduct of Members--we 
have that responsibility.
  It is also important to give voice to the charges brought by these 
women. I believe each of these women should have the opportunity to 
come before the committee to tell their story and I believe Senator 
Packwood should have that same opportunity.
  I feel strongly today that this is the right course. Let us honor the 
values of fairness and accountability. Let us move forward with public 
hearings.
  Mr. President, I really came down to the floor for this debate, first 
of all, for a personal reason, which is to support my colleague from 
California. Senator Boxer is a friend, and I very much admire her 
courage. And I have some indignation--the same indignation that Senator 
Mikulski from Maryland has--about some of the attacks on a Senator who 
has been persistent and has had the courage to speak up, and whom I 
think has been a most effective Senator representing not just women, 
but men, really people all around the country. Because to me, Mr. 
President, the issue is just one of accountability.
  At this final investigative stage, I think it is very important for 
all the parties concerned--for all the parties concerned--and I think 
it is very important for the U.S. Senate, that we now have a public 
hearing. It seems to me that there are important, compelling questions 
to be answered. I know that this process will be fair.
  I do not believe anybody in this Chamber is pleased about where we 
are right now. It is painful for everybody. But we cannot have this 
kind of hearing at this stage of the process done privately. We cannot 
have it done behind closed doors. It really will serve no good purpose. 
It will serve no Senator well, and it certainly will not serve any of 
us well, whether we are Democrats or Republicans, or men or women.
  Therefore, I am in strong, strong support of the Boxer amendment. I 
thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I will retain the remainder of my time for the Senator 
from California, who is managing her amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. How much time do I have now, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California controls 52 
minutes 20 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. I do not see any Republican Senators on the floor to 
engage in a very important debate that involves the constitutional 
responsibility of each and every Senator. I am very disappointed in 
that.
  I have many Senators who wish to speak. At this time, I will yield 5 
minutes to the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, who has been 
such a leader on issues such as this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] is 
recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to address the amendment 
offered by the Senator from California. First of all, I want to commend 
my friend, my colleague from California. She has been aggressive, 
forthright, and true to her principles on the issue currently pending 
before the Ethics committee. She has raised very difficult, but I 
believe very important, questions to which all of us must give very 
serious thought.
  This has been a very long and very difficult case for the Ethics 
Committee. The whole Senate has waited for over 30 months while the 
committee has pored over the documents, interviewed the witnesses, and 
attempted to find the right path. In light of this work, I regretfully 
must express my grave disappointment in the committee's decision not to 
hold public hearings on this case.
  Mr. President, this case is a test of the Senate and the Ethics 
Committee. The U.S. Constitution gives this body the sole 
responsibility for policing itself. No other agency of Government--not 
the executive, not the House, not the judicial branch--has authority to 
ensure that the Senate adheres to high standards of ethics and conduct. 
I am sure the senior Senator from West Virginia, or any other 
constitutional scholar, can give us a detailed explanation of this 
authority. Therefore, this case, like every other considered by the 
committee, is a test of whether 

[[Page S11165]]
the Senate can demonstrate to the public that it is capable of policing 
itself.
  All Senators have gone out of their way to not interfere in this 
case, to give the committee the time it needs to go through the 
process.
  Indeed, we have supported them when they needed the full Senate to 
support the investigation. We have continued steadfastly to allow the 
committee to do its job. As individual Senators, this has been our 
responsibility to the institution and to our constituents.
  Now, we have a responsibility to conclude this matter in an equally 
responsible way. If it cannot be done by the Ethics Committee, it 
cannot be done at all.
  I urge my colleagues to put aside the emotions of this case and focus 
carefully on the facts. In May, the committee found substantial, 
credible evidence of Senate rules violations. I am not a lawyer. I have 
never tried cases. I know that is a very high standard.
  In every major case that has come before, public hearings have been 
held. Why, I ask my colleagues, should this case be any different? That 
is the key question. Why should this case be any different?
  I believe a deviation from precedent on this case will cast a long 
shadow over the Senate's credibility. Specifically, the lack of 
hearings will shade any subsequent action by the committee on this 
issue and any issue that comes before the committee in the future.
  I feel very strongly this will create doubt in a general public that 
is already skeptical of its public officials. They have a right to know 
their elected officials are held to high standards. Anything less not 
only damages this institution, but also our individual credibility.
  Mr. President, like many Senators, I am already on record in support 
of public hearings on this issue. I believe this is the only way the 
committee and the Senate can show the public that it is serious about 
its responsibilities. I encourage Senators to weigh the facts as we 
currently know them. I believe we will conclude that the amendment 
offered by the Senator from California offers the best course of 
action. I urge its adoption.
  I yield back the remaining time to the Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield time to my friend and colleague 
from Illinois who has fought many of these battles. I think she will 
add greatly to the debate, Senator Moseley-Braun.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I very much regret that this issue has become 
embroiled in partisanship, because the issue before the Senate now is 
not a partisan issue.
  In truth, it is not even about Senator Packwood. The amendment 
offered by my distinguished colleague from California, Senator Boxer, 
does not in any way represent any attempt to express a judgment on the 
merits of the complaint against Senator Packwood that is presently 
pending before the Ethics Committee.
  In fact, Mr. President, I think it is fair to say that this amendment 
is not about Senator Packwood's ethics at all. This amendment is about 
the Senate's ethics. This amendment is about how we, as an institution, 
as a body, will comport ourselves in the public view.
  Quite frankly, I think it is not surprising, I say to my colleagues, 
Senator Boxer and the Senator from Maryland, it is not surprising, no 
one on the other side of the aisle will speak to this issue. This is 
still something that can only shame, and I think it is the shame of the 
attempt to try to defend the indefensible that has kept the opposition 
from coming forward and speaking to this issue.
  What this amendment is all about, in my opinion, is not any 
individual case, but about the Senate's obligation to the American 
people in every case. That is, the obligation that we have to resolve 
these ethics cases in public.
  Mr. President, I serve on the Senate Banking Committee. The 
membership of that committee, with few additions, constitute the 
membership of the Special Whitewater Committee. Last year, under the 
resolution, we reviewed over 10,000 pages of documents. We conducted 
about 37 depositions. The committee had days and days and days of 
hearings--6 days, in fact.
  The whole purpose of the public hearings was that the American people 
would have the opportunity to hear and to see the people who were 
involved in Whitewater themselves, and to reach their own judgments.
  Now we are back again this year. The committee has reviewed, again, 
an additional hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, conducted at 
least 61 depositions, and we are right now in the middle of 13 days of 
public hearings--hearings that go all day long. Again, so the American 
people can see for themselves, can hear for themselves, and make their 
own decisions about the circumstances around the handling of papers 
following Mr. Foster's untimely death.
  Mr. President, that is the way this should be. That is the way that 
we do things here in the United States. We investigate in public; we 
decide this in public. That, in fact, if anything, is one of the 
founding cornerstones of our democracy.
  We do not have secret trials. We do no have star chambers. We believe 
sunshine is the best disinfectant. Quite frankly, acting in public is 
not just the principle of the Congress that applies to our 
investigations of the executive branch. The Senate has always applied 
that same principle to ethics investigations involving this body.
  Without going over the details or the process, which the Senator from 
Maryland has spoken to, the fact is, in every single past case handled 
by the Ethic Committee that moved to this third stage, there have been 
public hearings. It seems to me, Mr. President, that our obligation to 
the American public is no less now than it has been in the past. We 
have the same responsibility to conduct public hearings now as we did 
in the past.
  So the question then remains, Mr. President, whether or not we are 
going to stand up for this institution, whether or not we are going to 
stand up for the regard that the public has of this institution's 
business, whether or not we are going to allow in this particular 
instance for raw power to determine whether or not we air these issues 
in public or whether or not they will simply be covered up.
  I do not believe that the Members of this body want to be seen as 
participating in a coverup. I do not believe that the Members of this 
body want to be seen as participating in any diminution of stature in 
regard to this institution, in the minds of the American people.
  Mr. President, again, this is not a personal issue. I also happen to 
be the first woman--the only woman--to serve on the Senate Finance 
Committee. I have had occasions to work with Senator Packwood. He is a 
brilliant man. He has certainly been fair. He certainly has been fine 
to work with.
  In that regard, it puts me in a very difficult situation to stand on 
this floor and to take this position in the collegial atmosphere of the 
Senate. I have to say that service on the same committee--
notwithstanding the fact is this is not a partisan issue, this is not a 
personal issue. This is not an issue of Senator Packwood's ethics. This 
is an issue going to the ethics and the regard of the U.S. Senate in 
the minds of the American people.
  I believe that toward that end and in defense of this institution, we 
have an obligation, a moral obligation, if you will, to support the 
amendment of the Senator from California.
  I yield the time back to the Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Kentucky on the 
floor, so I will defer to see if he wants to make a statement. I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If no one yields time, the time will be 
deducted equally from both sides.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I ask 
that the time be charged to the other side, since they have no speakers 
at this time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I object.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have to say this is a very sad day for 
the Senate. It is sad for a number of reasons.
  It is sad because we ought to all be for public hearings. That is the 
right thing to do. It is also sad that because clearly we have a lot of 
speakers on our side who wish to express themselves, who are assuming 
there would be speakers on the other side to participate in the debate.
  I think there is an obvious point being made here, which I will let 
others interpret. 

[[Page S11166]]

  I think something that the Senator from Illinois said ought to be 
thought about. Namely, why no Member is willing to come over here at 
this point and debate on the other side.
  Another point that was made by my friend from Maryland when she says, 
``Don't kid yourself. Whether there is a public hearing or not, there's 
going to be a public hearing,'' because this is the United States of 
America.
  The American people already, 2 to 1, are in favor of public hearings 
in this matter, when they watch this debate. Unless we prevail, I think 
they will demand it.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? When I said 
there would be a public hearing, even if your amendment is defeated, 
the women are counting on the U.S. Senate to provide a forum. They have 
counted on us for 30 months.
  If, in fact, the Senate rejects that opportunity, and rejects them, I 
believe that the women will conduct some type of forum themselves--I do 
not know that.
  I will reiterate the point that I have never spoken to the women as a 
member of the Ethics Committee. I have followed the rules of the Ethics 
Committee and never spoken to those women.
  They are going to tell their story. I would much rather that they 
tell their story in an organized format in the Senate than through a 
series of other forums.
  Mrs. BOXER. I think the Senator made such an excellent point here, 
because some of the things we hear whispered around here are, ``This is 
too embarrassing. We better have this behind closed doors.'' If anyone 
on the other side thinks this is going to stay behind closed doors 
simply because they tried to close the doors today, they are mistaken. 
Because this is America. This is not a tyranny. This is not a country 
that gags its people.
  At this time I yield 4 minutes to my friend from Vermont, Senator 
Leahy. I am very proud he has come over to join the debate.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I agree this is a matter that should be 
heard before the Senate and heard in public. There is no question it is 
going to be heard, one way or the other. But we Senators, no matter how 
painful it might be, no matter how torn any one of us might be 
individually, for the good of the Senate--and that is important in our 
constitutional government --for the sake of trust in elected officials 
in the Senate, these hearings should be held here.
  Certainly, for the women who have waited to be heard, the accusers in 
this case, ought to be heard and heard in public. For the Senator in 
question, he ought to be able to be heard in public, be able to hear 
his accusers and give his answers.
  But I worry: in a country like ours, a democracy where our Government 
operates on the trust of the people, that the U.S. Senate should be the 
conscience of the Nation. The Senate, with our 6-year terms, with our 
unlimited debate, is the body that can be the conscience of the Nation. 
We are not reflecting that conscience if we do not have open hearings. 
Not because anybody in this body will relish this, but because we know, 
every single Senator knows in his or her soul, that it is the right 
thing to do. Every single Senator in this body knows in his or her soul 
that, if we are to be the conscience of the Nation, we must do this 
publicly before the Nation, no matter how difficult it is.
  None of us knows how these hearings are going to unfold. When I was a 
prosecutor I presented a case, the other side presented a case, and the 
court ruled. Here, in a way we become judge and jury together. For many 
of us that is a unique experience. But for the U.S. Senate, it is not a 
unique experience. It has over 200 years of proud history. It is the 
body that has, time and time again, allowed the conscience of the 
Nation to be expressed. Unless we do it here openly, we do not uphold 
our own conscience, we do not uphold the standards we ask of others, 
and we do not uphold the standards of a great institution.
  I hope the whole Senate will rise and support the Senator from 
California and say, let us have the open hearings. Whatever happens, we 
will have them, for the good of the Nation, for the good of the 
individuals involved, but also for the long term good of this fine 
institution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Who yields time? The Senator from 
Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I was doing some work on matters for my 
constituents, and my staff tells me there is some suggestion that there 
might not be any speakers on this side of the issue. Let me disabuse my 
friends on the other side of that notion. It is my understanding, under 
the unanimous consent agreement, each side had 2 hours. We are prepared 
to use some or all of that time.
  Let me say at the outset that I am told a number of Senators have 
suggested that a 3-3 vote in the Ethics Committee is not a decision. In 
fact it is a decision. The Ethics Committee was crafted on purpose to 
require four votes from a bipartisan committee to take any affirmative 
action. So at the outset let me make it clear, there is no deadlock to 
be broken. A decision was made on the public hearing issue.
  Also, let me suggest that the resolution offered by my friend from 
California, ironically in the name of precedent, really seeks to uphold 
a precedent that does not exist--it simply does not exist--but 
demolishes other precedents which do exist and are vital to the ethics 
process and to the Senate.
  One precedent which it destroys is that, in the 31-year history of 
the Ethics Committee, there has not been a single occasion upon which 
the full committee--the full Senate--injected itself into the process 
and sought to push the committee one way or the other or to overturn 
decisions the committee had properly taken.
  Mr. President, with regard to the argument about whether there are 
precedents for public hearings, let me say that, while there is a 
consistent precedent for no interference with the procedures of the 
Ethics Committee by the full Senate until the full Senate is presented 
with the final product, there is a clear precedent for not doing that, 
which the approval of the Boxer proposal would violate, setting a new 
precedent. There is no precedent on the issue of public hearings.
  The Durenberger case, for example, was a staged presentation with a 
pre-scripted proceeding, without witnesses and without cross-
examination, hardly in any way what we would normally consider a public 
hearing.
  In the Cranston case, there were some public hearings. They were used 
in the preliminary fact-gathering phase alone and not later in the 
case. The committee decided, actually, in the Cranston case not to hold 
public hearings, at a point when its rules and procedure provide, at 
the end of the inquiry.
  So, with regard to the precedent issue, there is no clear, consistent 
precedent for holding public hearings at the end of major 
investigations in the Ethics Committee. But there is a 31-year 
precedent for not having the full Senate bind the Ethics Committee in 
any particular case. And while I suppose it could be argued that the 
amendment of the Senator from California is generic in nature, it is 
certainly no accident that it is being offered at this particular time. 
This is not the normal way in which we would change a committee rule.
  So make no mistake about it, Mr. President. The precedent that would 
be set today would clearly be the beginning of the end of the ethics 
process, because you can imagine what would happen, particularly around 
campaign season when out here on the floor where there is always a 
majority and always a minority--unlike the Ethics Committee where it is 
3-3--the temptation to offer amendments directing the committee to do 
this or to do that would be overwhelming, particularly as you get 
closer and closer to an election.
  The second point I want to make, Mr. President, and those members of 
our committee on both sides who have served for the last 2\1/2\ years, 
I think, all agree that the professional staff of the Ethics Committee 
is completely nonpartisan. The same folks who are working there now 
under my chairmanship were there working under the chairmanship of the 
vice chairman last year. This professional staff, which has its 
reputation on the line in this case 

[[Page S11167]]
as well--these are professional investigators who serve the Ethics 
Committee on a nonpartisan basis. There is no partisan hiring 
whatsoever in putting together the staff of the Ethics Committee. They 
know more about this case than anybody else, more than I know, more 
than the vice chairman knows, and on many occasions members of the 
committee from both sides on our committee have praised the work of the 
staff.
  In almost every instance we have followed their advice and counsel in 
working on this case, or other cases. The staff in this case, Mr. 
President, recommended that public hearings were not appropriate.
  Why did they do that, this group of skilled professionals who have 
their own reputations on the line in a high-profile case like this? Mr. 
President, I think the answer is rather clear. There are two 
investigative criteria for holding hearings. One is to ensure the 
completeness of the evidentiary record--to ensure the completeness of 
the evidentiary record--and the second would be to assess the 
credibility of the witnesses who gave testimony.
  The Ethics Committee, first and foremost, is an investigative body, 
and investigative criteria must be applied to our decisions. The staff 
judgment was that the evidentiary record is not just complete, the 
staff judgment was that the record was not just complete; it was 
encyclopedic and ready for final decision. Hearings would be needed 
only if witness credibility was in doubt tested by questioning and 
cross-examination.
  Every committee member, Mr. President, has strong feelings about the 
believability of the testimony given to us through sworn depositions. 
No hearings are going to change that--we have voluminous sworn 
depositions before us--and poring over those.
  In addition, there is the question of delay. The staff opinion is 
that real hearings would take at least 2 months, actually probably much 
more than that, given the preparation time involved to get ready for 
having them.
  So we needed to ask: Is there another way to make our proceedings in 
this case public without adding unnecessary delay to a 2\1/2\-year-old 
case? The fact that the public has a right to know all the relevant 
information in this case is really not in dispute. The relevant sworn 
testimony of witnesses who came forward will be shared with the public. 
The Senate and the public will have all the relevant facts prior to the 
disciplinary action.
  So it is not a question of whether the public is going to be denied 
information relevant to the final decision.
  The resolution of the Senator from California, in effect, Mr. 
President, destroys the independent ethics process. I have some 
personal knowledge of this. I happen to have been a summer intern here 
in the summer of 1964, the year I graduated from college. I was in 
Senator John Sherman Cooper's office. Some of the folks here in this 
body who have been around for a while remember Senator Cooper. He is 
something of a legend in Kentucky, known for his integrity and his 
wisdom. Interestingly enough, it was Senator Cooper's resolution in 
1964, the year I was an intern here, that created the Ethics Committee. 
What he was trying to do was to get misconduct cases--this was in the 
case of the Bobby Baker incident--which in those days was handled by 
the Senate Rules Committee, and, obviously, the Rules Committee, like 
every other committee of the Senate except the Ethics Committee, was 
controlled by the majority. So there was a sense, after the Bobby Baker 
case, that it really was not handled all that well, and both sides felt 
that way.
  So it was Senator Cooper's vision that there would be created an 
evenly balanced committee, in effect, forced to be bipartisan because 
of the nature of the committee, and that committee, to act in any 
affirmative way, would have to achieve four votes. It would require 
bipartisanship to go forward. Mr. President, for 31 years this process 
has stood the test of time until today.
  The Ethics Committee, as Senator Cooper envisioned it, was to be 
empowered to investigate cases as it--it--saw fit without outside 
intervention. The committee's authority was intended to be exclusive 
and absolute through the investigative phase.
  Obviously, at that point it was envisioned the committee's work would 
come to the full Senate typically with a recommendation for action 
which only the full Senate could approve. The whole idea, Mr. 
President, was to make it possible in this most political of all places 
to have a bipartisan investigation, and the process has served the 
Senate well. And at no point during the 31-year history has there been 
a resolution offered, debated, and voted upon in front of the full 
Senate seeking to tell the committee what to do.
  So the resolution of the Senator from California will shatter this 
31-year precedent, and the new precedent for the future will be a way 
of proposals on the Senate floor to suggest that the committee open a 
case here, close a case there, do this, do that. That will be the 
precedent.
  The approval of the proposal of the Senator from California would 
destroy the vision of Senator Cooper, and others, that the Senate 
could, at least through the investigative phase, remove a misconduct 
matter, deal with it on a bipartisan basis, and then produce a final 
product for the floor of the Senate.
  All future Ethics Committee actions, Mr. President, or split votes--
which, as I have already indicated earlier, is a decision--would be 
fair target for bruising, public floor fights.
  Currently, the Ethics Committee sets aside preelection season 
complaints. Now I am fairly confident that the wave of the future will 
be resolutions in the Chamber forcing immediate action on one matter or 
another.
  The resolution of the Senator from California sends really an 
unequivocal message. The Ethics Committee can be treated like a 
political football, propelled in any direction that the majority seeks 
to push it--kicked around by any Member who wants to push a political 
or personal agenda. The approval of the Boxer resolution would be the 
beginning of the end of the Ethics Committee and a return to the bad 
old days. And the bad old days before 31 years ago were to deal with 
misconduct cases on a partisan basis.
  The other irony, Mr. President, is that the principal loser under a 
system which allowed the majority to control misconduct cases would be 
the minority party in the Senate. So the other ironic effect of the 
proposal of the Senator from California is to force a matter out of a 
bipartisan forum onto the floor of what arguably is one of the more 
partisan places in America. In what way does the minority party benefit 
from, in effect, ending a bipartisan forum?
  Second, Mr. President, while we are discussing precedents, the 
resolution of the Senator from California clearly violates the 
precedent set earlier in this case when we had before the full Senate 
the question of the subpoena of diaries. Just a little while back, in 
1993, I remind my colleagues, the Senate voted 94 to 6 to enforce the 
Ethics Committee's subpoena of the Packwood diaries. The Senate also 
voted 77 to 23 against an amendment restricting the committee's access 
to diaries. And clearly what was in this Chamber just in the fall of 
1993 was a question of whether the committee judgment was going to be 
sustained. My friend from California and others were emphatic in saying 
the Ethics Committee should handle the case. Unfortunately, that was 
then and this is now.
  At that time, both Democrats and Republicans argued that the Ethics 
Committee had exclusive authority to investigate misconduct without 
interference from the full Senate or from any single Member, and that 
was just in the fall of 1993. The Senate voted overwhelmingly that the 
Ethics Committee alone had the right to determine what procedures it 
should follow in conducting investigations. Senators from this side of 
the aisle voted almost unanimously against the interests of one of our 
own. Republicans voted against the demands that one of their own was 
trying to impose on the committee.
  I know it would be extremely tough for someone on the other side of 
the aisle to oppose the resolution of the Senator from California, but 
I hope there may be a few listening to this debate who will think 
through the ramifications of the passage of the Boxer amendment. 
Remember, there is no deadlock. Three-three on the Ethics Committee is 
a decision. It takes four votes to do anything affirmatively in 

[[Page S11168]]
the ethics process. Make no mistake about it. This proposal is designed 
to overturn a decision already taken by a bipartisan committee.
  Now, this vote today, in my judgment, is not about Republicans versus 
Democrats or, in my view, even being for or against public hearings. 
This vote is about whether the Ethics Committee should be allowed to do 
its work, to do its work without interference or second-guessing from 
the floor at least until it finishes its job. And that is important to 
understand. It is not like any individual Senator or group of Senators 
are not going to have ample opportunity to express themselves, to 
condemn the work of the committee, to argue that we should have done 
this or should have done that. None of those options are waived, Mr. 
President, by allowing us to finish our work. As a matter of fact, 
given the controversial nature of this case, it is inconceivable to me 
that we are going to be applauded by very many of our friends up in the 
gallery or anybody on the other side no matter how we handle it. The 
question is will we be allowed to finish? And--and--will the process be 
changed, the 31-year precedent of no interference in this bipartisan 
committee's work?
  Many of us like to quote our senior colleague from West Virginia 
because he has said many wise things when it comes to this institution 
and what is necessary to protect it. Back during the diary debate, the 
diary subpoena debate in this case, Senator Byrd said, ``If we turn our 
backs on our colleagues who have so carefully investigated this 
difficult matter, we may as well disband the committee.''
  I do not know where we go if we are going to set the precedent that 
the committee is to be in effect micromanaged from the Senate, but it 
does make one wonder whether this is a useful process. The committee is 
either going to be allowed to finish its work without interference from 
the floor or it is not. And if it is not, then I wonder why anybody 
would want to serve on the Ethics Committee. My colleagues, Senator 
Craig and Senator Smith, and I have scratched our heads on that issue 
occasionally and wondered why we agreed to do it in the first place.
  Imagine a scenario under which this Ethics Committee or any Ethics 
Committee knows that all along the way, at any crucial point or at any 
time when somebody is trying to score a political point or wants to 
make a few headlines, they are going to be out on the floor of the 
Senate in an awkward position trying to protect confidential 
information that they know about and at the same time trying to engage 
in a public debate on a case not yet finished. I do not want to be an 
alarmist here, but it seems to me there is no point in having the 
Ethics Committee if that is the way it is going to be from now on.
  I cannot imagine that anybody would want to serve. I just cannot 
imagine it. It is not much fun now, I can assure you. It is not the way 
I particularly want to spend my afternoons. But imagine if in addition 
to presiding over the toughest kind of investigation against one of 
your own colleagues, you know that all along the way during the process 
you are going to be out here like we are today getting a bunch of bad 
press, trying to do what you think is right, while one or more Members 
of this body get terrific editorials and terrific headlines standing up 
for what appears to be the popular thing.
  So I think we ought to think it through, Mr. President, whether or 
not if the Boxer resolution passes--and I say, think this through on a 
bipartisan basis, really--whether we want to continue to have an ethics 
committee. Maybe we go back to the Rules Committee. Maybe Senators 
think that would be a better way to do this. Of course, the Rules 
Committee is controlled by the majority party, and some people might be 
concerned that the Rules Committee might be a little less enthusiastic 
about pursuing a Member of the majority than a Member of the minority.
  But maybe I am off base here. Maybe it would not operate that way. 
Maybe people would on the Rules Committee just kind of rise above party 
affiliation and be just as interested in pursuing examples of alleged 
cases of impropriety against Members of the majority as they would 
against Members of the minority. Or maybe we ought to just throw up our 
hands and say, ``We cannot do this job. Let us let outsiders do it.'' 
Some have suggested that.
  Well, Mr. President, one thing you can say about the case that has 
generated this floor debate, it is the toughest investigation in 
history. As I said earlier, it has been the mother of all ethics 
investigations. The witnesses have consistently praised the committee's 
comprehensive inquiry. The handling of the Packwood case outshines all 
previous investigations of sexual misconduct, certainly here because we 
have not had any, and compared to the House, which has had 5 in the 
last 10 years, the handling of this has been vastly superior in every 
measurable way.
  The committee has interviewed 264 witnesses, taken 111 sworn 
depositions, issued 44 subpoenas, read 16,000 pages of documents, spent 
1,000 hours in meetings. And even in spite of all of that, if the 
Senate will allow us to finish our work, the Senate will indeed have an 
opportunity at the appropriate time to substitute its collective will 
for ours.
  The Senate will have a chance to challenge committee action. The 
Senate rules give broad latitude--broad latitude--for floor action 
after the committee's work is done. Any Member can accept, reject, or 
modify the recommendations of the committee at the appropriate time. No 
rights are waived. No rights are waived by allowing the committee to 
finish its work.
  But to undermine the work of the committee in the middle of the case 
takes away its independence. It is tantamount to abolishing the 
committee outright or maybe dissecting it piece by piece by piece.
  Let me say in conclusion, Mr. President, every precedent weighs 
against the resolution of the Senator from California. And precedents 
do not mean a thing, Mr. President, if they are not upheld in difficult 
cases.
  Let me say again, there is no clear, consistent precedent for full-
fledged public hearings at the end of every investigation involving 
ethics.
  I may speak again later, but let me say, regardless of the outcome, I 
pledge as chairman of this committee we are going to try to finish our 
work. We are going to try to finish it in good faith. And let me say I 
would be less than candid if I did not say that the spilling over of 
this case on to the floor of the Senate has divided our committee. We 
have been able to work together on the whole, I think, on a good, 
bipartisan basis in this long and difficult investigation. There is no 
question that we have been feeling the strain. And I hope that once 
this unfortunate floor proceeding is over, that the six of us who have 
actually in many ways become good friends during the course of this 
difficult assignment, will be able to come back together, finish this 
case, do what is best for the Senate, for the American people, and for 
Senator Packwood.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has approximately 1\1/2\ hours.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may desire to 
the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for yielding.
  Mr. President, in seeking office to be a U.S. Senator, it was not my 
hope that I would ever be in the position that I am now in on the floor 
of the U.S. Senate as a member of the Ethics Committee essentially 
debating in some ways regarding a case involving one of our colleagues. 
It is not something you look forward to.
  But before entering into the discussion of the Boxer amendment, which 
I strongly oppose, I just want to say regarding the chairman of this 
committee--and frankly, his predecessor as well, Senator Bryan--
starting first with Senator Bryan, I served on the Ethics Committee and 
I have served for the past 4 years on that committee, a year--2\1/2\ 
years of that--3\1/2\ years of that was under the chairmanship of 
Senator Bryan. Never, ever under any circumstances did I see any 
partisanship reflected by him or his colleagues on the committee. We 
always worked together in the spirit of knowing, 

[[Page S11169]]
frankly, as you refer to this case, but for the grace of God it could 
be some or one on the other side.
  See, as Senator McConnell has so brilliantly outlined, that is the 
beauty of the whole concept of the Ethics Committee, Mr. President, to 
the fact that we have taken this whole issue of judging a colleague out 
of the hands--out of the hands--of politics and put it into a 
nonpartisan, rather than bipartisan, in my estimation, Ethics 
Committee.
  Senator Cooper, who was referred to by Senator McConnell, who helped 
to craft this legislation to create this committee, was brilliant, in 
my estimation. Is it a perfect process? No. I can certainly attest to 
that, as can any of my colleagues who have served on this committee.
  Senator McConnell, as the chairman of this committee, involving a 
major case of one of our colleagues on our side of the aisle, has taken 
more abuse than any chairman of this committee that I can recall in 
recent times. And every word of it, every single word of it has been 
unfair. And I happen to know because I have served with him every step 
of the way, both when he was ranking member and as chairman. He has 
taken it from the press, he has taken it from colleagues on his side of 
the aisle, he has taken it from colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle. And none of it, none of it, is justified.
  I know how frustrating it is--because I have been in the Senate when 
I was not a member of the committee--when there is a case of this 
magnitude, or any case that is before this committee, to not know what 
is going on, meeting behind closed doors, if you will. There is a 
reason for that.
  No, it may not be popular out there in the public. It is certainly 
not going to be popular when you have colleagues like Senator Boxer 
railing against the process on the floor of the Senate. No, it is not 
going to be popular. It is going to be unpopular because when Senator 
Boxer and others rail against the process on the Senate floor, they 
will make it unpopular. That is why it is unpopular.
  There is no confidence in public officials or public institutions, it 
has been said on the other side of this debate. When I say ``on the 
other side of this debate,'' I do not necessarily mean all of the other 
party. But that is the reason why, because with all due respect to my 
colleague, she did not give us the opportunity to render a decision, 
not a decision in regard to Senator Packwood in terms of punishment, if 
any. No, no; that is not the issue. She did not give us a chance to 
render a decision on whether or not there was going to be a public 
hearing.
  This issue is not about a public hearing. Let us be honest about 
this. This is not about a public hearing. If it was about a public 
hearing, with all due respect to the Senator from California, the 
Senator from California would have waited until the Ethics Committee 
took a vote and, as it turned out, it was 3 to 3. Then she would have 
come to the Senate floor and criticized the vote, which she has a right 
to do, and say we should have had public hearings.
  But that is not what happened, I say to my colleagues. Senator Boxer 
decided, before the Ethics Committee made a decision, that she was 
going to criticize the Ethics Committee to intimidate the Ethics 
Committee and break up the process, the nonpartisan process. That is 
what happened. That is exactly what happened, and my colleagues know 
that is what happened, and that is wrong. We have now interjected the 
ugly aspect of partisanship into this process.
  I heard it said on the floor of the Senate prior to this debate that 
the three of us on our side of the aisle in this case had made up their 
minds and had already announced their decisions. This Senator had not 
made any such decision, and my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle know it. If they are honest about it, they will admit it, because 
I never made any statements until just days, a couple of days, before 
this whole thing happened, did I ever say to one of my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle how I was voting. I did not know how I was 
going to vote. I tried to keep an open mind.
  I heard Senator Mikulski say in the debate a while ago that I have 
always been in favor of public hearings. Let me just say, that is not 
true. In my case, I was never always against public hearings. You know 
what; I tried to listen to the merits of this case and I tried to make 
my mind up on whether or not there should be a public hearing based on 
what I heard after 2\1/2\ years. I did not make my mind up on anything, 
not anything at all, because it is too important to do that.
  This is a colleague that we are talking about; these are victims out 
there that we are talking about. They all deserve--they all deserve--a 
fair process, and the process that has been outlined by Senator 
McConnell is fair. It is fair, and it keeps politics out of it. It 
allows the Senate Ethics Committee to operate not under the pressures 
of what is popular out there, or unpopular out there, whatever the case 
may be, not what the Washington Post says or anybody else says out 
there in the media, not what is written on the editorial pages, no, and 
not what is said on the floor of the Senate in some partisan debate. 
That is not the way we are supposed to operate. We cannot operate that 
way.
  I urge my colleagues to consider that when you vote. Forget about the 
``D'' or the ``R'' next to your name and think about it. Think very 
carefully about it, because as Senator McConnell has said, we very well 
may be back to the Rules Committee making decisions.
  I do not know who in the world, as he said, would serve on the Ethics 
Committee if before you make a decision on anything, be it public 
hearings or final decision, we have to be told or intimidated by debate 
as to what may be popular how we are supposed to rule. That is not the 
process.
  As Senator McConnell also said, we never had any partisan rancor in 
this case; a little bit of it when we had the situation on the floor 
over the diaries, but minimal. But in terms of the meetings that we 
had, I do not know how many hundreds of them we have had and the hours 
we have spent.
  I was sitting here and did not check the record--and I will be happy 
to stand corrected if I am wrong--I cannot recall one vote, not one, 
that was 3 to 3 on anything that we have done on this case, and we have 
had one heck of a lot of votes. This is the only one. It was 3 to 3.
  I have to deal with my own conscience and with my own Creator, and I 
made that decision not based on whether there is an ``R'' next to my 
name or not, thank you, I say to Senator Boxer, but I made it on the 
basis of what I thought was right. That is how I made my decision. And 
my colleagues on the committee who have worked with me for the past 4 
years know it.
  The Senator seeks to undermine the bipartisan nature of this 
committee. It is a very dangerous road to travel down. The many issues 
that we face with other committee members have been handled not only in 
a bipartisan, nonpartisan, but a respectful manner--respectful manner.
  I truly believe that each member of this committee feels strongly 
about every case we have worked on, about each Member's conduct we have 
judged, and the effect every case has on the Senate as an institution, 
as well as the victims, as well as the Senator accused--but also the 
Senate.
  I can honestly state that I have never seen any partisanship until 
now. I understand the pressures, and I regret very much that because of 
those pressures, some have had to succumb to this. I regret very much--
and I do not cast any personal aspersions, and my colleagues know 
that--but I regret very much for the few moments that I was in the 
chair earlier this afternoon, seeing all of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle on the Ethics Committee converged around the Senator 
from California with their staffs, working on an amendment which, in 
essence, guts the entire Ethics Committee process. I regret that very 
much. I want to get that out on the floor as a matter of public record. 
I regret it very much.
  At each step of this investigation, with a Democrat as chairman, with 
a Republican as chairman, we have conducted our business fairly, 
bipartisanly, and we have never left a stone unturned that I am aware 
of, and that includes the committee. When Senator McConnell took over 
as chairman of the committee, he did not change one staff member; not 
one. Can 

[[Page S11170]]
we say that about other Senate committees after the parties changed 
power? Not one staff person. It did not even cross his mind. It was 
never discussed, ever.
  We cannot circumvent the procedure that we have here. If this Boxer 
amendment is adopted, no longer--no longer--will there be a thoughtful 
discussion of the facts among committee members, no more thoughtful 
discussions. It will be what is popular.
  I resent very much--and I again want to be strong in my statement--I 
resent very much some of the terms that have been used on the floor in 
this debate: ``Whitewash''; ``sweep things under the rug''; ``behind 
closed doors''; ``men's club.'' I have heard all of it. I have heard 
all of it, and it is an insult, frankly, to all six members, and all 
six members know it is an insult.
  The public has a right to know; it absolutely has a right to know the 
facts in this case. I spent 6 years on a school board, 3 years as its 
chairman. I strongly support the public right to know, the right-to-
know laws, and full public disclosure. I take a back seat to no one on 
that.
  I can tell you that when this case is concluded, everything that this 
committee knows the public will know. I can also tell you that after 
the decision is rendered and this case is discussed on the floor, you 
can ask any question that you want to ask of this Senator, of any other 
Senator on the committee, any information. It is all there. You will 
have it all. You can question anything you want--anything. You can 
overturn any decision we make. You can agree to any decision we make. 
But that is the way the process is supposed to work, and that is not 
what is happening now.
  Think about this. In this case, it is a popular thing that Senator 
Boxer has brought up here. It is popular in the sense that somehow the 
perception is that a ``men's club,'' a U.S. Senate with very few women, 
is somehow, because of this being an allegation involving sexual 
matters, sweeping something under the rug simply because we do not have 
public hearings. Hearings are supposed to produce new evidence, add to 
the debate. That is a decision for the committee to make, and we made 
it.
  We made it in spite of the attacks that were made on this committee 
and the integrity of the process by the Senator from California. And I 
am glad we did, because it was the right thing to do. And tomorrow, God 
forbid, or next year, it may be someone on your side of the aisle, and 
you will be glad we did. You will be very glad we did.
  Mr. President, in my judgment, we have enough information to move on 
the disciplinary phase of this process. I would like to end this 2\1/
2\-year investigation, which has taken many, many hours of my time and 
days of my time, and that of my colleagues--time I would have liked to 
have spent with my family or on other matters. I believe that at its 
conclusion, most likely the case will be before you here on the floor. 
Every one of you will have the opportunity to make your own judgment.
  I say to you, give us the chance, my colleagues. Vote against the 
Boxer amendment and give us a chance to be judged on the decision that 
we make. Give us that opportunity to be judged on the decision that we 
render.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished 
Senator from New Hampshire not only for his outstanding comments here 
today, but also for his dedicated and principled service on the Ethics 
Committee. He has been absolutely indispensable to the process and has 
always conducted himself with the highest integrity, both in the 
committee and outside the committee, in how he has dealt with the 
matters before the committee and in complying with the rules of the 
committee. So I thank him very much for his kind comments.
  Mr. President, another important member of our committee that has 
been with us during this process would like some time.
  I yield the distinguished senior Senator from Idaho such time as he 
may need.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Ethics 
Committee. Let me inquire of the Chair, are we to move to recess at 4 
o'clock for the purpose of the conference, or is there any standing UC 
on that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no pending unanimous-consent request 
on that.
  Mr. CRAIG. All right.
  Mr. President, I, like all of my colleagues, come to the floor today 
gravely concerned about the ability of the Ethics Committee of the U.S. 
Senate to function in an appropriate manner and to render its decisions 
and to bring those decisions to the floor of the U.S. Senate to be 
considered by our colleagues.
  At the outset of my comments, let me recognize the chairman from 
Kentucky, who has, in my opinion, served in an honest and forthright 
way to cause this procedure to go forward in a timely fashion, but in a 
thorough and responsible fashion, so that the accused and the victims 
of this issue could be considered appropriately. I think he has done an 
excellent job. And I must also say that, in my over 1\1/2\ years of 
service in this body, I also served under the Democrat chairman. He, 
too, functioned in the same manner.
  As has been mentioned by my two colleagues, the staff of that 
committee is, by every respect and every test, bipartisan. They have 
worked in that fashion untold hours to bring about a body of knowledge 
and information from which we should make decisions that is probably, 
in total, unprecedented in number of pages and hours of work effort 
involved.
  For the next few moments, then, let me read something into the Record 
that I think is extremely valuable for the Senate to focus on, because 
somehow in this proceeding, there is an attempted air of suggesting 
that things are being done behind closed doors, and that that somehow 
is unfair to the process and unprecedented in the openness of the U.S. 
Senate, and, therefore, judgments and decisions rendered inside that 
environment could somehow be distorted on behalf of a colleague under 
consideration and against those who might be victims.
  Let me read:

       May 17, 1995. The attached resolution of investigation was 
     unanimously voted by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics on 
     May 16, 1995.


                      RESOLUTION FOR INVESTIGATION

       Whereas, the Select Committee on Ethics on December 1, 
     1992, initiated a Preliminary Inquiry (hereafter ``Inquiry'') 
     into allegations of sexual misconduct by Senator Bob 
     Packwood, and subsequently, on February 4, 1993, expanded the 
     scope of its Inquiry to include allegations of attempts to 
     intimidate and discredit the alleged victims, and misuse of 
     official staff in attempts to intimidate and discredit, and 
     notified Senator Packwood of such actions; and
       Whereas, on December 15, 1993, in light of sworn testimony 
     that Senator Packwood may have altered evidence relevant to 
     the Committee's Inquiry, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman 
     determined as an inherent part of its Inquiry to inquire into 
     the integrity of evidence sought by the Committee and into 
     any information that anyone may have endeavored to obstruct 
     its Inquiry, and notified Senator Bob Packwood of such 
     action; and
       Whereas, on May 11, 1994, upon completion of the Committee 
     staff's review of Senator Packwood's typewritten diaries, the 
     Committee expanded its Inquiry again to include additional 
     areas of potential misconduct by Senator Packwood, including 
     solicitation of financial support for his spouse from persons 
     with an interest in legislation, in exchange, gratitude, or 
     recognition for his official acts;
       Whereas, the Committee staff has conducted the Inquiry 
     under the direction of the Members of the Committee; and
       Whereas, the Committee has received the Report of its staff 
     relating to its Inquiry concerning Senator Packwood; and
       Whereas, on the basis of evidence received during the 
     Inquiry, there are possible violations within the Committee's 
     jurisdiction as contemplated in Section 2(a)(1) of S. Res. 
     338, 88th Congress, as amended;
       It is therefore resolved.
       I. That the Committee makes the following determinations 
     regarding the matters set forth above:
       (a) With respect to sexual misconduct, the Committee has 
     carefully considered evidence, including sworn testimony, 
     witness interviews, and documentary evidence, relating to the 
     following allegations:

  I am now going to proceed to read 18 different allegations. Mr. 
President, am I divulging secret information? Is this something that 
was held behind closed doors? Am I, for the first time, exposing to the 
public information that the committee has known that might otherwise 
come out in a public hearing?
  No, I am not. This is a document that was put before the public and 
put before the press corps of this Senate some 

[[Page S11171]]
months ago. And it was thoroughly reported in many of the newspapers, 
on television and radio across this Nation.

       (1) That in 1990, in his Senate office in Washington, DC, 
     Senator Packwood grabbed a staff member by the shoulders and 
     kissed her on the lips;
       (2) That in 1985, at a function in Bend, OR, Senator 
     Packwood fondled a campaign worker as he danced. Later that 
     year in Eugene, OR, in saying good night and thank you to 
     her, Senator Packwood grabbed the campaign worker's face with 
     his hands, pulled her toward him and kissed her on the mouth, 
     forcing his tongue into her mouth;
       (3) That in 1981 or 1982, in his Senate office in 
     Washington, DC--

  And the allegations go on, all 18 of them, through 1969.
  Then it says:

       Based upon the committee's consideration of evidence 
     related to each of these allegations, the committee finds 
     that there is substantial creditable evidence that provides 
     substantial cause for the committee to conclude that 
     violations within the committee's jurisdiction as 
     contemplated in section 2(a)(1) of Senate Resolution 338, 
     88th Congress, as amended, may have occurred; to wit, that 
     Senator Packwood may have abused his U.S. Senate office by 
     improper conduct which has brought discredit upon the U.S. 
     Senate, by engaging in a pattern of sexual misconduct between 
     1969 and 1990.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this document be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Resolution for Investigation

       Whereas, the Select Committee on Ethics on December 1, 
     1992, initiated a Preliminary Inquiry (hereafter ``Inquiry'') 
     into allegations of sexual misconduct by Senator Bob 
     Packwood, and subsequently, on February 4, 1993, expanded the 
     scope of its Inquiry to include allegations of attempts to 
     intimidate and discredit the alleged victims, and misuse of 
     official staff in attempts to intimidate and discredit, and 
     notified Senator Packwood of such actions; and
       Whereas, on December 15, 1993, in light of sworn testimony 
     that Senator Packwood may have altered evidence relevant to 
     the Committee's Inquiry, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman 
     determined as an inherent part of its Inquiry to inquire into 
     the integrity of evidence sought by the Committee and into 
     any information that anyone may have endeavored to obstruct 
     its Inquiry, and notified Senator Packwood if such action; 
     and
       Whereas, on May 11, 1994, upon completion of the Committee 
     staff's review of Senator Packwood's typewritten diaries, the 
     Committee expanded its Inquiry again to include additional 
     areas of potential misconduct by Senator Packwood, including 
     solicitation of financial support for his spouse from persons 
     with an interest in legislation, in exchange, gratitude, or 
     recognition for his official acts;
       Whereas, the Committee staff has conducted the Inquiry 
     under the direction of the Members of the Committee; and
       Whereas, the Committee has received the Report of its staff 
     relating to its Inquiry concerning Senator Packwood; and
       Whereas, on the basis of evidence received during the 
     Inquiry, there are possible violations within the Committee's 
     jurisdiction as contemplated in Section 2(a)(1) of S. Res. 
     338, 88th Congress, as amended;
       It is therefore Resolved:
       I. That the Committee makes the following determinations 
     regarding the matters set forth above:
       (a) With respect to sexual misconduct, the Committee has 
     carefully considered evidence, including sworn testimony, 
     witness interviews, and documentary evidence, relating to the 
     following allegations:
       (1) That in 1990, in his Senate office in Washington, D.C., 
     Senator Packwood grabbed a staff member by the shoulders and 
     kissed her on the lips;
       (2) That in 1985, at a function in Bend, Oregon, Senator 
     Packwood fondled a campaign worker as they danced. Later that 
     year, in Eugene, Oregon, in saying goodnight and thank you to 
     her, Senator Packwood grabbed the campaign worker's face with 
     his hands, pulled her towards him, and kissed her on the 
     mouth, forcing his tongue into her mouth;
       (3) That in 1981 or 1982, in his Senate office in 
     Washington, D.C., Senator Packwood squeezed the arms of a 
     lobbyist, leaned over and kissed her on the mouth;
       (4) That in 1981, in the basement of the Capitol, Senator 
     Packwood walked a former staff assistant into a room, where 
     he grabbed her with both hands in her hair and kissed her, 
     forcing his tongue into her mouth;
       (5) That in 1980, in a parking lot in Eugene, Oregon, 
     Senator Packwood pulled a campaign worker toward him, put his 
     arms around her, and kissed her, forcing his tongue in her 
     mouth; he also invited her to his motel room;
       (6) That in 1980 or early 1981, at a hotel in Portland, 
     Oregon, on two separate occasions, Senator Packwood kissed a 
     desk clerk who worked for the hotel;
       (7) That in 1980, in his Senate office in Washington, D.C., 
     Senator Packwood grabbed a staff member by the shoulders, 
     pushed her down on a couch, and kissed her on the lips; the 
     staff member tried several times to get up, but Senator 
     Packwood repeatedly pushed her back on the couch;
       (8) That in 1979, Senator Packwood walked into the office 
     of another Senator in Washington, D.C., started talking with 
     a staff member, and suddenly leaned down and kissed the staff 
     member on the lips;
       (9) That in 1977, in an elevator in the Capitol, and on 
     numerous occasions, Senator Packwood grabbed the elevator 
     operator by the shoulders, pushed her to the wall of the 
     elevator and kissed her on the lips. Senator Packwood also 
     came to this person's home, kissed her, and asked her to make 
     love with him;
       (10) That in 1976, in a motel room while attending the 
     Dorchester Conference in coastal Oregon, Senator Packwood 
     grabbed a prospective employee by her shoulders, pulled her 
     to him, and kissed her;
       (11) That in 1975, in his Senate office in Washington, 
     D.C., Senator Packwood grabbed the staff assistant referred 
     to in (4), pinned her against a wall or desk, held her hair 
     with one hand, bending her head backwards, fondling her with 
     his other hand, and kissed her, forcing his tongue into her 
     mouth;
       (12) That in 1975, in his Senate office in Washington, 
     D.C., Senator Packwood grabbed a staff assistant around her 
     shoulders, held her tightly while pressing his body into 
     hers, and kissed her on the mouth;
       (13) That in the early 1970's, in his Senate office in 
     Portland, Oregon, Senator Packwood chased a staff assistant 
     around a desk;
       (14) That in 1970, in a hotel restaurant in Portland, 
     Oregon, Senator Packwood ran his hand up the leg of a dining 
     room hostess, and touched her crotch area;
       (15) That in 1970, in his Senate office in Washington, 
     D.C., Senator Packwood grabbed a staff member by the 
     shoulders and kissed her on the mouth;
       (16) That in 1969, in his Senate office in Washington, 
     D.C., Senator Packwood made suggestive comments to a 
     prospective employee;
       (17) That in 1969, at his home in Virginia, Senator 
     Packwood grabbed an employee of another Senator who was 
     babysitting for him, rubbed her shoulders and back, and 
     kissed her on the mouth. He also put his arm around her and 
     touched her leg as he drove her home;
       (18) That in 1969, in his Senate office in Portland, 
     Oregon, Senator Packwood grabbed a staff worker, stood on her 
     feet, grabbed her hair, forcibly pulled her head back, and 
     kissed her on the mouth, forcing his tongue into her mouth. 
     Senator Packwood also reached under her skirt and grabbed at 
     her undergarments.
       Based upon the Committee's consideration of evidence 
     related to each of these allegations, the Committee finds 
     that there is substantial credible evidence that provides 
     substantial cause for the Committee to conclude that 
     violations within the Committee's jurisdiction as 
     contemplated in Section 2(a)(1) of S. Res. 338, 88th 
     Congress, as amended, may have occurred; to wit, that Senator 
     Packwood may have abused his United States Senate Office by 
     improper conduct which has brought discredit upon the United 
     States Senate, by engaging in a pattern of sexual misconduct 
     between 1969 and 1990.
       Notwithstanding this conclusion, for purposes of making a 
     determination at the end of its Investigation with regard to 
     a possible pattern of conduct involving sexual misconduct, 
     some Members of the Committee have serious concerns about the 
     weight, if any, that should be accorded to evidence of 
     conduct alleged to have occurred prior to 1976, the year in 
     which the federal court recognized quid pro quo sexual 
     harassment as discrimination under the civil rights Act, and 
     the Senate passed a resolution prohibiting sex 
     discrimination, and taking into account the age of the 
     allegations.
       (b) With respect to the Committee's inherent responsibility 
     to inquire into the integrity of the evidence sought by the 
     Committee as part of its Inquiry, the Committee finds, within 
     the meaning of Section 2(a)(1) of S. Res. 338, 88th Congress, 
     as amended, that there is substantial credible evidence that 
     provides substantial cause for the Committee to conclude that 
     improper conduct reflecting upon the Senate, and/or possible 
     violations of federal law, i.e., Title 18, United States 
     Code, Section 1505, may have occurred. To wit:
       Between some time in December 1992 and some time in 
     November 1993, Senator Packwood intentionally altered diary 
     materials that he knew or should have known the Committee had 
     sought or would likely seek as part of its Preliminary 
     Inquiry begun on December 1, 1992.
       (c) With respect to possible solicitation of financial 
     support for his spouse from persons with an interest in 
     legislation, the Committee has carefully considered evidence, 
     including sworn testimony and documentary evidence, relating 
     to Senator Packwood's contacts with the following persons:
       (1) A registered foreign agent representing a client who 
     had particular interests before the Committee on Finance and 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation;
       (2) A businessman who had particular interests before the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation;
       (3) A businessman who had particular interests before the 
     Committee on Finance and the Committee on Commerce, Science 
     and Transportation;

[[Page S11172]]

       (4) A registered lobbyist representing clients who had 
     particular interests before the Committee on Finance and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation;
       (5) A registered lobbyist representing a client who had 
     particular interests before the Committee on Finance.
       Based upon the Committee's consideration of this evidence, 
     the Committee finds that there is substantial credible 
     evidence that provides substantial cause for the Committee to 
     conclude that violations within the Committee's jurisdiction 
     as contemplated in Section 2(a)(1) of S. Res. 338, 88th 
     Congress, as amended, may have occurred, to wit; Senator 
     Packwood may have abused his United States Senate Office 
     through improper conduct which has brought discredit upon the 
     United States Senate by inappropriately linking personal 
     financial gain to his official position in that he solicited 
     or otherwise encouraged offers of financial assistance from 
     persons who had a particular interest in legislation or 
     issues that Senator Packwood could influence.
       II. That the Committee, pursuant to Committee Supplementary 
     Procedural Rules 3(d)(5) and 4(f)(4), shall proceed to an 
     Investigation under Committee Supplementary Procedural Rule 
     5; and
       III. That Senator Packwood shall be given timely written 
     notice of this Resolution and the evidence supporting it, and 
     informed of a respondent' rights pursuant to the Rules of the 
     Committee.

  Mr. CRAIG. The reason I do that is to show you and the rest of the 
Senators who I hope are listening this afternoon that there has been a 
concerted effort on the part of the Ethics Committee, not only to 
thoroughly investigate but to, in a responsible and timely fashion, 
spread before the Senate and the public the process and the procedure 
by which the Senate Ethics Committee was conducting its charge and its 
responsibility in the investigation of Senator Bob Packwood.
  Mr. President, I have had the unique experience of serving on this 
Ethics Committee and the Ethics Committee in the U.S. House of 
Representatives. I have also had the unique experience of serving on 
both of those bodies during times of extremely high profile cases. 
During the time that I served in the House it was the time that the 
House Ethics Committee was investigating the Speaker of the House, Jim 
Wright. All during that investigation there was never a question that 
there should be public hearings. But there was always a tacit 
understanding that all of the findings and all of the information 
collected would become a part of the public record, and that it would 
become a part of the public record simultaneous to the decisions, the 
findings and the recommendations of that Ethics Committee to the whole 
of the U.S. House as to the penalties that might be brought down on 
then the Speaker, Jim Wright.
  I must tell you, Mr. President, that is exactly how the Ethics 
Committee of the U.S. Senate plans to operate. That there will be full 
public disclosure. Less than a few days ago we voted unanimously to 
cause that to happen. That, upon our findings and upon our 
recommendations to the U.S. Senate we would spread, for the public's 
review and for the Senators' review, all of our thousands and thousands 
of pages of findings and all 264 witness depositions, the vast body of 
information that you have already heard about today that have been 
talked about by my colleagues.
  Never once in my experience on any Ethics Committee in either of 
these two bodies have I ever voted against public disclosure. I believe 
it is our responsibility. I think it is, more importantly, the right of 
the public to know.
  But I also recognize it is the responsibility of the Ethics Committee 
of the U.S. Senate so charged by the U.S. Senate to operate in a 
bipartisan--or as my colleague from New Hampshire said, a nonpartisan--
environment, in which to render its decisions.
  I was, frankly, very amazed to see our committee for the first time 
split apart on this issue. I do believe that this, in itself, could be 
one of the most precedent setting involvements that we have ever seen, 
precedent setting in the fact that after 32 years of nonpartisan or 
bipartisan relationships we now find ourselves causing that aisle to 
divide us on how this committee should operate before it has rendered 
its decision to the Senate as a whole.
  Last week that professional nonpartisan staff looked at us, after 
having provided us with all of this information, and said: It is our 
recommendation that public hearings are not necessary. There is nothing 
to be gained. It appears that, after the exhaustive effort at full 
discovery that was a unanimous vote of the committee, that there is 
little or no information that can be gained. It is now time to make a 
decision. It is now time to review and to render to the Senate our 
findings for the purpose of the Senate agreeing or disagreeing on those 
findings and those recommendations.
  I am therefore tremendously bothered and frustrated that we risk 
making partisan what some 31 years ago we took off from the partisan 
table. I understand the pressures. I understand the nature of the 
arguments being placed. I also understand the uniqueness of these 
particular allegations.
  But in all fairness I find them no different, as it relates to the 
conduct of a Senator in this body charged with the responsibility of 
being a U.S. Senator, whether he or she acted in a proper and 
responsible fashion, or whether he or she did not. And that is exactly 
what the Ethics Committee of the Senate is charged with finding out.
  I am also amazed that we have members of the committee who would 
suggest they ought to have the right to question witnesses. It is 
important for the U.S. Senate to know that, by a unanimous vote of the 
committee, we charged the professional staff with the responsibility of 
going forward to take depositions and at no time was any member of that 
committee barred from the right to attend those depositions and to 
question any and all witnesses. So I am a bit surprised today that any 
member of the Ethics Committee would come to the floor using the 
argument that they did not have the opportunity to question all of the 
witnesses of whom questions were asked and depositions were taken. That 
is not true. What is true was that they had that right but, because of 
the vastness of the investigation, we spread the bulk of that 
responsibility to the professional staff of the Senate Ethics 
Committee.
  I also remember arguing and agreeing and voting unanimously to not 
leave one stone unturned, to examine all allegations, to ask all 
parties under which allegations had been launched as to any kind of 
relationship or involvement Senator Packwood had with any individual. 
And I must say, in all fairness, in a wholly bipartisan voice, that the 
committee responded in an exhaustive bipartisan, nonpartisan fashion. 
So there is a precedent here, and it is a precedent of risk.
  It is a precedent of politicizing. It is a precedent of making 
partisan this very nonpartisan approach to dealing with the discipline 
of U.S. Senators. Discipline is the responsibility of the Senate and of 
its calling, and all of us understand that. And all of us for 32 years 
in this body have taken it most seriously. Every Senator has one 
absolute uncontested right--that when the Ethics Committee renders its 
finding and its decision, and it brings it to the floor of the U.S. 
Senate for a full public debate, that any Senator can investigate and 
review those findings, make a determination, argue for or against, 
offer amendments to change judgments and decisionmaking, and proceed in 
that fashion. That is the way we have always functioned.
  As the chairman of the committee said, never before in the middle of 
a proceeding has it ever occurred to the U.S. Senate to abruptly 
attempt to cause the rules of the Senate to be changed because a 
Senator comes to the floor arguing that something in an alternative 
fashion ought to be done. The Senate has the rule. The Ethics Committee 
has made a decision, and the decision was not to hold public hearings. 
The fundamental reason has already been stated, time and time again--
upon advice of the professional staff. All of the information was 
available.
  So if hearings are for the purpose of allowing the public to know and 
to collect additional information and the second criteria had been met, 
then what about the first criteria? That criteria has also been met, 
and that is to provide full public disclosure of all relevant 
information, which is nearly 100 percent of all of the documentation 
that has been put before the committee for its process.
  So I have one simple closing plea that I offer to my colleagues, my 
fellow Senators. I hope they are listening this afternoon in their 
offices, and I hope that they will come to the floor to vote with this 
in mind. I ask my colleagues 

[[Page S11173]]
to allow us to finish our decisionmaking process, to allow us to bring 
to the floor in a responsible fashion our findings and our conclusions 
and our recommendation, and then for the Senate to do as they have done 
historically, and I believe responsibly: Judge us, judge our findings, 
and vote accordingly. I hope that is the case. I hope you will allow us 
to finish our work in a responsible fashion in defense of the victims, 
and in respect for the process, recognizing that in the end Senator 
Packwood, too, has rights, and that we respect all parties as we work 
this issue to bring about that conclusion that I hope this Senate will 
honor and recognize in its vote on this issue this afternoon. To 
fulfill that request, your vote would be to oppose the Boxer amendment, 
which I believe is the appropriate vote in allowing this committee to 
continue to function with its responsibility at the request of the U.S. 
Senate.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on each 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Forty-nine minutes is remaining 
on your side; the other side has 36 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have a number of requests for time, 
so I am going to have to start allocating minutes, fewer minutes than I 
had hoped. Senator Kassebaum has indicated she wants to speak. Senator 
Hutchison has indicated she wants to speak. Senator Simpson is here. 
Senator Brown is here. But I believe Senator Brown is really sort of 
next in order. I would like to give to Senator Brown 10 minutes.
  I yield Senator Brown 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate the time.
  The Senate is now deliberating a change in its rules, and ostensibly 
the question that should be before us is one of openness. I am for 
openness. I believe in openness and in sharing information--I think it 
is the foundation of our democracy. I am not just verbally for 
openness. I was a sponsor of Colorado's sunshine law. It is probably 
one of the most--or the most--progressive laws in the country. It 
guarantees open meetings. It talks about open records. It even 
guarantees that whenever legislators get together, even in a caucus, 
that the press is allowed to be there to make sure that information 
gets out to the public.
  I not only advocate openness, I vote for it. But Members should be 
aware that the amendment before us is not just about openness. The 
deliberations of the Ethics Committee will come to the floor regardless 
of how they rule, and they will be open, they will be public, and they 
will be subject to debate. And the information will be there.
  The decision has already been made to make the information, the 
documents, and the investigation public. This debate is not about 
whether or not the facts about this case become public. They will 
become public, and the documents will be open and available.
  This debate goes to a different problem, one that is always possible 
with investigations of this type. The danger in this or in any 
investigation is that it will become bottled up in committee and never 
heard of again. I served 7 years on the House Ethics Committee. It is 
my impression that this problem surfaced on a number of occasions and 
that people who committed serious infractions simply waited for their 
terms to end while the committee investigated. Often the matter was 
never brought forth in time.
  Even though openness and access to the public are important, Mr. 
President, it may surprise some to know that the House rules 
accommodated delay and coverup. They allow the committee to continue to 
deliberate and never bring the matter to a close thus keeping it from 
the public. I voted against those House rules.
  But amazingly, the sponsor of this amendment voted for those House 
rules, consistently voting for rules which allowed the Ethics Committee 
to bottle up complaints. That is not openness, Mr. President. That is a 
vote for closed Government and turning a blind eye toward ethics 
violations.
  In 1983, Mr. President, there was a motion on the floor of the House 
to create a select committee to investigate alterations in hearing 
transcripts, a serious infraction. Believing in openness, I voted for 
that investigation. But the author of the amendment before us did not 
vote for openness. She voted against that investigation. She voted to 
close it down, to not let people see what went on.
  In 1983, there was a proposed change in the House rules to make it 
easier for committees to hold meetings that are closed to the public, 
precisely the issue that we are deliberating today. I voted against 
closed meetings. I voted against that motion in 1983 because I am for 
openness. But the sponsor of the amendment today voted for it, voted 
for the motion to make it easier to close meetings.
  Mr. President, the question before us today goes beyond openness or 
closed meetings. It is about something far different.
  In 1987, the House had a motion to further investigate Congressman St 
Germain and to report findings back to the House. I voted for that 
further investigation, for the openness, and for the report. The 
sponsor of the amendment that is before us voted against it. She did 
not vote for openness. She voted for closed meetings.
  In 1987, further, there was a sense of the House that a special 
commission be established to investigate an allegation of corruption of 
Members, charging the select committee to come back with suggested 
reforms. I voted for that select committee and for that investigation 
because I believe in openness. But the sponsor of the amendment before 
us voted against it.
  Mr. President, the bottom line is simply this. This amendment is not 
about openness. Each of us have had countless votes on which we can 
express our view and our feelings as to whether this body and the 
democratic process ought to be open. I am for openness, and I voted for 
it and I stand for it consistently. But this amendment is not about 
openness. The documents in this case are open and will be available to 
the public. The results of the deliberations will be open and publicly 
debated in this Chamber. This amendment is about partisan gamesmanship. 
I do not think it deserves to pass.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to yield 5 minutes to Senator 
Exon of Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend and colleague from 
California.
  I have been listening with great interest to the debate. It is one of 
those painful debates that the Senate has to go through from time to 
time, and I have been through many of them. I simply say I think we all 
owe a debt of gratitude to Members on both sides of the aisle who serve 
on the Ethics Committee. It is a thankless task. I think I have 
supported the Ethics Committee any time there has been any controversy. 
I would simply say that I have served in this body longer than any 
other Member on either side of the aisle on the Ethics Committee, and 
therefore I think I have some claim to what I think is proper for this 
body and for this institution and for what it stands.
  I wish to thank personally once again now by name the distinguished 
Members on both sides of the aisle who have served with great 
distinction, in my view, on the Ethics Committee, as have Members of 
the body before them, once again a totally thankless task. If I were 
charged with an ethics violation, I would have complete confidence, I 
might say to the President, and the Members on that side of the aisle, 
Senator McConnell, Senator Smith, Senator Craig, and likewise the three 
Senators on this side of the aisle, Senator Mikulski, Senator Bryan--
and, of course, Senator Bryan used to serve as the chairman of the 
committee--and certainly the newest member of the committee has served 
with great distinction, the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan.
  I have no ill will toward any of them. I think they have done a very 
yeoman job. But we are now down to a situation where we have to make a 
decision, and I stand here today in defense of the Senator from 
California for what I think is a proper course of action. 

[[Page S11174]]

  I looked through the previous open hearings that we have held in the 
Senate since I have been here, Cranston in 1991, Durenberger in 1990, 
Harrison Williams in 1981, and Herman Talmadge in 1978. I was here 
through all of those. And I remember the difficult task, very difficult 
vote that we as Senators were called upon to cast after the Ethics 
Committee had made its recommendations, all of them, I might say, after 
open hearings.
  Therefore, I simply say that I have been quite amazed at the 
broadside against the Senator from California for what I think is a 
very legitimate action on her part. When she first made her 
announcement of considering going to and asking the Senate to go on 
record, I intended to visit her about it and see what was behind it. 
Then about that time a Member on that side of the aisle made a public 
statement--it has not been retracted as far as I know--that I consider 
a direct threat to the prerogatives of the Senator from California, by 
saying if the Senator from California proceeded with her action, that 
Senator on that side of the aisle might well investigate other 
prominent Members of the Democratic Party on this side of the aisle.
  That was a threat. That should never have been made. And it is about 
time to receive an apology for that.
  With that statement, Mr. President, this one Senator, who tries to be 
evenhanded on these things, recognized and realized that the Senator 
from California was only doing what I think is right and should be 
done.
  The Senate of the United States is on trial. The institution is being 
looked at by the American people today, and its credibility is on 
trial.
  I have no ill feelings against Senator Packwood at all. I have worked 
with him on many, many important measures over a long period of time. I 
would just happen to feel better, frankly, if the Senator--could I have 
2 more minutes?
  Mrs. BOXER. One more minute to the Senator. I am running out of time. 
One more minute.
  Mr. EXON. I hope that maybe Senator Packwood would be better served 
by open hearings.
  In closing, let me say that if the amendment offered by the Senator 
from California fails, the Senate fails, and the time will never come 
when the Senate can redeem itself in the eyes of the public and/or the 
eyes of itself. The Senate self-esteem is at issue. It was important 
yesterday. It is important today. It will be important tomorrow.
  The Senate itself is on trial, and I hope that it does not fail in 
accepting the amendment offered by the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the senior Senator 
from California, [Mrs. Feinstein].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair very much.
  Mr. President, I rise to support my colleague and her resolution, 
which I believe is appropriate, fitting, and not partisan. I do not 
believe that she had in mind a partisan effect at all. I believe she 
had in mind being able to conclude a process in a way which gave much 
fresh air and clarity and credibility to it. So I am pleased to support 
her.
  I think every member of the Ethics Committee has worked hard in what 
has been a very difficult case. None of us likes to sit in judgement of 
another, and certainly the Senator at issue is one who is competent, 
who has had great credibility and great standing in this body.
  Nonetheless, I came here in 1992, and this issue was very much with 
us in 1992. The allegations and the statements of the accusers have 
been printed and published all over the United States. The question 
really is, are they credible statements? And this question can only be 
answered by a hearing.
  I heard the distinguished chairman of the Ethics Committee say 264 
witnesses had been interviewed but, of course, that is by staff. The 
Senator from New Hampshire said, well, any member of the committee 
could sit in and listen to those depositions. That is not likely to 
happen with the busy nature of the life we lead in this body.
  Human beings are certainly not perfect, and there may well be 
mitigating circumstances, but I think sexual misconduct, and 
particularly sexual harassment, is often misunderstood. It means 
different things to different people.
  What is compelling to me is that 9 out of the 18 accusers have 
publicly asked for public hearings. Generally, this is not true. 
Generally, women do not want to come forward publicly. However, these 
women have publicly asked for the hearings.
  As the Senator from California, my colleague, has pointed out, in 
every one of these cases, when the investigation has been completed, 
there has in fact been a public hearing. As I have heard stated on this 
floor, the reason not to have a public hearing is often to protect the 
accuser or the person who provides the testimony. However, that is not 
the case here.
  I think the only way to successfully conclude this is with a public 
hearing. Why? Because questions can be asked. Questions can be 
clarified. Issues can be probed. And the degree of culpability can be 
established. Perhaps that is very low. Perhaps it is very great. 
Without a hearing, I have no way of knowing, as a non-Ethics Committee 
member.
  Another reason that is important to me is the allegations have all 
taken place in the course and scope of the individual's duties as a 
U.S. Senator. This is not private, personal conduct. This is conduct 
that took place in public service, and many of the people involved are 
themselves Federal employees. So I think these allegations involve 
conduct about which a hearing must be held and a decision must be made.
  Is it acceptable? Is it not? If it is not, to what degree? I think 
issues revolving around sexual misconduct are issues that need to see 
the clarity of day and the openness of probing questions, and their 
resolution. So I am very proud to support my colleague from California 
and to stand and say that I believe her motives were of the highest. 
And I am hopeful that this body will conclude the process as rapidly as 
possible.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to thank my friend from California.
  I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California. I 
would like to begin by paying tribute and gratitude to Members on both 
sides of the aisle who served on the Ethics Committee. They bear an 
enormous burden. There are too few here willing to serve. And we should 
all understand the difficulty of that service.
  Whether willful or not, Mr. President, the effect of denying a public 
hearing here is to sweep away the human voices and to replace them with 
paper. That is a denial of process. And it is a reversal of the very 
commitment made by the U.S. Senate recently where we voted to live the 
way other Americans live. If probable cause was found in a case of 
sexual misconduct against an American citizen, that American citizen 
would find themselves in a public situation facing an accuser, having a 
public review. It is only because there is this hybrid entity called an 
Ethics Committee that was set up, in a sense, to try to guide this 
special institution through its life that there is now a denial of that 
open process.
  It is contrary to all prior precedent where you have had a finding of 
probable cause, where you have found substantial and credible evidence. 
In every substantial and credible evidence case, the U.S. Senate has 
had a public hearing. If we are going to apply the standard which 
friends on the other side of the aisle are now suggesting, that when 
you build a sufficient record of depositions, you can make a judgment, 
that because it is encyclopedic you do not have to have a hearing, then 
let us end the Whitewater hearings today. Maybe we should come in here 
with a resolution as an addendum to this to say we have an encyclopedia 
of depositions. Let them speak for themselves. We do not have to hear 
from all these other people. I know my colleagues would vote against 
that. It is a double standard, double standard for Alan Cranston, 
double standard for John Glenn, John 

[[Page S11175]]
McCain, Don Riegle, and now here we are at a moment where the Senate 
has to make a judgment as to whether or not depositions speak like 
people.
  Bob Packwood had his moment before the members of this committee. It 
was sufficient for him to be able to come forward and look them in the 
eye and be able to be asked questions. But our colleagues are being 
denied that same right to provide a record. That is what is important 
here, Mr. President, the question of whether there will be a 
sufficiency of a record for the U.S. Senate, where people are put to 
the test. It may help Bob Packwood to have some of these people asked 
questions publicly, to have the full measure of these accusations 
judged by the American people, not off paper that everybody knows they 
will never read, but in the full light of day. That is what this is 
really about. Staff doing a deposition is not a Senator asking a 
question within public scrutiny of the hearing process.
  So I respectfully suggest, Mr. President, that based on precedent, 
based on the standard we have accepted in the Senate, based on the best 
means of providing process in this situation, i.e., adequate capacity 
to ask questions and to judge answers, it is appropriate for the Senate 
to explore this in public. And it is interesting to hear my colleagues 
suggest that somehow this is popular----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. KERRY. Can I have 1 additional minute?
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield 1 additional minute.
  Mr. KERRY. I hear the notion of popularity. There is a reason that 
one is popular and one is not. That is because one judgment is correct 
and the other is not. This is not a matter of partisanship, and it 
should not be. But it is highly inappropriate to apply a different 
standard that suggests that we are going to shut the door and sweep 
away the human capacity to speak to what has happened. These probable 
cause issues rise not just to the question of sexual misconduct, but 
they rise to the question of obstruction of justice, they rise to the 
question of a breach of ethics with respect to assistance in job 
finding for personal family members. And it is very hard to explain why 
all of a sudden sufficiency of record will be in depositions without 
senatorial participation. If that is the new standard around here, then 
let us fold up Waco, let us fold up Whitewater. Let us just do the 
depositions and live by that standard across the board. So the test 
here is very, very clear. And I congratulate my colleague for having 
the courage to bring it before the Senate.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will yield 5 minutes to my friend from Connecticut. I 
want to make a point to the Senator from Massachusetts. I just want to 
thank him for coming over here because it was such a new point that was 
just injected into the debate that was worth repeating for just a 
couple seconds. Why do we not just shut down all the committees and not 
call one witness in any of our work and just read the depositions? That 
is what this is about. And I want to thank my friend, because obviously 
that is ludicrous. But yet it is a standard that three members of the 
Ethics Committee want to apply.
  I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend and colleague 
from California.
  Mr. President, I rise to support the resolution offered by the 
Senator from California. And I do so with great respect and empathy for 
the six colleagues who are on the Ethics Committee. And I do so--it 
does not need to be said; I am sure it is true of all of us today--I do 
so without in any way prejudging the allegations that have been made 
against Senator Packwood. In fact, quite the contrary. What I am saying 
in rising to support the resolution is that I believe that I, as one 
Senator, will not be able to reach the kind of informed decision I want 
to reach on the serious allegations that have been made against Senator 
Packwood without the benefit of testimony from the witnesses live 
before the committee, subject to examination by the members of the 
committee and by counsel for Senator Packwood.
  Mr. President, the Senate has established the Ethics Committee in a 
remarkable act as a way to delegate responsibility to this committee to 
adopt standards for the behavior of the Members of this institution and 
then to uphold those standards. As a way, if you will, to discipline, 
to set standards for our behavior, in between those times when the 
ultimate judges of our behavior, namely our constituents, have the 
opportunity to vote on us.
  The committee was established, I am convinced, to keep strong the 
bonds of trust between those of us who have been privileged and honored 
to govern and those for whom we govern. And at the heart of that trust 
is credibility and confidence in the process by which we judge each 
other. And it is on that basis that I feel so strongly that it is right 
and fair to have public hearings in this matter.
  The precedents seem to say to me that in every case which has reached 
the investigative stage, including, I gather, the case of former 
Senator Cranston, there have been public hearings, although in the 
Cranston case the hearings were uniquely at an earlier stage. The point 
here is to preserve public credibility on the one hand. And that 
credibility is based on the public's assessment of the fairness of the 
process. But it is also critically important in terms of the judgment 
we reach. The members of the committee will have the opportunity to 
hear the witnesses come before them, and as I have said, Senator 
Packwood's counsel will have the opportunity to cross-examine those 
witnesses.
  The fact also is that how can we explain to the witnesses, those who 
have made allegations, that the doors to the judge's chamber 
essentially are closed to them, although the one against whom they have 
made the accusations has had the opportunity to appear in person.
  Mr. President, the chairman of the committee, the distinguished 
Senator from Kentucky, has made an important argument and statement 
when he says that this would be a breach of precedent for the Senate as 
a whole to intervene in ongoing ethics proceedings, without letting the 
committee make the judgments itself.
  It is an important point. Let me explain to him, and I was troubled 
by it, why I am supporting Senator Boxer's resolution. I do not take 
this resolution to amount to an intervention on a side. I do not take 
this resolution to equal an intervention to direct a particular 
verdict, to bias the proceedings. I see this as an intervention that is 
totally procedural and not at all substantive. It is, in fact, neutral 
on the question of substance.
  Does it create a precedent? In a sense, it builds on a precedent and 
perhaps creates a clear statement by the full Senate, which has 
delegated our authority to govern ourselves and judge our own ethics to 
this six-member committee. And the precedent is that the burden of 
proof should be on the committee in rejecting hearings, because the 
openness of these proceedings is so critically important to the 
credibility of the final judgment.
  Let me repeat what I said as one Senator as to why I am supporting 
this resolution to the members of the committee.
  We give them a tremendous responsibility, and it is a difficult 
responsibility, to spend all this time, to hear all this evidence and 
to come back and report to us. On the basis of that, we make these 
terribly difficult judgments about our colleagues.
  This Senator is saying respectfully to the members of this committee, 
I feel that I will not have all the information I need to make an 
informed judgment on the charges against our colleague from Oregon 
unless the committee has the opportunity to hear and confront those who 
have made these serious allegations and to cross-examine them. That is 
why I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in that 
spirit, will vote to support the resolution of the Senator from 
California, understanding it does not in any way prejudge the case. 
Quite the contrary, it suggests the desire that all of us have for the 
fullest possible information before we reach a conclusion in this case.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair. 

[[Page S11176]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is not an easy matter for me. I am on 
the Finance Committee. Bob Packwood is my chairman. I have known Bob 
Packwood, I have served with Bob Packwood for many years.
  But I believe that we as Senators have a higher calling. It is not 
friendship--though friendship is very important--it is more important 
than friendship. It is fulfilling our responsibility of public service; 
living up to our obligation to the people we represent.
  When I first came to the Congress, there was a joint conference 
meeting on a tax bill, a major tax bill. I wanted to learn a little bit 
about the tax bill. I wanted to learn how Senators and House Members 
decide matters in a conference. But I had a hard time finding where the 
conferees were meeting. Finally, I asked myself, ``Who would know where 
the conferees were meeting?'' This is about 20 years ago, about 1975.
  Mike Mansfield, the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, I thought 
ought to be able to tell me where the conferees are meeting. I went to 
his office. They told me. I went to the meeting. There was a policeman 
standing at the door. I said, ``I am a Member of Congress.'' He said, 
``OK, go in.''
  It was the House Ways and Means Committee hearing room: A sea of 
executive branch people. Secretary Bill Simon was there. Senator 
Russell Long, chairman of the conference, was talking about when he was 
a boy back years ago in Louisiana. Al Ullman, chairman of the Ways and 
Means Committee, was talking. Then Jimmy Burke of Massachusetts walked 
up to me and said I had to leave. ``Why,'' I asked.
  He said, ``Because of the rules.''
  I said, ``What rules?''
  He said, ``The Senate rules.''
  I asked, ``What Senate rules?''
  He said, ``Just the rules.'' He said, ``Nobody else can be in here; 
nobody else; no other Senator or Congressman. It is closed to 
everybody--closed to the public, closed to the press, closed to Members 
of the House, closed to the Senate.''
  I said, ``That is wrong. And I am going to do something about it.''
  That afternoon, I stood up on the floor of the House and I said it 
was time to change this rule.
  Ab Mikva, then a House Member, got up and agreed with me. And the 
next year we had the rules changed, so now all conferences are open to 
the public. I am very proud of that.
  And I am also very proud of my home State of Montana and a provision 
we have in our State constitution requiring that all public meetings be 
open. It causes a certain burden on our Governor, a burden on certain 
State officials who would rather, in some instances, not to have 
everything open, but it is open. And the public benefits from this 
openness. In Montana, we know what our State government is up to. This 
has helped tremendously to increase confidence in the people of the 
State of Montana in State government. It has made a big difference.
  I just stand here, Mr. President, basically to say that we have a 
much higher calling and honor to perform the public trust; that is 
openness. The U.S. Congress now is at one of its lowest ebbs in public 
popularity in modern history. Seventy-five percent of the public 
distrust the Congress.
  I say one way, albeit a small way, to help regain some trust that the 
American people have lost in this institution is to open up everything. 
Open up the Ethics Committee investigation. What is there to hide? 
Sure, there is going to be a little bit of embarrassment. It is going 
to be difficult for some people. Some people of the Senate will be a 
little bit put out, but in the long run, public confidence will 
increase.
  Again, this is a very difficult matter for me to address, because I 
am on the Finance Committee. But I feel very strongly that fair and 
open hearings are the right thing to do. I am bound to stand up and do 
what I think is right. I think we should vote for the resolution 
sponsored by the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-four minutes are left, and on the other 
side, 11 minutes are left.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will not support the Boxer amendment. 
I have to say that it is a tempting proposition probably for a lot of 
us because on its face, I think it is a perfectly reasonable request, 
because, after all, what is wrong with letting the sunshine in on all 
the business we do around here?
  But there is an important reason for holding public hearings 
generally, because you hold public hearings, do you not, so the truth 
can be known to the public? It allows the public then to judge the 
credibility of what we do as a body. Public disclosure, in general, 
helps this process.
  There are three elements of what has helped our democracy endure and 
flourish: seeking the truth, holding people accountable, and dispensing 
justice. It is my belief that the Senator from California, hopefully, 
wants all three of those elements to prevail in the case of Senator 
Packwood. I think we agree with those elements. We support those 
elements.
  The Senate does have a process, however, for achieving all three of 
those elements. Of course, it begins with the relevant committee and it 
ends with the action of this full body. This process is set up to 
gather facts, and it is set up to learn the truth. It must then 
evaluate the facts, it must assign responsibility, and then it sets 
appropriate punishment.
  I might add that the Ethics Committee is not yet finished with its 
own part of the process. To me, this is a very key point, and I will 
return to that point in just a minute.
  But during the Senate process, sometimes it is necessary to air the 
facts publicly, sometimes not.
 But I would stress that closed hearings are OK if, and only if, the 
punishment at the end of the process fits the facts because, otherwise, 
the process opens itself up to legitimate criticism. Public hearings 
are necessary when a problem of credibility arises, as in the Anita 
Hill case, or if the punishment does not fit the facts, as I have 
stated. But, Senator Boxer, the committee has to render a judgment 
before it can be criticized. That is my view.

  By the way, the issue of public disclosure is met to a large degree 
by the committee's decision already made to disclose all the relevant 
documents. Of course, this is not the same as a hearing, and I do not 
pretend that it is. But if the committee decides not to hold public 
hearings, then it, for sure, better do the right thing. If it does, 
then public hearings become a nonissue, so long as disclosure of 
documents is made. If it does not, then a motion to recommit is in 
order and the Senate should then demand open hearings. That is because 
the credibility of the committee's decision would have been questioned. 
But the key is, for Senator Boxer and my colleagues, the committee must 
render a judgment first before we can credibly call into question the 
committee's work. In the past, the committee process has produced 
unacceptable results that did not fit the facts, and that process has 
been rightly criticized. The Ethics Committee has been criticized in 
the past for whitewashing and dispensing mere slaps on the wrist, when 
a much harsher punishment seemed to be justified.
  This Senator has joined in that criticism. I also intend to vote 
against the McConnell amendment, as well, because of the first finding 
of the amendment that would say this: ``The Senate Committee on Ethics 
has a 31-year tradition of handling investigations of official 
misconduct in a bipartisan, fair, and professional manner.''
  Mr. President, I am not so sure that I can support an amendment with 
that language, because I think too often in the past--and, of course, 
this is not under Chairman McConnell's able leadership, but well before 
him--the committee has acted too timidly, and I 

[[Page S11177]]
think it is important to not regard that too lightly.
  And it is not just the Ethics Committee. I have had my own battles 
with the Armed Services Committee on closed versus open hearings. I 
tied up the Senate for 2 days at the end of the last Congress on a 
nomination that you will recall was General Glosson's promotion. I 
should add that I did so with the help of the Senator from California. 
The committee had recommended that General Glosson retire with a third 
star. We felt that the facts of the case dictated that he should not 
get such a promotion.
  The committee recommended a third star, despite the fact that General 
Glosson had tampered with the promotion board. This was a serious 
offense because it jeopardized the integrity of the military promotion 
process, and the committee had a history of cracking down on such 
tampering.
  Also, the Defense Department inspector general found that Glosson 
lied under oath during the investigation.
  Mr. President, no evidence was uncovered at that time that overturned 
these serious charges. As the committee deliberated over the facts in 
the case and its recommendations, I took the posture of informing of 
the committee's judgment.
  Yes, I believed in General Glosson's case there should be a public 
hearing, but I did not demand one. I wanted to give the committee a 
chance to do the right thing without it, a chance to make 
recommendations to be commensurate with the facts of that case. The 
committee chose to review the matter in several closed hearings.
  If the closed-hearing process would produce a verdict commensurate 
with the merits, I would have had no problem. Under that scenario, 
public hearings in the Glosson case were, in my mind, irrelevant. It is 
the dispensing of a just remedy that I was most concerned with.
  Well, the committee had several hearings and availed itself of the 
information I provided. Nonetheless, the committee recommended a third 
star for General Glosson. But--and this is important--it was not until 
I examined the committee's evidence and the committee's rationale in 
support of its decision that I decided to question the committee's 
judgment. And then I made my case on the Senate floor.
  The committee and Senate leaders supported General Glosson --
regardless of the facts in the case--I think out of friendship. I think 
that is as plain then as it is today. I accused the committee of 
putting friendship over integrity.
  My point is, the amendment by the Senator from California has a 
proper objective. But the timing is wrong. In my view, the Senator from 
California has an appropriate amendment when, and only when, the 
committee renders a recommendation, and when, and only when, she 
measures the recommendations against the facts as presented by the 
committee's findings, because that is when the credibility is earned 
for persuading the public and this body of her intent.
  I, for one, would join the Senator from California in a motion to 
recommit if it were clear that the committee fails to do the right 
thing, because if it were clear that the Ethics Committee were once 
again dispensing slaps on the wrist, having learned nothing then from 
the Anita Hill experience, the Senator from California would have all 
the moral authority in the world to insist on public hearings and 
insist that the committee get it right.
  But the time for sending that message is not yet upon us. So let us 
wait for the committee's recommendations first. Clearly, that is the 
right thing to do right now.
  Finally, let me reiterate a point about Senator McConnell's 
leadership. The comments I have made with respect to the Ethics 
Committee's past do not reflect on him. The Senator from Kentucky has 
conducted himself fairly in this case, especially in the case of 
acquiring diaries and disclosing the relevant documents. Up to this 
point, I can find no fault with his committee's approach, and he has 
shown able leadership on a difficult issue. But I will reserve final 
judgment on his committee's work product pending its recommendations. 
That is the proper time to do it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 34 minutes remaining. The Senator 
from California has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 8 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the pending 
motion regarding hearings in the current Ethics Committee investigation 
of our colleague, Senator Bob Packwood.
  I have listened very carefully to the remarks made by my colleague, 
Senator Boxer of California. Let me try to start on a positive note, a 
nonpartisan note, by outlining those areas where we agree. The Senator 
from California has urged us to focus our thoughts, to avoid being 
distracted by irrelevant issues, or by peripheral considerations. She 
has, in the past, urged us to remember what the issue is, saying, ``I 
am not the issue.''
  I could not agree more. Senator Boxer is not the issue; partisan 
politics is not the issue; and I will say very firmly--and I hope this 
is heard correctly--sexual harassment, even, is not the issue here. 
Senator Packwood has not been charged with that. My colleague from Iowa 
has just spoken about another issue we were both involved in, the 
Clarence Thomas hearings. Remember, too, please, in that particular 
grievous exercise sexual harassment was not the issue in that matter 
either. I know that may be shocking to some, but Anita Hill never 
charged Clarence Thomas with sexual harassment--ever. That was never in 
the record, never any part of that proceeding. She wanted us to ``be 
aware of his behavior and his conduct. That is all borne out in the 
record. You can find that to be true through the Democrats and 
Republicans who served and anguished with regard to that.
  The issue here is, how we do the difficult business of conducting 
ethics investigations, of passing judgment on our colleagues in a way 
that is fair and is nonpartisan? That is the issue here--the only 
issue. The issue before us is whether or not we are going to begin to 
dismantle the nonpartisan process by which such decisions are made in 
the U.S. Senate and whether to subject gritty, tough, sometimes ugly 
ethical decisions and questions to the whims of partisan majorities. 
That is the issue.
  I hope everyone will understand this. It is absurd to say that it is 
a ``threat'' to simply note that it is a very, very bad idea to make 
these questions contingent upon who can rally the most votes on the 
Senate floor, and, ironically, this surely cedes a terrible degree of 
power to the party in the majority. Hear that. That is not a 
``threat.'' That is as real as you can get about partisan politics.
  We have, through the Ethics Committee, deliberately created a 
nonpartisan forum in which these questions can be addressed. It is just 
about the worst job any Senator can have. I do not want it, would never 
take it. Chairing that committee is a daunting task. At the very least, 
in the past, we have tried to assure the chairman and co-chairman of 
the Ethics Committee that the process employed by the Ethics Committee 
would be respected,
 and that the full Senate would not interfere to change the rules in 
the middle of a case.

  And I do hope that any suggestions that there is an attempt at 
secrecy here can be swiftly laid to rest. I have been reading all this 
now for about 2\1/2\ years. I read about the witnesses. I read about 
what they have said about Senator Packwood. I do not know what is left 
to hear--except one thing that I am anxious to hear, and that is what 
will be said when somebody stands up and puts their right hand up and, 
under affirmation or oath, subjects themselves to cross-examination and 
the rules of evidence. Then I will be right here. I would love that. I 
practiced law for 18 years. Few here did.
  I am not talking about ``leaks'' from the Ethics Committee, but it is 
surely all out there. There is not a single new thing you are going to 
find that is relevant. You might find some things that are not 
relevant, or what happened that might destroy somebody else from an 
event occurring 10 years ago, 20 years ago. 

[[Page S11178]]

  Let the record be very clear here too. I have never received or seen 
a committee deposition. That has been reported. Perhaps that is my own 
misstatement. I have never seen a deposition. I have seen statements. 
Those statements have a very different view of the ``contact'' that 
took place at that particular time; a very different view. Those will 
come out. Somebody will be very hurt in that process. That is not a 
threat. That is the way it works.
  But I think, when we talk about secrecy, it is very difficult for 
anyone to believe that when the committee is going to release thousands 
upon thousands of pages of documents in an unprecedented airing of 
private information--yes, even personal diary information--I can assure 
you that few of us, if this were happening to us, would find that to be 
a laudable result. Who among the hundred of us does not know dozens, 
even hundreds of individuals who stand ready to cast all form of 
aspersions upon us for things that we may have done through the 
decades? Fortunately, I threw all mine right out there when I first 
ran. It is all there for the public to see. I believe any one of us 
would be stunned to find that there was to be a release of thousands of 
pages of such allegations. I do not believe any of us would ever feel 
that such an action, as seen by us or the public, would be called 
``covering up,'' or ``secrecy.'' What an absurdity.
  What we are debating today my colleagues, and I hope all will 
understand, has nothing to do with the merits of the case in question. 
It has to do strictly with the integrity of the process itself. It has 
to do only with whether or not we will respect the judgments of the 
committee with respect to the appropriate process to follow.
  What is the appropriate process? What is it in such a case as this? 
Do we calibrate our sensitivities to the issue of sexual misconduct by 
how much we are willing to trample upon the nonpartisan procedures of 
the Senate in order to achieve a desired result? Do we measure our 
sensitivity by how far we are willing to go back to dredge up 
embarrassing and inappropriate conduct? No. We measure--or should 
measure--our sensitivity and our seriousness by the degree to which we 
ensure that such charges are weighed in a nonpartisan atmosphere of 
fairness.
  Even if Senators are to be held to a higher standard of conduct, this 
surely does not mean we should employ a lower standard of fairness.
  Under the current Federal law--hear this--when an individual wishes 
to bring a charge of sexual harassment, the individual has 180 days to 
file that complaint with the EEOC if there is no State agency to handle 
the complaint, 180 days, hear that; 300 days is the limit in a State 
with a deferral agency.
  There is not a single statute of limitations in America that is over 
the limit of 6 years for sexual harassment--and Senator Packwood has 
not been charged with sexual harassment; not one case. Not one 
jurisdiction in the United States. Go back more than 6 years, and here 
we are back in 1969, we are back in 1974, we are back in 1979 and 1980.
  Why is there a statute of limitations? Probably because the 
reliability of such charges, such grievous charges as these, cannot be 
accurately judged at a tremendous distance from the time in which they 
were alleged to occur.
  I agree with Senator John Kerry, my good friend from Massachusetts. 
Let us indeed apply to ourselves the laws we apply to others because 
the biggest one out there is the statute of limitations on tort and 
sexual harassment. It is 6 years, as far back as you can go in any 
jurisdiction in this country. But in the matter of the conduct of the 
Senator from Oregon, conduct which even the Senator has himself said 
was ``terribly wrong''----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator's 8 minutes has 
expired.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the Senator 1 additional minute.
  Mr. SIMPSON. But in the matter of the conduct of the Senator from 
Oregon, conduct which even the Senator has himself said was ``terribly 
wrong,'' we are dealing with charges reaching back for decades.
  All of us will soon pore through thousands of pages of depositions to 
investigate charges that would not get a moment's hearing if they were 
brought before any other jurisdiction in this country. It is 
astonishing the degree to which we go. And we do that because we are 
different. These are decades after the fact. If ever there was a 
``consistent pattern'' of behavior here, the pattern ceased to exist 
some time ago.
  What we see here is a case study in the continuing destruction of a 
man. I ask my colleagues, how would you feel if this were happening to 
you? There is a good reason to pose the question, because if we approve 
the resolution of the Senator from California, someday it will happen 
to each of us, whether we ``had it coming'' or not. Our political 
opponents will see to it. Believe it. It is a sad chapter in the Senate 
history if this resolution passes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Who yields time?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Maine, Senator Snowe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.
  On July 10, I cosigned a letter to the chairman and vice chairman of 
the Ethics Committee urging that they hold public hearings at the 
concluding stages of the case currently before the committee.
  Signing that letter was not an easy step to take. But I believe it 
was the right step to take. It was not an issue of politics; it was an 
issue of principle. The fact is, instances of misconduct know no 
partisan lines. Allegations of impropriety know no political 
boundaries.
  My singular goal and overriding goal in this matter has been to 
preserve the integrity and reputation of this institution, and I 
believe we do so by opening up the final stage of an ethics process for 
public view.
  Let me say from the outset, though, that I have the utmost respect 
for the hard work, dedication and integrity of the Chairman, Senator 
McConnell, Senators, and staff of the Ethics Committee have done in 
this case to date. Indeed, they have been assigned the most difficult 
and thankless of tasks in this institution.
  Without question, this is a painful and difficult matter. It is tough 
for the institution of the Senate. It is difficult for each and every 
Senator in this Chamber and everybody involved.
  But the time has come, Mr. President, the time has come for a 
decision to be made about the ethics process. On Monday, the Ethics 
Committee opted not to hold public, open hearings in the case pending 
before them. That is a decision with which I respectfully disagree.
  I recognize that this is a very complex and delicate process, and I 
understand why some Senators look upon this amendment with concern.
  But, Mr. President, this Chamber at the top of a hill in the Nation's 
Capital is not a museum. It is not an institution that should be 
removed from the people. And it must never be above the ideals of our 
country or its people. It must represent America at its very best.
  This is a place where nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court are 
decided. It is the place where members of the President's inner 
circle--the Cabinet--are confirmed. And it is the part of Congress 
where the hope for peace is hatched through our unique role of crafting 
treaties.
  The U.S. Senate is not immune to some of the problems and challenges 
of our society. Throughout the history of the Senate, Members have been 
cited and reprimanded for those flaws.
  In this case, since December 1992, the Senate Ethics Committee has 
conducted a thorough investigation into accusations of misconduct 
against a Member of this institution.
  Clearly, the Senators of this committee and their staff have not 
taken this case lightly.
  Their analysis--released in mid-May--concluded that there exists 
``substantial credible evidence'' that the Senator has engaged in clear 
misconduct over a period of 25 years. The committee then voted 
unanimously to proceed to the third and final investigative stage.
  These are very difficult, very sensitive, and very disturbing 
allegations. For perhaps the first time since its creation 31 years 
ago, the Ethics Committee has had to investigate charges that are not 
simply numbers on paper. They 

[[Page S11179]]
are not a series of accountant's slips or ledgers. It is about a tough 
subject--we all know that--and it is about never tolerating that kind 
of misconduct, no matter when it occurs, no matter who the perpetrator, 
no matter what the context.
  But the real issue that has come before this Chamber is whether to 
continue this matter behind closed doors or to conclude this last--and 
most serious--phase of the investigation in full, public view by way of 
open hearings.
  Some have claimed that this will embarrass us as an institution.
  Embarrass us as an institution? It is by our lack of action, Mr. 
President, by our failure to hold open hearings and by our embrace of 
the institutional sanctuary of closed doors that we would embarrass 
this institution.
  To do otherwise would threaten those bonds of trust and faith with 
the American people. Does this policy mean that, simply because the 
issue at hand is in the form of sexual misconduct, even less openness 
is in order? Does that mean that financial misconduct deserves open, 
public hearings, but sexual misconduct should be a closed door policy? 
I think not.
  The point is, if we are ever to turn back the tide of sexual 
misconduct--which has taken years to even get into the realm of public 
debate and dialog--open hearings must be held in this and othe cases.
  In words attributed to Lord Acton, this point is made: ``Everything 
secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe 
that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity.''
  These are thoughts to bear in mind as we make our decision on this 
amendment today.
  Mr. President, this amendment takes the simple and honest step of 
shining light into the process of the U.S. Senate.
  In the end, the issue at hand drives us to cross a new threshold for 
this revered institution. Its significance cannot be underestimated, 
not just in terms of fairness and justice, but in terms of what we are 
as an institution, and who we are as servants of the American people. 
It is my hope that we will make the right decision.
  Thank you, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-five minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield such time as she may need to 
the distinguished Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the chairman. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, the matter before us today is very serious and 
extremely important. It is not an issue for partisanship. It is an 
issue that demands of each of us our best judgment of what is right and 
wrong. What is right about this matter is that the Senate Ethics 
Committee has been scrupulous about investigating every charge and 
accusation lodged against the Senator from Oregon. It is unprecedented 
in Senate history that so much time and effort has been devoted to 
assembling the facts on such a matter.
  What is wrong is that this amendment threatens to render null and 
void all that has been done to date. The Ethics Committee must be 
allowed to finish its work and make its recommendations. At that point 
the full Senate will be called upon to agree or disagree and act on the 
recommendation. The full Senate will be heard on this matter. The 
question is whether we will wait to hear the Ethics Committee decision 
as our rules require us to do.
  If we are not going to wait for the Ethics Committee's full report 
and recommendations before acting, we might as well disband the 
committee completely and conduct all future proceedings on the floor of 
the Senate. I think that bypassing the committee and conducting public 
hearings at this critical moment in the Packwood case would be a 
terrible mistake.
  If we open these hearings and overrule our bipartisan Ethics 
Committee today, we will set the precedent that its authority can be 
usurped at any time the majority intends to make political points or 
whatever motive the majority might have.
  I have been asked how my position on this question pending before the 
Senate squares with my position regarding sexual harassment in the 
Navy. In the case of the Tailhook incident, the Navy conducted its 
investigation. I was asked if the investigations were adequate. In my 
judgment, they were not.
  The case before us is very different. We have an investigation in 
process. No recommendation has yet been made. But some of our Members 
want to make a judgment on its adequacy before it is finished. And I 
think that is wrong; wrong for the Senate and wrong for the process we 
have established for ethics cases.
  I believe we should not change the rules in the middle of the case. 
If we decide the rules should be changed, we should do so when and if 
we have acted on the Ethics Committee recommendation and judged it to 
be inadequate. I believe fair play to all concerned is to give our 
respect to the process and to wait for the Ethics Committee to act.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator from South Carolina will use some of 
her time right now, I would appreciate it.
  Mrs. BOXER. You mean the Senator from California, not the Senator 
from South Carolina. I do not know who you thought I was. But it is an 
interesting slip.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend that I have no doubt in the world 
who she is.
  [Laughter.]
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield 3 minutes to my friend from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, other members of the Ethics Committee have 
now all spoken on this floor on this issue, and it understates the 
case, it seems to me, to say that this is a difficult ethics case 
requiring tough, hard choices for everyone in the Senate. The ethics 
issues are difficult under any circumstances, especially difficult it 
seems to me in a political institution like the U.S. Senate. Our duties 
require us to confront not only what is convenient but rather what is 
necessary, and the duties of those of us on the Ethics Committee 
require us to with fairness judge the ethics complaints that are filed 
against Members of the U.S. Senate. I serve on that committee not by 
choice; I serve because I was asked, and there is no joy in that 
assignment.
  In the committee process of the pending case, six of us who serve on 
that committee, three Republicans and three Democrats, were faced 
finally with the question of public hearings. I mention that the Senate 
Ethics Committee has six members. I want to say that I have enormous 
respect for every member of that committee. When confronted with the 
question of hearings, we voted. And the committee had a 3-to-3 vote on 
the question of whether to hold hearings. It takes four votes to 
advance and, therefore, the motion to hold hearings died.
  Senator Boxer, exercising her rights as a Member, brings a resolution 
to the floor of the Senate calling for public hearings. She has asked 
the full Senate to express its will on a matter already voted on in the 
Ethics Committee and on which there was a tie vote. It is perfectly 
within her rights to do so. And I intend to vote for the resolution 
offered by Senator Boxer just as I voted for the resolution in the 
Ethics Committee.
  So the will of the Senate will be expressed on this issue. One thing 
is clear. When the decision is made, men and women of good will, with a 
sense of purpose and fairness, must meet their responsibilities on the 
Ethics Committee and deal with the decisions in this case and bring our 
determination to the full Senate.
  I want to say that I will not be critical of those who reach a 
different conclusion on the issue of public hearings. I respect their 
decision as well. But I will vote for public hearings as I did earlier 
this week in committee. It seems to me that when the Senate has 
expressed its will on this question--and it is an important question--
whatever the Senate decides, however it turns out, we must as an Ethics 
Committee and as a Senate move to a conclusion on this case. We owe 
that to the U.S. Senate, and we owe it to the American people.
  Mr. President, I yield whatever time is remaining to the Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  
[[Page S11180]]

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator 
from Kansas whatever time she may use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I thank the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from 
California.
  As a former member of the Ethics Committee, I certainly can 
sympathize with the comment Senator Dorgan made preceding my comments--
that there is no joy in the process in serving on the Ethics Committee. 
But I also know the difficulties that are imposed in the process that 
this Ethics Committee has to undertake, and I am flatly and strongly 
opposed to any effort to inject the full Senate into the committee 
process in midstream, and at this point.
  It saddens me that we have reached this point, Mr. President. It 
should be a cause of great concern to all of us on the floor of the 
U.S. Senate. I would feel this same way whether it was a Member on the 
other side of the aisle or a Member on this side of the aisle. We 
should not be debating the case at this point, but the process.
  The Ethics Committee has one of the most difficult jobs in the 
Senate. It is never easy to sit in judgment of a colleague. But it is 
essential to the working of the Senate and to the public confidence in 
government that some of us take on that role.
  I regret that the committee is now divided on how to proceed in this 
case. I have enormous respect for both the chairman, Senator McConnell, 
and the vice chairman, Senator Bryan. There is an honest difference of 
opinion with legitimate concerns on both sides. I believe it is a 
serious mistake to turn that honest disagreement into a partisan 
battle.
  I do not believe that there is any effort for a coverup. I do not 
believe that it was designed to be done behind closed doors. And I 
really regret that we have reached this particular point.
  The investigation of charges against Senator Packwood has now been 
underway for 31 months. The committee has spent thousands of hours and 
interviewed hundreds of witnesses. It has conducted what may be the 
most thorough and exhaustive investigation in Senate history. Now we 
are at the end of this process, and the committee apparently is 
preparing to render its verdict, as it should.
  Mr. President, I see no purpose in further delaying this matter by 
ordering the committee to conduct public hearings on this matter that 
could go on and on and on.
  It is time to make a decision. That is the real question that the 
committee and the full Senate must address. Is Senator Packwood guilty 
of the charges leveled against him? And, if so, what is the appropriate 
punishment? I believe we must answer that question in a fair and prompt 
manner. The committee should lay out all the evidence it has gathered, 
and then it should present its verdict to the Senate and the American 
people. We can then focus our energy not on committee procedures but on 
the committee product. Mr. President, that is the way it should be.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If I could take a moment, I thank the distinguished 
Senator from Kansas for her remarks. As a former member of the Ethics 
Committee, I think she understands this process very well, and I am 
extremely grateful to her for expressing her view on this most 
important matter.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska, [Mr. 
Kerrey].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. I come to the floor to support this amendment. I must 
confess that at first I thought it was a terrible idea. I thought the 
Senate Ethics Committee ought to complete its work and then let us make 
a decision about whether the work was worthwhile. I was concerned that 
the rhetoric was getting partisan. I was concerned as well that Senator 
Packwood could be tried in a court of public opinion as opposed to 
allowing the facts to determine guilt or innocence, and I believe the 
charges of sexual misconduct necessitate special protection for those 
bringing the charges.
  I have listened very carefully and particularly to the arguments of 
the Senator from Nevada, [Mr. Bryan], who has made five very compelling 
arguments. First, he observes that every case this century which 
resulted in a Senate proceeding first had a public hearing, and every 
case which reached the final, serious investigative stage had a public 
record. This is our unbroken precedent.
  Second, the Senator from Nevada points out that a justifiable reason 
must be there for not holding public hearings in this case. Except that 
if the Senate does not want to hold public hearings because it deals 
with sexual misconduct, there is not one. Since none of the alleged 
victims are unwilling to endure cross-examination, our concern does not 
stand as an excuse.
  Third, he makes a legal point that this is a case of first impression 
because, for the first time in Senate history, these are alleged 
victims, citizens who came forward and filed sworn charges against a 
U.S. Senator for actions against them.
  Fourth, the Senator from Nevada points out that he is concerned that 
the credibility of the Senate itself to deal fairly and openly with the 
discipline of its Members would either be greatly enhanced or 
irreparably damaged.
  Mr. President, he is unquestionably right. The integrity of the 
Senate is far more important than the risk of embarrassment to any 
Member.
  Fifth, he believes that hearings would provide a valuable opportunity 
to evaluate the witnesses firsthand, not just read a written statement. 
This last point made me believe that Senator Packwood----
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the Senate is 
not in order, and I think it is very important. This is a Senator who 
has changed his view on this matter. Perhaps other Senators ought to 
hear his reasoning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time actually expired. If the 
Senator would like to yield more time.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield the Senator an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this is a rather simple change and I think 
it is a very important change in our law
 governing all ethics cases including the one involving Senator 
Packwood. The simplicity and brevity of this proposed law compels me to 
read it in full:

       The Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate shall hold 
     hearings in any pending or future case in which the Select 
     Committee, first, has found, after a review of allegations of 
     wrongdoing by a Senator, that there is a substantial credible 
     evidence which provides substantial cause to conclude that a 
     violation within the jurisdiction of the Select Committee has 
     occurred, and second, has undertaken an investigation of such 
     allegations. The Select Committee may waive this requirement 
     by an affirmative record vote of a majority of the members of 
     the committee.

  This proposal deserves the support of any who are concerned about the 
integrity of this institution, the Senate, as well as the integrity of 
one of our Members, Senator Bob Packwood. One stands accused of 
misconduct by citizens. He has not been convicted and deserves to be 
treated as innocent until a judgment is rendered. The other will stand 
accused of impeding the chance for justice to be delivered if we vote 
no on this amendment.
  Mr. President, H.L. Mencken said that ``Injustice is not so difficult 
to bear as it is made out by some to be; it is justice that is 
difficult to bear.''
  Let us vote yes with this truth in mind.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 4 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from New 
Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from California for her 
willingness to give me just a couple minutes.
  I first wish to commend her for bringing the issue to the point that 
we 

[[Page S11181]]
have, where it is being discussed openly. And that ought to be the 
focus, because the public as well as the Senate has been working very 
hard on opening the process.
  In the last 2 weeks we have had a couple of very serious votes on 
whether or not lobbyists have to be open in their dealings. We have 
openness questions on whether or not gifts are acceptable. We have 
tried to illuminate the process for the public. We all know that the 
public trust is no longer with us and they will not be with us if this 
process continues to be hidden, secretive.
  Even though our friends on the other side of the aisle say that we 
ought not to interfere with the committee process, this is far above 
the committee process. This is a matter of human rights, of individual 
rights of a woman to work and to not be harassed during her job hours.
  This is a question of whether or not someone has violated the basic 
rules of the Senate, and we should have an open hearing. I know that 
Senator Packwood loves this institution. He has worked very hard on 
many good issues and has delivered positively on those issues. But we 
are not judging Senator Packwood's past record. What we are making a 
judgment about is whether or not the public is entitled to know what is 
taking place. And in my view there is no doubt about it. The Senator 
from Connecticut, when he spoke, suggested that even for Senators it 
would be worthwhile to be able to gain the knowledge that would come as 
a result of a public hearing.
  Mr. President, I think we are at a crossroads, and whether or not the 
hearings are secret or public will determine what the public thinks 
about Senator Packwood's guilt. They will condemn him absolutely if the 
process continues to be hidden. And I hope that our Members will take 
heed for the good of the body to insist----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That Senator Boxer's resolution goes through and that 
we have public hearings on this matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in closing this debate, I wish to 
particularly thank Senator Smith and Senator Craig, who have served 
with me on the Ethics Committee on our side of the aisle for these 2\1/
2\ long years. I wish to say that they have approached this issue in 
every single instance with character, with integrity, with conviction 
and a sincere desire to produce the best possible result for the Senate 
and for the accused Senator.
  To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on the committee, 
until very recently, I think we had, indeed, succeeded in developing a 
bipartisan approach to this, and I regret deeply that this case has 
spilled over into the full Senate before it was over.
  And that is what is before us today. Thirty-one years ago, Senator 
John Sherman Cooper, of Kentucky, some of the old-timers around here 
may remember, in the wake of the Bobby Baker case, felt that there 
ought to be a better way to handle misconduct charges against a sitting 
Senator. He felt we had to remove, if at all possible, these kinds of 
cases from the floor of the Senate where everything is partisan. And so 
he suggested we have a bipartisan Ethics Committee with not too many 
members, just six, three on each side of the aisle.
  This approach, coupled with the requirement that there be four votes 
to do anything affirmatively, guaranteed--guaranteed--that the results 
of any case would have a bipartisan stamp. It has been said that the 
committee was deadlocked when it voted 3-3. It was not deadlocked. That 
was the decision. Because under the rules of the Ethics Committee, a 3-
3 vote is not an affirmative act to proceed. So the decision on the 
issue of public hearings in the Packwood case has been made pursuant to 
the rules of the committee. So the Senator from California today would 
have us change the rules in the middle of the game--change the rules in 
the middle of the game.
  I would say, Mr. President, not only is it a bad idea generally 
speaking to change the rules in the middle of the game, it is a bad 
rules change anyway. And beyond it being a bad rules change, what is 
happening here on the floor of the Senate today is exactly what Senator 
Cooper feared would happen if we did not create the Ethics Committee. 
And that is, have every one of these cases debated here in the most 
partisan forum imaginable, with the majority making the decision.
  One of the astonishing things about this proceeding today is I think 
it can be totally persuasively argued that the principal beneficiary of 
the bipartisan Ethics Committee is whichever party happens to be in the 
minority in the Senate at a given time, and yet this proposal emanates 
from the minority side to bring a matter out of a bipartisan forum into 
a partisan forum for decision.
  We will rue the day we go down this path. Just imagine campaign 
season. We are out here on the floor of the Senate introducing 
resolutions to condemn Senator so-and-so because the latest poll shows 
he is in trouble and our side may be able to pick up a seat. The 
temptation would be overwhelming. And so that is what this vote is 
about.
  The reason for an Ethics Committee was that these cases would be 
investigated through the investigative phase without interference from 
the Senate. And it has never been interfered with in 31 years. At the 
end of the process the committee would take an affirmative action which 
would require at least four members, which would guarantee some 
bipartisan stamp. If the case was serious enough, bring it to the floor 
of the Senate, and at that point every Senator would have his or her 
opportunity to say whatever they felt appropriate about the work of the 
bipartisan committee. Criticize it, condemn it, applaud it, amend it, 
filibuster it, whatever. There is an opportunity, Mr. President, for 
any Senator to have his or her fair say about this when we get through.
  So what we are experiencing today is the great fear that Senator 
Cooper had 31 years ago if we did not have an Ethics Committee. And yet 
here we are having this debate, slowing down the disposition of the 
case.
  As I said earlier, candidly, it has all had an impact on the members 
of the committee. It has pulled us in opposite directions. It has tried 
to make us more political. And one of the things we are going to have 
to do, if the Boxer resolution is hopefully not approved, on the 
committee is to get ourselves back together again. Friendships have 
been strained. And we have got to get ourselves back together so we can 
finish this case.
  Nobody's taken a bigger beating in the last 2\1/2\ weeks than I have. 
I am getting to wonder who the accused is in this case.
  But I am proud to be chairman of the Ethics Committee because I 
believe in this process. I think it serves this institution well and I 
think it serves the public well. There is not going to be any coverup 
in this case. No coverup. Let us finish our work. We will release 
everything relevant to the decision. And if you do not like the penalty 
that we recommend, recommend another one. But do not start down this 
path. It is the beginning of the end of the ethics process, which has 
served this body well for 31 years.
  So, Mr. President, I sincerely want to thank as well the Senators not 
on the committee on this side who came over and pitched in. Frankly, I 
thought I might be the only speaker. I did not have to ask anybody to 
come over. Senator Simpson was here. Senator Brown was here. Senator 
Kassebaum was here. Senator Grassley was here. And Senator Hutchison 
was here. And none of them on the committee. And this is the kind of 
thing your staff will whisper in your ear, ``Boy, you don't want to get 
near this one. Vote and leave.'' And yet they came over and spoke in 
opposition to this resolution, expressed their opinion that the 
resolution was a bad idea and that the Ethics Committee ought to be 
able to finish its work.
  Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Democratic leader 
would like to use some leader time to speak. I do not see him on the 
floor at the moment. So how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I will for the moment reserve the balance of my time. 
I 

[[Page S11182]]
may well choose not to use it, but I reserve the balance of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum and that the time in the quorum not 
be taken out of the 8 minutes remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have to object to that. Every time, when 
I tried earlier, and I had so many people waiting, I was unable to get 
additional time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The objection is 
heard.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am trying to resolve the matter. Perhaps my friend 
can----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection has been heard, Senator.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mrs. BOXER. I just reserve my right. I did not say ``object.'' I 
reserve my right to object. And I would ask my friend from Kentucky----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am more than happy to yield back the time and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  Both sides had 2 hours. I do not think it is in any way unfair for 
the time to be equal. If the Democratic leader would like to speak, it 
is my understanding the Republican leader would like to speak. 
Otherwise, we could----
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator from Kentucky yield for a point of 
clarification?
  The Senator from Maryland wishes to inform him, the Democratic leader 
is coming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am not aware of any additional 
speakers on my side.
  I gather the two leaders can speak with leader time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Consequently, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by the 
Senator from California. The amendment tracks many years of precedent 
in the Senate Ethics Committee by clarifying that all cases advancing 
to the substantial-credible-evidence stage should be the subject of 
public hearings. At the same time, it allows the Ethics Committee to 
waive those hearings by a simple majority vote.
  I regret that some have chosen to suggest this is a partisan matter, 
for it is not. Furthermore, such statements distract us from the real 
issue of how the Ethics Committee and the Senate should pursue ethics 
complaints. I believe the Boxer amendment charts a course that is both 
warranted and appropriate.
  The vice chairman of the Ethics Committee and several others have 
already outlined some of the facts that lead me to that conclusion:
  First, under the precedent of the Senate and the Ethics Committee, in 
every major ethics case this century, public hearings have been held. 
In 1977, a three-tiered ethics process was adopted. Public hearings 
have been held in all four cases that reached the final investigative 
phase under this process.
  Second, the amendment before us today would apply to all pending and 
future cases that reach the final investigative phase. We must, as the 
vice chairman of the committee has suggested, consider whether or not 
there is sufficient reason to stray from that clear precedent in any 
particular case, including the case currently before the committee. 
Three members of the Ethics Committee have argued that we should not 
make such an exception, though, again, I note that the Boxer amendment 
would allow a simple majority of the committee to do so.
  The issue before us goes far beyond the specifics of any case. If the 
evidence in a case before the Ethics Committee has reached the final 
investigative phase, and if there is not sufficient reason to make an 
exception for that case, then it is appropriate for the committee to 
move forward with public hearings. I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  Finally, I want to commend the Senator from California, Senator 
Boxer, for offering this amendment. I also want to commend my other 
colleagues on the Ethics Committee. We all know theirs is a thankless 
job, yet they deserve all Senators' thanks.
  Mr. DOLE. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No time is left. This will be yielded from 
leader time.
  Mr. DOLE. How much?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 5 minutes left.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am sorry, Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes left.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator in 
California.
  My colleagues have spoken on both sides of this issue with eloquence 
and passion. For me, the central issue that we are debating today is 
the simple proposition of shall there be public hearings. A vote for 
the Boxer amendment commits this Senate to public hearings; a vote for 
the amendment of the distinguished chairman of the Ethics Committee 
votes not to have public hearings.
  There has been much comment made about this somehow disrupting the 
process, or that it portends that in the future the minority may be 
placed at some disadvantage.
  What this is all about, as far as I am concerned, is that in every 
case, whether a Member of the majority or the minority in which there 
is an ethical matter of this magnitude brought to the attention of the 
committee, there ought to be public hearings.
  It has been said that precedent will be violated, 31 years of 
precedent will be violated if, indeed, the amendment is offered and 
approved. That is true, but if we fail to support the amendment of the 
Senator from California, the Senate abandons nearly a century of 
precedent, a precedent which has said that in every case of a major 
ethics violation, public hearings have been held. If my colleagues have 
any question about that, simply call the ethics office, and they will 
tell you the same thing that they have told each and every one of us.
  I conclude, Mr. President, where I began, and that is: Why should 
this case be different? I am unable to reach a conclusion as to why 
this should be different. We have another precedent, and that is for 
the first time we have victims who seek to come forward and to present 
their testimony before the members of the committee. I think that we 
ought to reflect for a moment on what kind of a process we support----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator his 2 minutes 
have expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to make clear that at no time 
during this debate or at any time during my membership on the Ethics 
Committee have I been critical of the other members of the Ethics 
Committee or of its current chairman. I believe that the Ethics 
Committee has conducted itself with honor, meticulousness, and really 
pursued due diligence.
  We have an honest disagreement on the issue of public hearings. There 
is something special about the U.S. Senate. The world views us as the 
greatest deliberative body. The rules guarantee full and complete 
opportunity for all concerned parties to speak. We have great pride in 
the way we protect the rights of the minority.
  It is that history and tradition that I believe that calls us now, as 
we get ready to vote, to honor the precedent of public hearings, for 
cross-examination of witnesses, to resolve discrepancies in testimony, 
to have a fair format----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator the 1 minute has 
expired.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. A vote here is the right thing to do. It is the 
senatorial thing to do. It is the American thing to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friends. I say to my colleagues 
on both sides that my amendment is very respectful of the Ethics 
Committee but is also respectful of the full Senate and 

[[Page S11183]]
the victims in this case. It is very respectful to the American people 
who want us to open the doors, very clearly.
  The Ethics Committee chairman says the committee has not deadlocked. 
Only in the U.S. Senate would you say a 3 to 3 vote resulting in no 
action is not a deadlock. Clearly, the committee has deadlocked for the 
first time in its history.
  The Boxer amendment says you need a majority vote to close hearings. 
I think that is very reasonable and no Senator--no Senator--from either 
party should fear a majority vote.
  We have had 18 Senators speak in behalf of my amendment, including 
one Republican. I am a very proud Senator, as I stand here today, 
because when I started this, many colleagues told me that nobody cares 
about this but the Senator from California, and that never was true.
  Why do we care? Because we love this place, and we want it to work 
right. I read the Constitution, and article I, section 5 says each and 
every one of us has a responsibility to make sure we police ourselves 
and do it in the right way.
  The Senator from Kentucky has stated that I am turning precedents on 
its head. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you vote for the 
Boxer amendment, you vote to continue public hearings. We have heard it 
from the vice chairman of the committee; we have heard it from Senator 
Mikulski. These are valued Members of this body. I know they are well 
respected. It is not just a Senator who is not on the Ethics Committee 
calling for public hearings.
  Then we hear we have the documents. Is that not wonderful, let us 
just have the paper. I want to ask you, does a piece of paper talk to 
you about the humiliation? Does a piece of paper come alive? I say not.
  Finally, Mr. President, I note with regret that during debate on this 
amendment, several Senators made reference to my record on ethics 
matters as when I served as a Member of the House of Representatives. 
Unfortunately, their statements mis-char-acterized my record. I wish to 
take this opportunity to clarify the record.
  Specifically, the Senator from Colorado, Senator Brown, stated that I 
repeatedly voted against public hearings in ethics matters. In fact, 
the opposite is true. In 1989, I supported a comprehensive ethics 
reform bill that greatly improved House ethics procedures. As a result 
of that bill, rules were promulgated requiring public hearings in the 
final stage of ethics cases. The Senator from Colorado opposed that 
bill.
  Also, in cases of sexual misconduct to reach the House floor, I voted 
twice to increase sanctions against individual Members. In those cases, 
one of the accused Representatives was a Democrat and one was a 
Republican. Senator Brown, then my colleague in the House, voted for 
increased sanctions for the Democrat, but not the Republican.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. Do not vote in favor of paper, vote in favor of people 
and support the Boxer amendment.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have not had an opportunity to hear the 
debate. I know every second has been used. To many this is a very 
important matter and certainly the charges leveled against the Senator 
from Oregon are serious ones. There is no place for sexual harassment 
or any other form of sexual misconduct in the United States, in the 
U.S. Senate. That is point one.
  Equally as important is point two. We do have an Ethics Committee. We 
may not have another one again. Maybe this is the end of the Ethics 
Committee. Maybe it should be. If they do not have any standing, if 
they do not have any credibility, if they are not supported by the 
bipartisan leadership, I am not certain what function they can perform 
in the future.
  It is supposed to be a bipartisan committee. That is why it is 3 to 
3, to avoid all the things we are doing right now. That is the reason 
it was implemented in this way, structured in this way, so we avoid a 
circus on the floor if somebody felt so inclined.
  So we have a procedure that has worked, as I understand, fairly well 
for 31 years. I think it ought to be followed today. We have had 2\1/2\ 
years of investigation in this case--2\1/2\ years--against Senator 
Packwood. As a part of this investigation, the Ethics Committee has 
interviewed 264 witnesses, taken 111 sworn depositions, issued 44 
subpoenas, read 16,000 pages of documents and spent 1,000 hours in 
meetings just on this case alone.
  It is now my understanding, at least, that the Ethics Committee is 
preparing relevant information, the most detailed public submission 
ever made by the committee in any case. As it does in other cases, the 
Ethics Committee will also recommend an appropriate sanction. And 
before the Senate votes on this sanction, the committee will provide a 
full and complete record of all relevant evidence, and this record will 
be made available to the public.
  So I believe the American people, as they should, will have a right 
to know. The American people will know; they will have an opportunity 
to review the record, blemishes and all. It just seems to me, as 
someone not on the Ethics Committee--and, believe me, it is not easy to 
ask your colleagues to serve on that committee; it is going to be even 
more difficult from this day forward, I assume, unless you want to make 
it just a partisan committee, and then maybe we ought to change the 
numbers. But I guess the real question is whether or not we are going 
to allow the Ethics Committee to do its work without second-guessing on 
the floor of the Senate.
  The Ethics Committee should not be a political football. We have a 
process and that process should be followed. It has been followed in 
numerous cases in the past. If we want to change the rules and change 
the process, I assume we will do it as we normally do, prospectively, 
in future cases, and not in the middle of a case.
  I can imagine what would happen if this case were on the other side 
of the aisle. The Senator from California would not be on her feet. 
There were several cases in the House, as I understand it, and there 
was not a word uttered by the Senator from California, who was then in 
the House. But this is different.
  I have confidence in the Ethics Committee. We are out here in the 
middle of a case--actually, at the end of this case, because I 
understand the committee would like to act. Now, if we do not believe 
in the integrity of the Ethics Committee, why do we not abolish it? We 
can turn it over to the Senator from California to be in charge of 
everybody's ethics in the Senate, or to someone else who does not agree 
with the Ethics Committee.
  We do not agree with a lot of things that happen in committees around 
here, but I am not certain we challenge every committee when we have a 
disagreement and bring it to the floor and demand a public hearing on 
our issue because we did not prevail in any other committee.
  This is the Ethics Committee. I can tell you, as the leader, that it 
is extremely difficult to ask your colleagues to serve on this 
committee. It is going to be more difficult if this becomes a 
transparent effort to score partisan political points either in this 
case or the next case. Maybe the next time it will be on this side and 
we will want to score the partisan political points. Things that go 
around come around here, or whatever it is. I hope that is not the 
case.
  If I felt for a moment that there were Republicans on the Ethics 
Committee--not in this case--who were not men of integrity, I would say 
move right ahead. I think their integrity probably matches that of 
those on the other side. I think they are all men and women of 
integrity on the Ethics Committee.
  So I hope my colleagues will defeat the amendment offered by the 
Senator from California and then adopt the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Kentucky.
  Let the committee proceed. This may be good media, but it is bad 
policy. The press loves this. They have been flocking in all day long. 
They like it. Going after a Member really whets their appetites, 
whether it is this case or any other case. It is a great way to get big 
headlines and make the nightly news.
  But what does it do for the integrity of the Ethics Committee to 
score a few political points at the expense of the 

[[Page S11184]]
institution? If anybody can show me that Senator McConnell or Senator 
Craig or Senator Smith have, in some way, violated their oaths and 
violated their obligations as members of the Ethics Committee, or 
anybody else in this Chamber, then I would say, OK, let us proceed, 
because they have let us down. If anybody, including the Senator from 
California, can find one scintilla of evidence that somehow the 
Republican members prejudged or overlooked whatever they overlooked, 
whatever the charge might be, then that is one thing.
  So I hope I will be standing here the next time when it may be 
reversed, and I will be making the same speech, not a different one. I 
will be saying, maybe the next time, wait a minute, we have an Ethics 
Committee--we may or may not have an Ethics Committee, who knows. But 
if we have an Ethics Committee, and if it is evenly balanced with 
Democrats and Republicans, then let us wait until we hear what the 
decision is.
  So for all the reasons I can think of--and I know it is, again, good 
theater, but sometimes we have to look beyond the theater in this body. 
This is a proud institution and, in my view, I think we can properly 
oversee and provide appropriate remedies for misconduct by anybody in 
this Chamber, Republican or Democrat, and I trust that is the way it 
will be in the future.
  Mr. President, the charges that have been leveled against my 
colleague from Oregon are very serious ones. There is no place for 
sexual harassment or any other form of sexual misconduct in the United 
States or in the U.S. Senate. That is point 1.
  Point 2 is that the Ethics Committee has established procedures for 
investigating charges of misconduct against Members of the Senate. 
These procedures have worked in the past, an they should be followed 
today.
  During the past 2\1/2\ years, the Ethics Committee has been 
diligently investigating the charges against Senator Packwood. As part 
of this investigation, the Ethics Committee has interviewed 264 
witnesses, taken 111 sworn depositions, issued 44 subpoenas, read 
16,000 pages of documents, and spent 1,000 hours in meetings just on 
this case alone.
  It is my understanding that the Ethics Committee is now preparing the 
largest, most detailed public submission every made by the committee in 
any case.
  As it does in other cases, the Ethics Committee will also recommend 
an appropriate sanction. And before the Senate votes on this sanction, 
the committee will provide a full and complete record of all relevant 
evidence in this case. This record will be made available to the 
public.
  So, this debate is not about the American people's right to know, as 
some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have claimed. The 
American people will know. They will have an opportunity to review the 
record--blemishes and all.
  The real question here is whether we will allow the Ethics Committee 
to do its work, without second-guessing from the floor of the Senate. 
The Ethics Committee should not be a political football. We have a 
process, and that process should be followed as it has been followed in 
numerous cases in the past.
  If we want to change the rules, change the process, then we should do 
so prospectively, in future cases, not in the middle of this case or 
any other case, and certainly not as part of a transparent effort to 
score partisan political points.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on both 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2079

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2079 by the Senator from California.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 352 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--52

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  So, the amendment (No. 2079) was rejected.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was rejected.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
                       Vote on Amendment No. 2080

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The question is on agreeing to 
the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell].
  Mr. DOLE. 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 amendment 
of Senator from Kentucky. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 38, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 353 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--38

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone
  So, the amendment (No. 2080) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. 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.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. What is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] is to be recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. If he would yield for a moment.
  I have talked to the managers of the bill. I think it is their intent 
to stay here late this evening. And I understand they are going to take 
the 

[[Page S11185]]
amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin and take an amendment from the 
Senator from Iowa. But we need to find other amendments. And we have 
had a five-hour delay here, rain delay, that is not the fault of the 
managers. So we have lost five hours. So they would like to make up 
some of that time tonight.
  If we cannot find any amendments, we need, in fairness, to let our 
colleagues know. If we cannot find amendments, we need to have our 
colleagues know whether we can have a roll call, and at what time. So 
maybe the managers can take a quick check and let the leaders know, so 
we can advise our forces.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I urge Democratic Senators to come to the 
floor. We have a whole series of amendments that ought to be debated. 
This is prime time and a very important opportunity. I hope we will not 
let it go to waste. There are Senators who have expressed their 
interest in amending this bill, and they ought to come to the floor to 
offer these amendments.
  I urge Cloakrooms to encourage Senators to come to the floor at their 
earliest convenience.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield to me 
without losing his right to the floor?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.

                          ____________________