[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 203 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18803-S18804]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. BUMPERS. On the defense authorization bill, I was very pleased to 
listen last week to a man whom I believe is probably the most respected 
man in the United States on defense issues. He and I have had very 
serious disagreements, particularly about the size of defense spending. 
But I have never really questioned his motives, his intellect, or his 
understanding of the defense issues. Yet he stood on the floor last 
Friday and said he fully intended to vote against this defense 
authorization bill. That was Sam Nunn, the distinguished Senator from 
Georgia.
  He gave a lot of reasons, not the least of which was this so-called 
national missile defense system.
  Somehow or other, the people in this body simply cannot give up on 
the Soviet Union. Our defense policies and our State Department 
policies for as long as the memory of man runneth not, has been keyed 
to that terrible evil empire of the Soviet Union. We have spent tens 
and hundreds of billions--trillions, really, because we were so 
frightened of the military might of the Soviet Union.
  Interestingly, 2 weeks ago we learned that a lot of our defense 
spending and a lot of our policies were based on misinformation given 
to us by spies for the Soviet Union who were feeding us disinformation 
about how powerful the Soviet Union was, and it played right into the 
hands of the defense industries and the hawks of this country, and we 
spent trillions of dollars. That is one of the reasons we are in the 
pickle we are in with a $5 trillion debt we are trying to do something 
about.
  Now we come back, because we still cannot give up on that anti-Soviet 
mentality, and we say we want a national ballistic missile defense 
system in place by the year 2003 that will protect all 50 States. There 
is not any doubt, and neither the chairman nor the ranking member of 
the Armed Services Committee would refute, that that is going to 
require multiple antiballistic missile sites.
  And when you start talking about multiple sites, you are talking 
about a direct abrogation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, one of 
the very few treaties we still have in existence with the Soviet Union, 
now Russia. It says that neither country will deploy a strategic 
antiballistic missile system at more than one site in its own 
territory.
  I engaged Senator Nunn in a colloquy on this subject Friday 
afternoon, and asked him if this is not a legislative abrogation of the 
Antiballistic Missile Treaty. Senator Nunn very wisely answered in 
language that all lawyers understand. He said it constitutes an 
anticipatory breach. What that means is, once we deploy more than one 
site, we have in fact abrogated the treaty.
  Colleagues, let me ask you a question. How would we react if the 
Russians were to announce today, as we sit here debating this bill, 
that they are going to deploy a national missile defense system that 
will have many sites? I promise you that all 100 Senators would be on 
the floor squealing like a pig under a gate. And you would hear, 
``There they go again. You cannot trust them.'' Yet, here we cavalierly 
get ready to spend billions on a national missile defense system which 
will abrogate a treaty that is in the interest of the Russians, the 
United States, and all the people of the world.
  I ask you this: To add to the question, what if the Russians were 
doing this, what would our response be? It would be to start deploying 
one as quickly as we could. And you tell me when the ABM Treaty is gone 
and the Russians and the United States both have national missile 
defense systems, who do you think is better off? I can tell you nobody 
is better off, and the world becomes again a very dangerous place 
living with a hair trigger.
  The Russians are right now in the process of complying with START I. 
And they are complying with it by dismantling nuclear weapons. They, 
like the United States, are prepared to consider the ratification of 
START II which will cut nuclear weapons still further. Do you think if 
we go ahead with this national missile defense system the Russians are 
going to ratify START II? Of course, they are not. If we are going to 
deploy a system that will shoot down their missiles, they are not going 
to keep dismantling missiles. They are not stupid. They know exactly 
what is going on.
  So I am going to vote against this bill because it costs too much 
money, because the national missile defense plan envisioned in it is 
dangerous in the extreme, and because we are putting $493 million more 
into the B-2 program. And I defy anybody in the U.S. 

[[Page S18804]]
Senate to read the committee report and tell me what we are going to do 
with the money for the B-2. Is it for advanced procurement for more 
bombers? Or is it to take care of the flaws in the present bombers?
  The committee report had one line that was the most curious line I 
have ever seen in a conference committee report. It said the Senate 
conferees believe so and so. Who cares what the Senate conferees 
believe? It is what the conference of the House and the Senate both 
believe that we are supposed to be voting on.
  It reminds me of a story about a little boy. The teacher said, ``What 
do you believe?'' The boy said, ``I believe what the Methodists 
believe.'' She says, ``And what do the Methodists believe?'' He says, 
``They believe what I believe.'' ``And what do both you and the 
Methodists believe?'' ``We both believe in the same thing.''
  Mr. President, I invite all of my colleagues to read the committee 
report and tell me where the $493 million is going.
  Finally, I can remember all the years I have been here and posing the 
question about things in our defense budget: Why are we doing this and 
why are we doing that? And the answer has been, well, the President 
wants it, the chiefs want it, and the Secretary of Defense wants it. So 
we went merrily on our way spending tens of billions of dollars because 
they wanted it.
  Now you ask the powers that be in the U.S. Senate. Why are we doing 
it when the Secretary does not want it, the President does not want it, 
and the chiefs do not want it? The answer is, what do they know?
  Mr. President, at a time when everybody is groaning and straining to 
deal with the balanced budget and trying to accomplish a balanced 
budget, we have a defense appropriations bill which the President has 
already signed. I disagreed with the President on that because, as I 
have said before, my good friend, the President, has a right to be 
wrong just like I have. There is $7 billion more in that bill than 
anybody asked for--ships being built that they did not ask for, and in 
places where there was no bidding.
  So, Mr. President, I do not know how much longer this bill will be 
debated, but I can truthfully say that I think it is a terrible 
mistake. I think the world will be less safe once we pass this 
conference report.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________