[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6421-S6424]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of S.
1745, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1745) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 1997 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for
other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Dorgan amendment No. 4048, to reduce funds authorized for
research, development, test, and evaluation for national
missile defense.
Kyl amendment No. 4049, to authorize underground nuclear
testing under limited conditions.
Amendment No. 4048
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 15 minutes of debate on the
pending Dorgan amendment No. 4048, equally divided.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I understand there is a period of time to
continue debate ever so briefly prior to the scheduled vote. Senator
Levin, I believe, wishes to take just a couple of minutes. I intend to
yield to him when he arrives. When Senator Thurmond comes through, I
will be happy to yield to him.
Let me describe just briefly exactly what this amendment is and what
it is not. The Defense authorization bill that comes to the floor of
the Senate includes in it $508 million for research and development for
a national missile defense program. That is a program that has been
bantered about around here. Some call it national missile defense, some
call it Defend America, some call it star wars. Whatever you call it,
it is a program to try to find a way to intercept potential incoming
missiles launched by a rogue nation, an adversary, or launched
accidentally by someone else. This is the outgrowth of the old star
wars proposals back in the early 1980's.
There is in the Clinton budget a proposal for continued research and
development of $508 million. The majority party, in constructing the
piece of legislation brought to the floor today,
[[Page S6422]]
said, ``That is not enough. We want to add $300 million to that; $508
million is not enough. We want it to be $808 million.''
My amendment very simply says, ``no,'' we should get rid of the $300
million that was added extra, and go back to the $508 million base
proposal offered in the administration's budget, $508 million requested
by the Pentagon, $508 million requested by the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, by the Secretary of Defense, saying, ``This is what
our country needs. This is what is advisable to spend.'' The bill
brought to the floor said ``No, the Defense Department does not know
what it is talking about. We want to authorize you to spend $300
million more.''
I read a quote from General Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, who says, in speaking of this kind of activity, adding
$300 million--which, by the way, is designed to provide for and require
an early deployment on a national missile defense program of some type
which would provide multiple sites and spaced-based components which
will undercut the arms control agreements, the very agreements that are
now leading to a reduction in the nuclear threat. There are missiles
being destroyed in the old Soviet Union, in Russia today, because we
have arms control agreements that provide for the destruction of those
missiles. The world is safer because those missiles do not exist, those
nuclear warheads do not exist, and they do not exist because of arms
control agreements that have provided that both the Russians and the
Independent States of the old Soviet Union are reducing launchers,
warheads, bomber airplanes and others. We are doing the same. This
makes eminent good sense.
This proposal, incidentally, leads to an undercutting of all those
arms control agreements. Should we protect our country? Of course we
should. However, should we do so in a way that undercuts the arms
control agreements that are now leading to a reduction in the threat?
No, I do not think that makes any sense.
General Shalikashvili says the following:
Efforts which suggest changes to or withdrawal from the ABM
Treaty may jeopardize Russian ratification of START II and
could prompt Russia to withdraw from START I. I am concerned
that failure of either START initiative will result in
Russian retention of hundreds or even thousands more nuclear
weapons, thereby increasing both the costs and the risks that
we face.
In short, the decision, in fact, the requirement by those who support
this piece of legislation that we spend $300 million more in pursuit of
a policy that may result in a potential adversary having hundreds or
even thousands of more nuclear weapons is, in my judgment, a failed
policy.
Mr. President, $300 million ought not be added to this. My amendment
withdraws the $300 million.
How much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes and 5 seconds.
Mr. DORGAN. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Michigan, Senator
Levin.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank Senator
Dorgan for his leadership on this. We ought to rely on the uniformed
military in terms of what is needed to produce a national missile
defense in a sensible time period so that we can make a decision to
deploy at a time a decision to deploy is needed.
What do the uniformed military say about funding levels? We have
heard a lot of political rhetoric about national missile defense. The
proposed budget in front of us would add $300 million to the $500
million the administration requested. These are not just numbers
hopefully pulled out of the air. The $500 million that the
administration asked for is what our uniformed military say is needed
to produce and develop a national missile defense in a timely way.
Now, that is not President Clinton saying it, that is not Secretary
Perry saying it; that is the uniformed military saying it. It is called
the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, the JROC. The JROC, in
January of this year, wrote to their chiefs--these are the Vice Chiefs
of the four Departments--saying that they wanted and needed no more
than $500 million per year for national missile defense. This is a
memorandum which I am going to ask to have inserted into the Record.
This is what our uniformed military say: The JROC believes that with
the current and projected ballistic missile threat that the funding
level ``for national missile defense should be no more than $500
million per year.'' That is in the budget request of the
administration. They went on to say, ``We believe that the proposed
acquisition level for national missile defense is balanced in
proportion.''
I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the Chiefs of the Army,
Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, be printed in the Record at this
time in support of the administration's request and which is very
inconsistent with the add-on of $300 million by the Armed Services
Committee.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The Vice Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Washington, DC.
Memorandum for the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
and Technology.
Subject: National Missile Defense.
1. This memorandum is to inform you of The Joint Requirements
Oversight Councils (JROC) position of prioritizing a Theater
Missile Defense (TMD) capability over a National Missile
Defense (NMD) capability.
2. The JROC believes that with the current and projected
ballistic missile threat, which shows Russia and China as the
only countries able to field a threat against the US homeland
the funding level of NMD should be no more than $500 million
per year and TMD should be no more than $2.3 billion per year
through the FYDP. These funding levels will allow us to
continue to field critical TMD/NMD systems to meet the
projected threats and, at the same time, save dollars that
can be given back to the Services to be used for critical
recapitalization programs.
3. We believe the proposed TMD/NMD acquisition levels are
balanced and proportional and after great potential for
achieving an affordable ballistic missile defense
architecture that meets our joint warfighting needs.
W.A. Owens,
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Thomas S. Moorman, Jr.,
General, USAF, Vice Chief of Staff.
J.W. Prueher,
Admiral, U.S. Navy, Vice Chief of Naval Operations.
R.D. Hearney,
Assistant Commander of the Marine Corps.
Ronald H. Griffith,
General, U.S. Army, Vice Chief of Staff.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, before we vote on the Dorgan amendment,
I would like to make a few brief remarks and strongly urge my
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
First of all, let me be clear that the additional funds added in the
bill for national missile defense are not to support a space-based or
star wars defense system. In fact the funds are not to support a
deployment decision at all. We have simply followed the advice of the
Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization who has informed
the committee that about $800 million per year is needed to support a
robust technology development effort. This additional funding is
consistent with the administration's own NMD Program, which is supposed
to preserve the option of deploying a system by 2003. Regardless of
whether you support the Defend America Act, the administration's NMD
plan, or some other approach, you should support the funding
recommended by the committee to allow for a more comprehensive testing
program.
The Armed Services Committee did not earmark the funds for systems
that are not currently being developed by the Department of Defense. We
simply suggest more robust testing within the administration's own
program. This program would rely on a ground-based system. Nothing
associated with the additional funds in any way conflicts with the ABM
Treaty or even with the administration's own 3-plus-3 NMD Program.
I would also remind all Senators that Congress added $375 million
above the budget request for NMD in fiscal year 1996, which the
administration is presently obligating. The Department of Defense
recognized that additional funds were needed. The Director of BMDO has
stated this explicitly, and the committee added the funds in an
[[Page S6423]]
effort to reduce technical risk and preserve a realistic deployment
option around 2003.
Mr. President, in closing, let me urge my colleagues to oppose the
Dorgan amendment and to support the additional funds for NMD risk
reduction.
I yield to the able Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. NICKLES. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
Mr. NICKLES. I will be very brief. I compliment the Senator from
South Carolina for his leadership. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no''
on this amendment. This amendment would strike $300 million of money
that is used for research and development for missile defense. It is
kind of a shocking thing for most Americans to find out that we do not
have capabilities now to shoot down incoming missiles if you think the
primary responsibility of the Federal Government is the protection of
our people, the protection of our freedom. Yet, we do not have the
capabilities today to shoot down an incoming missile from wherever it
comes from. It may come from a belligerent nation, it may come from
other rogue nations, it may come from someone getting control over
missiles in the former Soviet empire.
But we do not have the capability to shoot them down. That bothers
me. Somebody might say, well, we have the Patriot. The Patriot worked
semisuccessfully in the Persian Gulf war. It shot down some Scud
missiles when they were right over their backyard. Not very effective.
As a matter of fact, we had American soldiers who lost their lives in
Saudi Arabia because of Scud missiles that were 20-some-odd years old
that landed in that neighborhood. The Patriot did not stop these. They
stopped some missiles. It is not effective.
We need to be able to have the capability to shoot down missiles
before they end up in our backyard. The threats are becoming more
serious all the time, and we need to be moving now in research and
development so we will have the system capability sooner rather than
when it is too late. When you have North Korea firing missiles in the
direction of Japan, when you have China firing missiles in the
direction of Taiwan, when you have China making implicit threats to the
United States, and even specifically Los Angeles, you realize this is a
much more dangerous world than it was 3 years ago.
We are now using our money to help Israel develop missile defense
capabilities. I support that. But it is very ironic that we do not give
ourselves the capability and enough resources to develop missile
technology to defend ourselves against an incoming missile, whether it
be an incoming intercontinental ballistic missile, with whatever
warheads--nuclear warheads, biological or chemical warheads. We should
not leave ourselves defenseless.
I am afraid that if we adopt the amendment by our friends on the
other side, we are doing just that--we are cutting back too much.
People like to call missile defense star wars, and maybe they score
political points by doing so. But they leave us without the capability
of moving forward rapidly, as quickly as possible, to shoot down
incoming missiles. The No. 1 priority of the Federal Government should
be the protection of our people, the protection of our freedom. We need
to have the capability to destroy incoming missiles from whatever
source. We need this money.
I compliment the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I hope our
colleagues will vote to delete and vote against this amendment. I yield
the floor.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has 1 minute
45 seconds. The Senator from North Dakota has 45 seconds.
Mr. THURMOND. I will yield back my time, unless somebody wants to
speak.
I understand the Senator from Oklahoma desires to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nickles). The Senator from Oklahoma is
recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his leadership in
this issue that we are discussing. Nothing new can be said on this
subject. I know what the final remarks will be from the Senator from
North Dakota. I want to talk about two things. No. 1, the threat; No.
2, the cost. If anybody out there believes it is going to cost so that
we will ultimately have the ability to save ourselves, protect
ourselves from missile attack--look at the CBO report and the figures
that they are batting around, $30 to $60 billion over 14 years, and
that has now been downgraded.
It is quite obvious that we wanted to have an Aegis ship with the
space sensors. We already have a $50 billion investment in 22 Aegis
ships that are out there. We can upgrade those, and reach into the
upper tier for about $3 to $4 billion over 4 years. If you add the $5
billion for sensors we could have a system in place that will stop an
incoming ballistic missile for the United States. Right now we have
nothing.
The vast majority of American people believe that after we have spent
all of this money that we have a system but we do not. We are almost
there. It is 90 percent paid for, and the threat is real.
For those who question the threat, remember the words of James
Woolsey who was the CIA Director for President Clinton. He said 2 years
ago that we know of between 20 and 25 nations that have or are in the
final stages of developing weapons of mass destruction and the missile
means of delivering those weapons. One expert after another expert
testified that threat is out there, that threat is real.
So, I would only say when you are considering taking out this little
bit of money that we have to try to go forward with this program, stop
and realize and stop and ask yourself the question. What if all of
these experts are right? Look at Oklahoma City. The Presiding Officer
and I represent the State of Oklahoma. We saw the devastation that took
place there. That was what is comparable to one ton of TNT. The
smallest nuclear warhead known is a kiloton, 1,000 times that power.
So if you are wrong, we are making a terrible mistake if we pass this
amendment.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is not about whether there should be
a missile defense program in this country. There exists in the bill
brought to this floor $2 billion for theater missile defense. I think
everyone probably knows that. It has not been mentioned. The
implication was that there was nothing in this bill for missile
defense. There is $2 billion for theater missile defense and $508
million was proposed by the Pentagon for national missile defense. The
bill comes to the floor saying $508 million for research and
development is not enough.
I simply say for the people who support throwing dollars at this
problem on national missile defense that it is not going to solve the
problem. The uniformed officers say $508 billion is enough of research
and development. Those of you who think that there is not an amount
that is enough, the more the merrier and let us spend as much as we can
spend are wrong.
This is a very simple vote to cut $300 million from this
authorization bill.
I hope my colleagues will support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The question is on agreeing to
the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, how much remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. NICKLES. 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 the Senator from North Dakota. On this question, the yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], the
Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] and the Senator from New Jersey
[Mr. Bradley] are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] and Senator from New
[[Page S6424]]
Jersey [Mr. Bradley] would each vote ``aye.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 160 Leg.]
YEAS--44
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Gregg
Harkin
Hatfield
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--53
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Faircloth
Frahm
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--3
Bradley
Bumpers
Pryor
The amendment (No. 4048) was rejected.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
unanimous-consent agreement
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Democratic leader and I are continuing
our negotiations with respect to the minimum wage issue. Therefore, in
hopes of reaching some agreement with respect to this issue and other
related matters, I now ask unanimous consent that no minimum wage
amendment or legislation be in order prior to the hour of 1 p.m. today
and, at 1 p.m, the majority leader be recognized so we can discuss this
issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Amendment No. 4049
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The business before the Senate is the Kyl-Reid
amendment to S. 1745.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be able to
proceed for 5 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I ask the Senator to yield for one
moment so I may ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment which is
pending?
Mr. BIDEN. Sure.
Mr. KYL. 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.
____________________