[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 203 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18811-S18812]
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 bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is with great disappointment that I 
oppose the conference report on the Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 1996. There are many good provisions in this bill that 
deserve the support of the Senate. But they are outweighed by other 
provisions which, if enacted, would damage American security, waste 
taxpayers dollars, and treat our servicemen and women unfairly.
  I voted against this bill when it passed the Senate in September. We 
then began a conference with the House that I hoped would produce a 
better bill. The conference lasted over 3 months, and now it has 
produced an even worse bill.
  One of the most serious defects in the bill is its provisions on 
ballistic missile defense, which would call upon the United States to 
violate the ABM Treaty.
  A compromise on this issue was painstakingly worked out by Senators 
Warner, Cohen, Nunn, and Levin, with broad Senate support and the 
approval of the administration. This was a carefully crafted 
compromise, and as we began the conference, Secretary Perry made clear 
that any substantial deviation which violates U.S. commitments under 
the ABM Treaty would be unacceptable. Yet the conference provision 
abandons that compromise.
  It threatens United States security because it undermines the ABM 
Treaty, and because it is also likely to prevent Russian implementation 
of the START I Treaty, and ratification of the START II Treaty.
  These treaties would reduce the number of Russian strategic nuclear 
weapons threatening the United States from 10,000 to 3,500. This 
reduction would increase U.S. security from nuclear attack to a much 
greater degree than the illusory security offered by the multibillion-
dollar missile defense system mandated by this legislation.
  I am also concerned about several additional issues related to the 
shipbuilding provisions in the bill. We have examined these provisions 
in detail in 

[[Page S18812]]
our Seapower Subcommittee, and I believe they will cause uncertainty, 
inefficiency, and unnecessary expenditures in the Department's 
shipbuilding program.
  The provisions on the development and procurement of submarines 
reject a sensible submarine program formulated by the Senate for the 
next generation new attack submarine. Instead, the bill requires the 
Navy to submit a new plan for submarine development and construction to 
build four submarines. Each one, according to the bill, is to be ``more 
capable and more affordable'' than its predecessor without further 
definition.
  Our experience on the Seapower Subcommittee makes clear that it is a 
difficult feat to build a new system that is both more capable and more 
affordable than the preceding system. This bill calls for a plan to do 
that four times in 4 years with attack submarines, a very mature 
technology.
  The bill language does not call for the Navy's report to consider the 
costs and risks associated with such a plan. We gain nothing if we end 
up with a plan for cheaper and more capable submarines, if they involve 
risky technologies that fail to work or, even worse, endanger the lives 
of our submarine personnel by reducing safety standards.
  This provision also establishes a new, independent congressional 
panel on submarine development. On the Senate Armed Services Committee, 
the Seapower Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Cohen, oversees submarine 
development. There is no need for another panel, for more bureaucracy, 
for further review of an issue that is already handled very well by the 
Armed Services Committee.
  In addition, this bill contains language that earmarks contracts for 
the construction of Aegis destroyers and sealift ships at specified 
shipyards. These provisions force the Navy to award contracts without 
the benefit of competition, without the ability to decide the merits of 
each case at the time of the award.
  If there are good reasons, such as industrial base concerns for 
designating particular ship contracts for particular shipyards, the 
Navy will come to Congress and tell us what they are. But Congress 
should not take this action on its own without clear and compelling 
justification.
  Mr. President, also included in this bill is the authorization of $20 
million for Cyclone patrol boats. These craft were not authorized in 
either the House or the Senate bill. The Special Operations Forces, 
which use these ships, did not request them either. There is no need 
for them, and this authorization should not have been included.
  Further, the bill prohibits the Defense Department from buying 
foreign produced roll-on/roll-off ships for the Ready Reserve Force. 
Meeting the force's requirement of five ships using upgraded foreign-
built hulls will cost a total of $150 million. The cost of using 
domestically produced hulls will be between $1 and $1.5 billion, well 
beyond the amount budgeted for this purpose.
  Given this massive cost differential, the choice is not merely 
between buying used, foreign-built ships and new, U.S.-built ships. It 
is also likely to be a choice between meeting our well-established lift 
requirements and accepting a continuing strategic sealift shortfall.
  I am also concerned about the provision in this bill that relates to 
the health and well being of our men and women in uniform. One 
objectionable provision in this bill calls for the mandatory separation 
of service members found to be HIV-positive. This provision is an 
especially flagrant example of discrimination against a group of loyal 
service members.
  The Defense Department has made clear its opposition to this 
requirement. It has repeatedly expressed support for its current 
policy, which allows service members with any disease or disability to 
continue to serve as long as they can fulfill their duties and pose no 
danger to themselves or their fellow service work members. The military 
has full authority to separate or retire individuals who are unfit for 
duty.
  Individuals with other debilitating diseases, such as hepatitis, 
cancer, diabetes, asthma, or acute heart disease, are not automatically 
discharged from the service. This bill singles out only those who are 
HIV-positive, and there is no justification for that discrimination.
  We raised this issue with the Senate conferees and asked for a vote 
on whether to insist on the Senate position opposing this provision but 
we were denied that opportunity to do so on this and many other issues.
  This bill is supposed to address the defense needs of the United 
States. Discharging qualified service men and women from our Armed 
Forces simply because they are HIV-positive serves no national defense 
need. The Defense Department has certified this point. This blatantly 
discriminatory provision has no place in this bill.
  The conference report also includes a provision that prohibits 
service women based overseas from obtaining abortions with their own 
private funds in U.S. military medical facilities. We have always 
provided this access to our service women to ensure that they have the 
same quality health care available to those on duty in the United 
States.
  This prohibition discriminates against women serving their country by 
preventing them from exercising their constitutionally protected right 
to choose when they are stationed overseas. This added restriction 
endangers their health, since alternative local facilities in other 
nations are often inadequate or unavailable.
  Under the bill's provision, a woman stationed overseas facing an 
unintended pregnancy may be forced to delay the procedure for several 
weeks, until she can travel to a location where adequate care is 
available. For each month an abortion is delayed, the risk to health 
increases.
  As we continue to struggle over balancing the budget and meeting 
important national priorities, this bill provides $7 billion more for 
defense spending than requested by the administration for the current 
fiscal year.
  At a time when families are going without heat in the winter because 
of cuts in the LIHEAP program, when aid to education is being cut, when 
Medicaid and Medicare are being cut in order to provide a tax break for 
wealthy Americans, it makes no sense to force billions of dollars more 
on the Pentagon than it wants or needs.
  It is a bad bill. I urge the Senate to defeat it, send it back to 
conference, and ask the conferees to remedy these numerous and serious 
defects.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. I shall only speak for 10 
minutes.

                          ____________________