[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.

                          ____________________