[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 135 (Friday, August 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12317-S12323]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
now resume consideration of S. 1087, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1087) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and 
     for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       (1) Hutchison amendment No. 2396, to provide for the 
     management of defense nuclear stockpile resources.
       (2) Bumpers amendment No. 2398, to reduce the amount of 
     money provided for the Trident II missile program.
       (3) Harkin amendment No. 2400, to delete funding for the 
     upgrade of the Kiowa Warrior light scout helicopters.
       (4) Stevens amendment No. 2424, to rescind funds for 
     berthing barges.
       (5) Kerry motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
     Appropriations with instructions.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. There is now time allotted for the Senator from 
Arkansas, 10 minutes for the Senator from Arkansas and 5 minutes in 
opposition, to be followed by a similar period for Senator Harkin, an 
equal number of minutes on each side, and then the time sought by 
Senator Kerry on a motion to recommit.

[[Page S 12318]]



                           Amendment No. 2398

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum for 
about 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. BUMPERS. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I seriously considered not offering this 
amendment because obviously I will not win. As a matter of fact, I do 
not think a single amendment that has been proposed to change this bill 
has prevailed.
  It causes me a great deal of despair to think about how we almost 
relish cutting education, the arts, public broadcasting--just about 
everything in nondefense discretionary spending--but you cannot take a 
penny out of this bill despite the fact it contains almost $7 billion 
more than the Pentagon requested. And when you ask: ``Why are we 
putting $7 billion more in it than our President and military leaders 
want?'' the answer is, essentially, ``What do they know?''
  So here I am offering an amendment that I have offered for the last 2 
years--this will be the third year--a chance to save well over $4 
billion, $4.5 billion to be precise, and I might get 30, possibly 40 
votes, despite the fact that people in the Navy itself and in the 
Defense Department will tell you that the logic of this amendment is 
unassailable.
  We have eight Trident submarines in the Pacific Ocean. We have 10 in 
the Atlantic. The ones in the Atlantic fleet are equipped with a 
missile called the D-5 or the Trident II missile. The eight submarines 
in the Pacific are equipped with a missile called the C-4, or Trident I 
missile. This amendment simply prevents the Navy from starting to spend 
money in 1996 to backfit the eight submarines in the Pacific to carry 
the D-5 missile.
  We are testing C-4 missiles every year. And they are just fine. The 
tests are perfectly satisfactory. But here is the key to this 
amendment. Here is what Martin Meth, Director of the DOD Weapon Support 
Improvement Group, said on November 9, 1992. Now, this is as good an 
authority as you can get on C-4 and D-5 missiles and on the Trident 
submarines.
  Listen to this:

       There are no obvious life limiting modes or logistics 
     barriers to extending the service life of the currently 
     deployed C-4 missiles to the year 2016. Therefore, I would 
     recommend that any Navy plans for either restoring the C-4 
     missiles or D-5 missile backfit should not be supported.

  We are getting ready to backfit, take the C-4's off those Trident 
submarines in the Pacific and replace them with D-5's, despite the fact 
that the C-4 missile will last as long as the submarines they are on.
  And what do you get? What are you going to get for this $4.5 billion? 
Listen to this. The C-4 has an unclassified range of 4,000 nautical 
miles. It can hit any place you want to hit. The D-5 has something in 
excess of 4,000 miles. The C-4 has what we call a circular error 
probability of 300 meters. That means if you fire it, the warheads, 
half of them will fall within 300 meters of the target.
  Let me restate that. On the C-4--the C-4--50 percent of the warheads 
will hit within 300 meters of the target. And the D-5 will hit within 
150 meters.
  So for $4.5 billion, with a 100-kiloton warhead that will destroy 
everything for miles around, you get a warhead that will hit 150 meters 
closer to the target, 450 feet.
  It is the most asinine thing I can imagine, to spend $4.5 billion to 
replace a missile that is that accurate, that has that life expectancy. 
And, incidentally, they are only going to backfit four of the Trident I 
subs. They will take the other four out of service. And the four they 
will backfit will be out of service by the year 2016, and, as I said, 
the Pentagon says the C-4 missiles will last just as long.
  You just cannot find enough places to put money to satisfy most 
Members of the Senate, as long as it explodes. You cannot get 10 cents 
around here for something that will not explode.
  And I will tell you what we are going to wind up with. We are going 
to wind up with a nation exploding with ignorance because of our 
misplaced priorities.
  I will tell you what is despairing, what is so depressing. It is that 
you study these issues, you attend committee meetings, you listen to 
the chiefs of the military services. They tell you what is doable, what 
is not doable, what they want, what they do not want. We mark up the 
bill and we bring it to the floor. And no matter how meritorious your 
amendment may be, if it conflicts with the bill, the distinguished 
chairman of the committee--who is my friend, he has a right to do it--
he just gets up and says, ``I move to table the amendment.'' People 
walk through that door over there. He gives them the signal to vote 
``aye'' or to vote ``no.'' Many do not have a clue to what the 
amendment is about.
  These are complicated subjects. I admit that. But you cannot get 
anybody's attention on these issues. I have been given 10 minutes this 
morning to explain an immensely complex amendment that would save $4.5 
billion. If all 100 Senators were sitting on the floor, I might be able 
to convince them. But otherwise we will never get this budget under 
control until we have campaign finance reform. Here is $4.5 billion you 
might as well throw off the Washington Monument. It will do you just as 
much good.
  So, Mr. President, I am not going to belabor the point. Here is just 
another case. We have had case after case since we have been on this 
bill where the Pentagon says, ``No, we do not want to do it.'' Now, I 
admit, the Navy wants to do this. The Navy wants to backfit. But the 
people who understand the weaponry say it is a waste. The sume of $4.5 
billion to retrofit four submarines, which in all probability, if we 
ever get to START III, we will even have to take out of service before 
their service life expectancy ends.
  You know, if we had somebody to shoot at, maybe this would make some 
sense. I have said a half dozen times on the floor, and it is worth 
repeating, if I had made the offer to my colleagues 10 years ago, What 
would you give in defense spending to get rid of the Soviet Union? I 
daresay the least percentage that anybody would have given me is to say 
we could cut Defense by 30 percent if we did not have the Soviet Union.
  Now, the Soviet Union's bombers, the Russian bombers, are not on 
alert. Their missiles are not targeted at us. And they are destroying 
ballistic missile submarines and ICBM silos. And what are we doing? We 
are putting $7 billion more in the Defense budget than the Pentagon 
asked for, and continuing to spend twice as much money as our eight 
most likely adversaries combined.
  On a personal note, this morning at breakfast my wife said, ``What 
are you going to do, Dale?'' I said, ``I am going to fight another 
fight with the windmills. I love jousting with windmills.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I ask for an additional 2 minutes, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. ``Go down there and find a battle.'' I said, ``I 
probably won't even offer it or I will withdraw it.'' On the way down I 
thought, ``No. Let's just let everybody vote for another $4.5 billion. 
Maybe, if this whole thing will get so bad, the President will veto the 
bill.''
  So, Mr. President, I am not going to withdraw it. I am going to let 
everybody vote on it. And they can go home and tell folks about how 
those old Russians used to be the Soviet Union, now the Russians or 
North Koreans or somebody else is going to come up the Potomac River 
and get us. I have listened to that for 21 years. I heard that every 
year since I have been here.
  Everybody wonders why we have a $4.5 trillion debt and why we have 
such a terrible time getting our deficit under control. And in the last 
20 years--you listen to this, colleagues--nondefense discretionary 
spending--immunization of children, education, law enforcement, 
highways, everything that goes in the making us a decent, civilized 
nation--has gone down. You think of that. The budget is about three 
times higher than it was in 1970, and nondefense domestic discretionary 
spending has gone down. And defense spending is up about 100 percent. I 


[[Page S 12319]]
think the first budget I saw when I came here in 1975 was $145 billion.
  And so many Senators get up here and say, oh, defense spending has 
gone down in real dollars. When we wake up and realize the security of 
this Nation does not just depend on how many tanks and planes and guns 
and bombs we have, it will be too late.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the order, the Senator from Alaska has 5 
minutes.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, it does not give me any pleasure to speak 
in opposition, because my friend is always eloquent and impressive. But 
most sincerely, I believe my friend is not correct in this instance.
  First of all, there is no buildup in the U.S. nuclear forces; 8 years 
ago, when we began our drawdown, we also retired a few of our 
submarines. In fact, we retired 50 of them. As a result, 30 Poseidon 
and Trident I submarines are now in drydock.
  Second, one would conclude that from this presentation there must be 
cost savings. This amendment calls for the deletion of $150 million. It 
is a whole lot of money, but if this amendment is adopted then we will 
have to add $250 million to close up the production and to provide for 
replacement parts--$250 million.
  Is the D-5 necessary? I have a letter dated August 11, 1995, from the 
Department of the Navy, Secretary of the Navy, and I am going to read 
the last paragraph:

       The D-5 missile, currently in production, has greater 
     range, better reliability, much improved accuracy and most 
     importantly, twice the design life of its predecessor, the C-
     4, which ceased production in 1987. Even with an aggressive 
     and expensive sustainment program, the C-4 cannot be expected 
     to last the projected life of the submarines which carry 
     them. Therefore, the C-4 will require substantial and costly 
     life extension efforts or replacement by another missile. The 
     most sensible and cost-effective approach to this issue is to 
     continue procurement of D-5 missiles and continue planning 
     for backfit for four submarines.
       Your continued support is appreciated. John H. Dalton, 
     Secretary of the Navy.

  If we end the production, it could also reduce incentives for Russia 
to implement both START and START II. While there is every indication 
that START I and START II will ultimately enter into force, I think it 
is both premature and unwise to make major force structure decisions, 
such as immediately stopping D-5 missile production.
  Terminating production of the D-5 at this time will severely degrade 
the capability of our strategic forces. The D-5 missile provides for 
better accuracy, as the Secretary stated and, therefore, Mr. President, 
I hope that my colleagues will oppose this amendment and support the 
management of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield his remaining time?
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute.
  Mr. INOUYE. I yield back time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is there any time for the Senator from Arkansas?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, his time has expired.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have been requested not to start the 
next amendment until 9:30. That was the understanding. If the Senator 
from Arkansas would like a few more minutes, we will be happy to let 
him speak.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator very much, if I may take a few 
minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 
minutes for the Senator from Arkansas and the remainder to the Senator 
from Hawaii, and then we will start the vote at 9:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me clarify one thing. My amendment 
takes the $120 million out that starts us down the road to backfitting 
these Trident submarines. Bear in mind it is always that way, the first 
$120 million does not amount to much. When you vote against this 
amendment, you are voting to go ahead and do the backfit. You are 
talking about $4.5 billion. But all this amendment does is postpone the 
decision on whether to embark on this program or not. We have at least 
3 years to make this decision.
  My good friend, the Senator from Hawaii, has said that this will 
close the line down. I do not understand that argument because there 
are six D-5 missiles in this bill, and I do not touch them. I am not 
trying to stop the production of those six D-5 missiles, so there is no 
threat of closing the line down.
  All I am saying is, let us postpone the decision on whether we are 
going to backfit these missiles for at least a couple of years, because 
if the Russians do ratify START II, we are going to be right off on 
START III and Trident submarines are going to be a part of the START 
III talks.
  So, Mr. President, it is an opportunity to jeopardize defense not one 
whit and make a sensible decision that later on may save us $4.5 
billion.
  As I say, let me point out one more time, that even the Navy will 
tell you the C-4 missiles, which are on these submarines right now, 
will last as long as the submarines will. So when you start on this 
$4.5 billion program, I will tell you what you get. You get a warhead 
that will land 150 meters closer to its target, and when you are 
talking about a 100-kiloton weapon, who cares?
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, once again, I note for my colleagues that 
we have received a letter from the Secretary of the Navy, dated this 
morning, requesting our support for continued D-5 missile production.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                           Department of the Navy,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                  Washington, DC, August 11, 1995.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Last year's comprehensive Nuclear 
     Posture Review recommended a START II compliant strategic 
     deterrent force for the United States which the President 
     approved. The continuing importance of our strategic TRIAD in 
     providing a survivable, responsive, and flexible deterrent 
     was reaffirmed in the force structure defined by the review.
       When START II enters into force, the fourteen TRIDENT 
     submarines which comprise the Navy portion of the TRIAD will 
     represent our only day-to-day survivable leg of the TRIAD. 
     Only ten submarines have been or will be completed with the 
     newer 5-D missile. Four of the remaining eight ships require 
     backfit to carry the D-5. In concluding that backfit of these 
     submarines was the proper course for the nation, the Nuclear 
     Posture Review recognized the improved military effectiveness 
     and reliability of the D-5, the operational and fiscal 
     efficiencies which accrue from maintaining only one strategic 
     missile in the fleet, and the need to ensure that missile 
     service life is matched to that of the submarines which carry 
     them.
       The D-5 missile, currently in production, has greater 
     range, better reliability, much improved accuracy, and most 
     importantly, twice the design life of its predecessor, the C-
     4, which ceased production in 1987. Even with an aggressive 
     and expensive sustainment program, the C-4 cannot be expected 
     to last the projected life of the submarines which carry 
     them. Therefore, the C-4 will require substantial and costly 
     life extension efforts or replacement by another missile. The 
     most sensible and cost-effective approach to this issue is to 
     continue procurement of D-5 missiles and continue planning 
     for backfit for four submarines.
       Your continued support is appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                                   John H. Dalton,
                                            Secretary of the Navy.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we do understand the feelings of the 
Senator from Arkansas. However, I remind the Senate that missile 
production continues in Russia. We still have this force to maintain, 
and we are following the request of the Navy which, as the Senator from 
Hawaii has indicated, is really more cost-effective than doing what the 
Senator from Arkansas wants.
  He would require not only the $250 million to cancel the existing 
contract, but then we would have to go back, as the Secretary of the 
Navy points out, and recondition and modernize the C-4 before its 
lifespan is over.
  Mr. President, I move to table the Bumpers amendment, and I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. 

[[Page S 12320]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there was to be an intervening amendment. 
At the request of the sponsor, he urges that we go ahead and vote on 
this amendment and then Senator Harkin will take his time on his 
amendment. That will be followed by a vote on his amendment.
  Then we will take the time on Senator Kerry's amendment and proceed 
in that fashion in order to accommodate the sponsors. If it takes 
unanimous consent to change the request from last night, I ask 
unanimous consent the order be as I just stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion 
to lay on the table the Bumpers amendment No. 2398. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 393 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--31

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Jeffords
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bradley
     Simpson
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2398) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.


                           Amendment No. 2396

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there is one amendment not covered by our 
agreement last night, No. 2396, Senator Hutchison's amendment. There is 
2 minutes on either side.
  I ask unanimous consent we yield her the full 4 minutes prior to her 
withdrawal of that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. STEVENS. May we have order, please?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I put an amendment on the floor in the 
open body of the Senate about 6:45 last night. About 10:30 I saw the 
senior senator from Nebraska protesting that I had put an amendment in 
that he had just now heard about.
  This was not some new amendment. This was an amendment that embodied 
language that has already been passed by this body. Every sentence in 
it has already been voted on and passed by the U.S. Senate.
  So what does the amendment do? Because we are being held up in the 
Defense authorization bill, I wanted to make sure that the very 
important language that we had already passed would be part of the 
appropriations bill. It is important because it is a key issue between 
the Republicans and the Democrats. I think that has become very clear 
because that is now why we know that the authorization bill is being 
held up and the threat of holding up this bill has now been made.
  What does the amendment do? The amendment provides for Department of 
Energy to maintain and enhance of our nuclear deterrent capabilities. 
The bill provides further direction to the DOE to make necessary 
decisions to clean up nuclear waste sites.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order, please. The 
Senator deserves to be heard.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. It makes sure we have new reactor options for 
disposition of fissile materials. Why do we need this amendment? We 
need this amendment because the Department of Energy's published 5-year 
budget plan calls for cuts in the weapons activities of up to 40 
percent in fiscal year 1997 and beyond. The DOE portion of the Defense 
authorization bill should be used for its intended purpose, to meet the 
nuclear deterrent capability and the security needs of this country. 
The issue is not testing of new weapons. It is about assuring U.S. 
nuclear deterrence. If we are going to maintain a credible nuclear 
weapons capability in our country, we must assure the safety----
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. And reliability of our existing stockpile. Unless we 
have the ability to continue experiments and testing, we cannot assure 
either. Hydronuclear testing will not violate any U.S. treaty 
commitment nor our self-imposed moratorium on nuclear testing.
  This is a key issue for the future of this country. We now know there 
are nuclear capacities in as many as 16 countries around the world. The 
idea that we would not maintain our nuclear stockpile and have the 
ability to test and make sure that we can defend this country is one I 
will never understand.
  So, Mr. President, this is a key issue. I am going to withdraw my 
amendment because I want to have a Defense bill so the armed services 
of this country will have the money they need, after October 1, to 
defend our country. But this issue will not go away.
  This is an issue of our future and the safety of our future 
generations. It is clear from the delays and the hold up in completing 
action on the Defense authorization bill for the first time in at least 
10 years and maybe more, and the threat to overturn this bill that we 
have worked so hard on for the last 2 days--it is clear we have a 
philosophical difference between the Democrats and Republicans in this 
Senate.
  I am not going to hold up the bill but, Mr. President, we will not 
back away from protecting our future generations. I will bring this 
bill up again and again and again, until we make sure that we can do 
what we need to do to preserve our future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time under the unanimous consent has 
expired.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator from Texas withdraw her amendment?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2396) was withdrawn.


                      Amendment No. 2424 withdrawn

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will withdraw amendment 2424.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2424) was withdrawn.
  Mr. STEVENS. There is now time for the Senator from Iowa?


                           Amendment No. 2400

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the amendment of the 
Senator from Iowa. Under the order there are 10 minutes allotted to the 
Senator from Iowa, 5 minutes under the control of the Senator from 
Alaska.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment at the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the pending question.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, do I have 10 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 10 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thought last night it was a 15-minute 
agreement.

[[Page S 12321]]

  Mr. STEVENS. It is 15; you have 10, I have 5.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). That is 15 minutes total. The 
Senator has 10 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment is to reduce the amount 
provided in excess of the Pentagon's request to produce the Kiowa 
helicopters by----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order. The Senator 
deserves to be heard. The Senate is not in order.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is to reduce the request for the 
Kiowa helicopters by $125 million. Again, this was not a request by the 
Pentagon. It was not a request by the Army. It was put in there. And I 
think this is, again, the amount of money we could save our taxpayers. 
We do not need it. The armed Kiowa Warrior OH-58D helicopter is used 
for light attack and reconnaissance. It has a two-man crew, and is used 
in missions by itself or, more usually, together with the Apache 
helicopters.
  In combination with the Apaches, the armed Kiowa Warrior would locate 
and designate a target with a laser beam. Apaches would then fire a 
Hellfire missile at a ground target. However, the armed Kiowa Warrior 
itself carries up to four Hellfire missiles, plus it has a 50-caliber 
machinegun.
  I have no problem with the armed Kiowa Warrior in its history as a 
helicopter. It served our country well in the gulf war. It searched out 
Iraqi patrol boats. However, I want to emphasize the primary role of 
the Kiowa now is as a scout helicopter.
  The Army requested $71.334 million for 33 of these helicopters. The 
committee added another $125 million for 20 more. Mr. President, this 
works out to be about $2.16 million per helicopter for the Army-
requested Kiowa, and about $6 million per helicopter for the committee-
added Warriors.
  Again, there is another way, basically, of taking care of the problem 
that we have in terms of getting the reconnaissance, the scout 
missions. That is by using what is called a UAV, an unmanned aerial 
vehicle known as the UAV.
  The military magazines, such as Aviation Week & Space Technology, 
have devoted whole sections to the UAV's.
  The UAV is a small airplane. It is remote controlled. It does not 
have a pilot on board. It has all the instrumentation such as low-light 
TV cameras, laser rangefinders, thermal sensors, and optical 
boresights. It has everything that a scout helicopter has except people 
on board.
  The Army has battle tested the UAV's. Both the Hunter UAV and the 
Predator UAV have shown they can better fill the scout role in recent 
tests in Bosnia.
  So again we are moving into a whole new era of information gathering 
on the battlefield.
  So why now put another $125 million into taking a helicopter that 
basically has been built since 1968--and it is an old frame. Obviously, 
as I said, it worked well in the past. But it seems like we are 
spending $125 million to take all these old helicopters, fix them up to 
be not only a scout but Kiowa Warrior helicopter, when, in fact, we 
have a cheaper, more cost-effective way of getting the information to 
the battlefield. And the UAV, the Hunter UAV, works out to be about 
$2.5 million per vehicle if you include the share of the ground system, 
whereas the Kiowa is coming in at over $6 million per vehicle. And, I 
repeat, no lives are put at risk. Recently we lost one young pilot and 
had another captured by the North Koreans. They were piloting a 
helicopter over North Korea. That would not have happened if we had 
used a UAV instead.
  So, in short, what I am saying is there is a revolution going on in 
this kind of technology, and we are funding UAV technology heavily in 
this bill. So it does not seem to me to make sense to then take another 
$125 million and put it into, as I said, this old airframe that goes 
back to 1968 and to waste this money on an outdated helicopter. For 
anything that is that far out of date, the more you try to fix it up, 
the more it costs. That is really what is going on here.
  So, again I point out, the Army has not requested it, and the 
Pentagon has not requested it. They put the money in there for the 20 
additional, and I think we could save that $125 million. If the 
committee saw fit to put that much more into the UAV technology, this 
Senator probably would have no objection to it.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this upgrade will make the Kiowa Warrior 
night- and armed-reconnaissance capable. It also will give it the 
ability to be converted to a medical evacuation helicopter for night 
use while it is armed.
  It is a very vital necessity, according to the Army people that we 
have dealt with. And I would only disagree with my friend on one item. 
The Army listed this as being its most critical aviation deficiency. 
That is why we have funded it.
  I am prepared to yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, do I have any time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I just cannot resist commenting on the 
statement by my friend from Alaska about the use of some of these for 
medical evacuation. That is a new one I had not heard of. But I would 
point out that there is an article from Flight International of late 
last year that the military is now giving away--giving away--giving 
away over 2,000 helicopters to be used for medical evacuation by the 
National Guard and police forces, and everybody else, I guess. The 
District of Columbia police force is going to get some, too. If they 
want medical evacuation, they are giving away 2,000 of them. That is a 
new one I had not heard of before.
  But, again I still think the basic reason for this is the scout 
helicopter, and I think we ought to move ahead in the new technology we 
have.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. This is a two-place helicopter, 
a converter, to become a medical evacuation helicopter, I am informed, 
for night use. It is very critical.
  If the Senator is prepared to yield back his time, I am prepared to 
yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, I move to table the Harkin amendment, and I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now ask that be set aside temporarily 
so that we might hear from the Senator from Massachusetts for a motion 
to recommit the bill, following which there is 2 minutes to either side 
on that matter. As far as I am concerned, the Senator can have the full 
4 minutes if he would like.
  We will then proceed to vote on both amendments. I might say to the 
Senate at that time those will be the last two amendments that I know 
of on this bill. We will then follow with third reading after that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  On the motion to recommit, the Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.

                           motion to recommit

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding me this 
time, which is obviously a sign of how truly contentious this amendment 
is and where it may wind up.
  But I just would like to suggest to my colleagues that, if we stand 
back from the norm that has governed the way in which we have passed 
the Defense authorization and the Defense appropriations bills in the 
past, measure it against the needs of the country, measure it against 
the needs of the military, and measure it against reality, you really 
cannot help but ask yourself: How is it when last year we enacted a 
$241 billion budget, that this year where the President requested, with 
the consent of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a $236 billion budget, we 
are, nevertheless, increasing the Defense budget? We are increasing it 
in the face of extraordinary cuts in almost every other portion of the 
budget. We are cutting safe schools and drug-free schools. We are 
cutting substance abuse money. We are even targeting Cops in the Street 
money. Yet, here we are with the end of the cold war incapable of 
finding a 2-percent reduction in the military budget.
  Now, I think I am as sensitive as anybody here to having a military 
that 

[[Page S 12322]]

is second to nobody in the world. But I would respectfully suggest to 
my colleagues that with creative approaches, for instance, encouraging 
private ownership of industrial assets used in defense production--
something that should appeal to everybody here--with a procurement of 
the most cost-effective airlift, the C-17's, or commercial, with the 
repeal of something as wasteful and as ancillary as the civilian 
marksmanship program, if we were simply to scale back the production 
level and maintenance activities at DOE to support an arsenal level of 
4,000 warheads, which is above START II, all of these things would 
leave us with an adequate deterrent capacity--and all of these things 
would not threaten our defense capacity one iota--we could find a 2-
percent reduction in this budget.
  So this is a vote really about our own creativity and our own 
thoughtfulness and our own capacity to try to show Americans that as we 
reduce 15, 20, 8, or 10 percent in all the other sectors of the budget 
that affect Americans equally, we ought to be able to find the 2-
percent reduction in this budget.
  We are instead raising this overall level over 1995, and we are 
raising it beyond the President's proposal. The difference is $6 
billion.
  I would respectfully suggest that in the pipeline itself you can find 
hundreds of millions of dollars that would allow us to share the 
sacrifice that we are asking all Americans to bear. If we are going to 
ask them to bear a $270 billion reduction in Medicare so that we can 
give them back money in a tax reduction, we ought to at least be able 
to find 2 percent in this budget.
  So my amendment does not presume to tell people how to do it. It does 
not cut any one program. It simply says to the Armed Services 
Committee, take this back, be more creative, come back to us, show us a 
2 percent reduction measured against the reductions in all of the rest 
of the budget.
  I think that is a fair and a sensible way to approach deficit 
reduction as well as the responsibilities of sharing the sacrifice.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am constrained to say anything about 
the Seawolf.
  I move to table this motion and 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.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, before the vote is commenced, I want to try 
to alert my colleagues about what could happen after this.
  I understand we are going to third reading which is as far as you can 
go because the House has not passed the bill.
  I want to first commend the managers of this DOD appropriations bill. 
They have done an outstanding job. We may or may not file cloture. 
There may be a vote on cloture on the DOD authorization bill. There may 
be a vote on the Summers nomination. There will be a vote, if we reach 
an agreement on the Summers nomination. There will be very little 
debate on that nomination.
 But it depends on the agreement we get on the DOD authorization bill.

  When we started the negotiating, we had eight amendments, and then I 
got 37 yesterday from one side and 15 from one side. We are not going 
to accept that agreement if we cannot get a good agreement. A lot of 
Members who had amendments on the DOD bill and then put them on the 
appropriations bill, then dreamed up some more to put on the 
authorization bill, the same amendments.
  I thought we were operating in good faith. And if not, then we will 
have a cloture vote later today, and we are not going to release any 
nominees--not one, not one Ambassador, not one judge, not anybody 
else--until we get a satisfactory agreement.
  That is what this was all about. It was all about good faith. And I 
just ask my colleagues, I think we played the game and we hoped you 
would.
  There are a lot of these amendments that have already been offered, 
and Members dreamed up some other amendments to put back on DOD again.
  We are not going to bring up DOD authorization unless we can do it in 
3 or 4 hours when we get back. Welfare reform is going to be on the 
floor, and it is going to stay on the floor for 4 or 5 days. We are not 
going to be interrupted by 2 or 3 days, the same people making the same 
speeches they have made on DOD appropriations on DOD authorization.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. I appreciate the remarks of the distinguished majority 
leader, and I say to him we are working as hard as we can. Your people 
are here in the Cloakroom now and amendments are being peeled off and 
an agreement is imminent, I think. So I would hope that we all 
understand we are doing as well as we can on both sides.
  So when the majority leader says there is 15 additional amendments on 
that side and you are trying to cut those down, maybe we have twice 
that many, we will cut those down. But we are getting very close.
  I want Senators to know everything is being done in good faith. There 
is not any bad faith here. It is all being done in good faith, and I 
hope that we will have an agreement that everyone will accept and have 
it shortly.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, under the agreement from last evening, 
these are 10-minute votes.


               Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 2400

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin]. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 394 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--35

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bradley
       
  The motion to table the amendment (No. 2400) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, if it has been announced.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


           Vote On The Motion To Table The Motion To Recommit

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the motion to recommit offered by the Senator from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Kerry].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] is 
absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 38, as follows:
  
[[Page S 12323]]


                      [Rollcall Vote No. 395 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--38

     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bradley
     Simon
       
  So the motion to table the motion to recommit was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                      disposal of bonaire housing

  Mr. COHEN. I would like to bring to the manager's attention a problem 
with the disposal of surplus property in Presque Isle, ME, from the 
former Loring Air Force Base. The designated local reuse authority is 
having difficulty with the Department of the Interior in the disposal 
of the Federal property known as the BonAire Housing Complex. I 
understand that it is the intention of the chairman to assist the Maine 
delegation in resolving this matter.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Maine is correct. I will be pleased to 
work to address this issue in an appropriate manner.
  Mr. COHEN. I thank the distinguished chairman for his assistance on 
this matter.


                               gear infac

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I would like to discuss with the 
distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations 
Defense Subcommittee a matter of importance to my constituents and a 
key element of the defense industrial base.
  Mr. STEVENS. I would be pleased to discuss such a matter with my 
colleague.
  Mr. BOND. As Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye know, the committee 
has provided funds in the past to continue work performed under a 
program referred to as the Instrumented Factory for Gears, or GEAR 
INFAC. As a primary purchaser and user of precision gears, the Army has 
endorsed and supported this program.
  Mr. INOUYE. The Senator is correct. The committee added $8,500,000 in 
fiscal year 1995 to continue the GEAR INFAC Program. The funds were 
included in the research, development, test and evaluation, Army 
account, effecting the transfer of this program to the Army from the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator from Hawaii.
  The Army provided documents to my office indicating that the fiscal 
year 1996 DOD budget included $6,000,000 for GEAR INFAC. However, new 
documents make it unclear whether the Army has allocated adequate funds 
to continue this important program. I would ask the chairman and 
ranking member to discuss this matter with the Army to determine what 
is available and what is required for GEAR INFAC. Furthermore, I would 
ask the chairman to ensure that adequate funds are available in the 
conference agreement on the DOD Appropriations Act, 1996, for GEAR 
INFAC.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I assure the Senator that we will discuss 
this matter with the Army. I will work in conference to address the 
fiscal year 1996 requirement for funds to support GEAR INFAC.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read 
the third time.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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.


                  Order For Vote on September 5, 1995

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
take place at 5 p.m. on September 5.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that if the Senate votes in the 
affirmative on S. 1087, it be held at the desk until the Senate 
receives H.R. 2126 from the House; that at that time, the bill, H.R. 
2126, be deemed to be called up, read twice, and all after the enacting 
clause be stricken, and that the text of S. 1087, as passed by the 
Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof, that the bill, as amended, be 
deemed read for the third time, and passed, and that the motion to 
reconsider that vote be laid upon the table.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate insist on its 
amendments, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing 
votes of the two Houses, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  I further ask unanimous consent that, upon completion of above 
action, S. 1087 be indefinitely postponed.
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object. I 
just hope to keep the Senate mindful of the Senate rules. Does the 
Senator, in setting a time specific for a final vote on the bill, 
include in his unanimous-consent request a waiver of paragraph 4 of 
rule XII of the Standing Rules of the Senate?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. I ask unanimous consent that 
that be included in the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senate for its 
cooperation. I particularly express, once again my great pleasure in 
being able to work with my friend, Senator Inouye. We are cochairmen of 
this subcommittee. I appreciate him very much and feel very deeply my 
affection for him. I thank him for all his help in getting this bill 
passed.
  Let me thank also our staff members, particularly Steve Cortese on 
this side and Charlie Houy on that side, and others who worked with us 
so well on this bill.
  I thank the leader.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank my leader for his kind words. I 
wish to thank the Senator from Alaska for his masterful management of 
this bill. I would like to also note three individuals who have been of 
great assistance to us by providing timely and correct information 
regarding the many amendments that have been offered: Bobbie Sherb, an 
Army lieutenant colonel and a nurse, who has monitored health care 
matters for the subcommittee; Ryan Henry, a Navy captain on detail with 
the subcommittee, who has monitored many of the details of this bill; 
Emelie East of the subcommittee staff; and last, but not least, Charlie 
Houy. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________