[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 96 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6984-S6987]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                VANCE AFB MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Vance Air Force Base continues to be the 
preeminent pilot training base within the Department of the Air Force. 
Unfortunately, the Department of the Air Force has historically 
underfunded this installation in its military construction request. I 
have brought to your attention three projects which will assist Vance 
in meeting its infrastructure needs in the future. These projects 
include a base engineering complex, a consolidated logistics complex, 
and a project to add to and alter the Physical Fitness Training Center. 
It is my belief that planning and design funds for these projects, if 
identified, will allow the Department of the Air Force and Air 
Education and Training Command to consider these projects for inclusion 
in the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
  I might point out to the distinguished chairman that these projects 
have wide support elsewhere in Congress. The Senate Committee on 
Appropriations' fiscal year 1997 military construction appropriations 
bill directs that not less than $1,695,000 be made available for design 
of these projects from the ``Military Construction, Air Force'' 
account. Moreover, the House National Security Committee's fiscal year 
1997 Defense authorization bill ``directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force [to] conduct planning and design activities for the following 
projects: $288,000 for a physical fitness training center at Vance Air 
Force Base, OK; and $512,000 for a consolidated logistics complex at 
Vance Air Force Base, OK.'' Finally, the House Appropriations Military 
Construction Subcommittee's markup of the fiscal year 1997 
appropriations bill directs the Air Force ``to report to the committee 
on the need for these projects and its plans for construction by 
September 16, 1996.''
  Can the Chairman assure me that he will work with me to ask the Air 
Force to consider identifying funds for reprogramming in the coming 
months for planning and design purposes for these projects, which are 
so crucial to the future of Vance Air Force Base?
  Mr. THURMOND. I can assure my colleague that I will work with him to 
urge the Air Force to consider identifying sufficient funds through 
reprogramming to meet the planning and design requirements for the 
three projects you have identified at Vance Air Force Base. I would 
also urge the Department of the Air Force to reexamine these projects 
for inclusion in the 1997-2001 FYDP and subsequently the fiscal year 
1998 budget request. I am fully aware of the unique nature of Vance Air 
Force Base operations and applaud their continued efforts in achieving 
taxpayer savings through efficient training of our Nation's future 
aviators.


                       quadrennial defense review

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, along with Senator Ford as cochairman of the 
National Guard Caucus. I rise to address my concerns over the amendment 
to provide for a quadrennial defense review and the independent 
assessment of alternative force structures for the Armed Forces.
  While I applaud and appreciate the specific inclusion of the Reserve 
and National Guard components in the review. I would be remiss if I did 
not raise my concerns over the qualifications of the independent 
members of the National Defense Panel. I believe that for the panel to 
be truly independent it must be diverse and must include collectively, 
members knowledgeable in all components of the Nation's Armed Forces.
  I am concerned because of historical precedent set by the makeup of 
prior panels when composed of Secretariat designees. It is my 
understanding that when the Commission on Roles and Missions initially 
conducted its work,

[[Page S6985]]

there was no one with specific background expertise in National Guard 
issues.
  Mr. THURMOND. That is correct.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, if I may, I remember that incident very 
clearly and as the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee will 
remember, in the endgame of that Commission's work, the Secretary did 
finally appoint a member with National Guard expertise but it was well 
after the bulk of the work had been completed.
  Mr. NUNN. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. FORD. The Senate from Missouri and I want the Secretary of 
Defense be aware of the National Guard Caucus' grave concerns and urge 
you to ensure that this independent review team be truly balanced.
  Mr. NUNN. I assure the Senator that I am aware of his concerns and 
will keep them in mind as we deliberate with the Secretary of Defense.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask the Chairman, to be resolute in his 
insistence that at least one member of the panel have a recognized 
understanding of National Guard functions when consulting with the 
Secretary of Defense on the composition of the panel and I and Senator 
Ford would be more than willing to lend any assistance the Chairman and 
the ranking member might require during those consultations.
  Mr. THURMOND. I want to thank the senior Senator from Missouri for 
raising his concerns on this matter. The Senator has always been a 
stalwart supporter of Guard interests and the points he raises with the 
senior Senator from Kentucky are compelling. I assure the Senators that 
I will insist that the concerns of the National Guard will be 
adequately represented in the review panel.


      Department of Energy Liability for Natural Resource Damages

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased that earlier today the Senate 
approved my amendment to S. 1745, the Department of Defense 
authorization bill, dealing with the Department of Energy's liability 
for damages to natural resources with respect to Federal Superfund 
sites. I want to thank Chairman Thurmond and Ranking Member Nunn and 
their respective staffs for working with me to ensure the passage of 
this amendment.
  My amendment requires the Department of Energy to conduct a study of 
the Department's natural resource damages liability at its Superfund 
sites and report back to the appropriate committees of Congress 90 days 
after enactment of this bill. This is an issue of great importance and 
one that has been surrounded by uncertainty. Since the beginning of the 
104th Congress, the Environment and Public Works Committee, under the 
leadership of Subcommittee Chairman Smith and Committee Chairman 
Chafee, has been working tirelessly to bring much-needed reform to the 
Superfund Program. During the course of hearings held on this topic, 
significant questions were raised regarding the Department of Energy's 
liability for natural resource damages at its Superfund sites. During 
testimony at a hearing in 1995, a Department official speculated that 
the Department's liability could be in the hundreds of billions of 
dollars. It has been reported that he termed the Department's liability 
for natural resource damages the sleeping giant of Superfund. However, 
during a follow-up hearing in April of this year the Department changed 
its tune. When asked about earlier statements, the same Department 
official who had a year earlier called natural resource damages a 
serious problem produced a study by the Council on Environmental 
Quality that claimed these damages are a ``minor problem.'' While the 
timing of the release of the study was obviously circumspect, it became 
increasingly clear that the contents of the study were equally so.
  The CEQ study estimated the Department of Energy's NRD liability at 
between $200 and $500 million. In the meantime, GAO has also been 
conducting its own study of Department liability and their preliminary 
results put the estimate at between two and $15 billion. Mr. President, 
you can see why this issue has raised so many questions. We have a 
Department of Energy official estimating liability in the hundreds of 
billions of dollars, then his superiors in the White House overruling 
him and painting the problem as minor, and finally a GAO study which 
will come down somewhere in the middle.
  I find this all rather troubling, Mr. President, and frankly it seems 
like this situation has created more questions than when we began. 
There are several aspects of CEQ's study that I find remarkable to say 
the least. I understand CEQ is currently modifying their first study 
and will shortly issue a corrected study, but fundamental questions 
about their assumptions remain. It is my intention, as chairman of the 
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight, to hold 
a hearing later this summer to address some of these questions. But 
what I find most troubling of all, Mr. President, is that the 
Department of Energy has not undertaken their own study of this issue. 
The Department of Energy is the single biggest responsible party at 
Superfund sites in the Nation. That means the taxpayers of this country 
are on the hook for the biggest piece of liability at Superfund sites. 
Yet the Department has not done one study to determine what their 
liability might be in the second phase of superfund liability--the 
lurking, sleeping giant that is only now awakening--natural resource 
damages liability. My amendment corrects that incredible oversight in 
the hope that we can have an accurate estimate, done by those with the 
most knowledge about the nature of this complicated situation. In 
addition, my amendment ensures we will have a realistic view of that 
liability by forcing the folks conducting the study to use the same 
program parameters that the private sector has been dealing with. This 
is the only fair way to calculate the Department's liability.
  Again, I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member, and I want to 
thank my colleagues in the Senate for passing this important amendment.
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, if I can just report from this side of the 
aisle to our colleagues, we had a very productive day today because we 
stayed on the defense bill. We, basically, handled amendments on the 
defense bill all day except for one amendment, which was worked out and 
was unanimously agreed to on a rollcall vote on a very important 
matter.
  If we can do that tomorrow, we have a good chance of finishing this 
bill tomorrow night. If we do not finish it tomorrow night, we can 
finish it on Friday. If we get back on amendments not related or 
relevant to the defense bill, then we will be--I understand the 
majority leader has to speak to this--we will be on this bill for a 
long time, and it will be up to the majority when we complete this 
bill.
  We have 35 amendments we have worked out. We have accepted 27 
already. We have 7 or 8 more we will be able to work out tonight. The 
minority leader on this side has done a lot of work, working with us, 
and Senator Dorgan and Senator Ford have led the effort to get our list 
of amendments on the Democratic side down as low as we can. We are 
working on that now.
  Many of these amendments, I think, can be worked out. We have two or 
three more major hurdles that we have to get over to give us a clear 
sailing to finishing this bill, but those matters are being worked on, 
and I think they have a good chance, a reasonable chance, of being 
worked out sometime tomorrow so we can conclude this bill.
  That is the report from our side of the aisle. I know the chairman of 
the committee will have some thoughts on his side of the aisle.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend the Members of the Senate and 
thank them for the progress that we have made today.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. May we have order? There are at least 12 
conversations taking place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair hears the request of the Senator 
from West Virginia. The Senate is not in order. The Senate will be in 
order before we proceed.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Again, I thank the Members of the Senate for the 
progress we have made today. If we can just avoid amendments that are 
not related to defense, we can finish this bill by tomorrow night. If 
we work hard, stay on the job, be here and take up the amendments--I am 
anxious for us to get

[[Page S6986]]

through this bill tomorrow night if possible. The majority leader wants 
this bill finished by tomorrow night. So I ask for the cooperation of 
all the Senators. Let us work together and get through this bill and 
not have to be here over the weekend.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I certainly share the concern and the 
attitude of the chairman and the ranking member. They are working hard 
to deal with these amendments. I hope work is being done very seriously 
now to identify a finite list of amendments.
  I want to say, again, so everybody will know, the intent here is that 
we are going to finish the DOD authorization bill this week. That could 
mean not only Thursday night, it could mean Friday, it could mean 
Friday night and, if necessary, it could mean Saturday.

  I want to be very much sympathetic to Members' desires to be with 
their families at night and certainly during the recess, but in order 
for the leader to be able to do that, I have to have the cooperation of 
Members on both sides of the aisle.
  This is very important legislation, the Department of Defense 
authorization bill. So I am asking Members, help work with the 
leadership to get this bill done. We need to get it done so we can move 
on to the DOD appropriations bill and the military construction 
appropriations bill, so we can get our work done.
  It can be done tomorrow night, but if it takes going over to Friday, 
we have no option but to do that. I know the chairman and ranking 
member will do that. Expect us to be here Friday and voting in order to 
complete it.
  We are going to keep moving ahead. We always want to try to be 
reasonable. Tonight, the intent will be to have Senator Nunn lay down 
his amendment and have debate tonight, and the vote would occur in the 
morning at 9:30.
  So there will be no more recorded votes tonight, but we are going to 
keep pushing ahead on this bill until we can get an agreed-to list of 
amendments, until we can get them resolved.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, so we can proceed with 
the amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. We are not in a quorum call, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Iowa.


                            Marine Generals

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am not going to offer an amendment, 
but I do want to discuss, while there are still leaders of the 
committee, both Republican and Democrat, on the floor, a very important 
issue, as far as I am concerned. It may be very easy to explain to my 
colleagues. I know even many people who are not on the committee may 
know the issue. But I want to raise the issue with the committee of why 
this legislation provides for 12 additional Marine generals when the 
Marines are very much in a downsized mode.
  This deals with what is called section 405. Section 405 would 
increase the number of general officers on active duty in the Marine 
Corps. If enacted, it would increase the number of generals in the 
Marine Corps from 68 to 80. That is 12 more Marine generals.
  I think it is legitimate to ask why does the Marine Corps need an 
extra 12 generals when it is downsizing? In 1987, Marine end strength 
was at 199,000. At that time the Marine Corps had 70 generals; 199,000 
marines, 70 generals.
  As the Marine Corps began downsizing, the number of generals dropped 
slightly by 2 in 1991 to 68. But Marine end strength continued a 
gradual decline until last year it leveled off at 174,000. We used to 
have 70 generals, 199,000 marines. Today, we have 68 generals, 174,000 
marines, a reduction of 25,000 since the late 1980's.
  Despite this drop in end strength, the number of generals stayed 
right at 68 until right now. If this bill becomes law, section 405, the 
number heads north again. Why? I really do not understand. I hope 
somebody can explain it. Why do 25,000 fewer marines need 12 more 
generals giving them orders?
  I suppose somebody could say that a possible explanation would be 
what is on page 279 of the committee report. I will quote:

       This increase is intended to permit the Marine Corps to 
     have greater representation at the general officer level on 
     the Department of the Navy/Secretariat staff and in the joint 
     arena. As a general rule, the Committee is reluctant to act 
     on independent service requests of this nature * * *

  So this explanation is given in the committee report. I repeat, in 
the way of emphasizing, the additional 12 would ``permit the Marine 
Corps to have greater representation at the general officer level on 
the Department of the Navy/Secretariat staff and in the joint arena.''
  I suppose the second possible explanation might be that the committee 
would say that technology has changed and the nature of warfare has 
changed and more generals are needed to run the battles. I suppose they 
could also say the Goldwater-Nickles Act is the culprit and requires 
it. Those are possible explanations. One of them, obviously, is 
somewhat of an explanation being in the committee report.
  But let me suggest this, that when you figure that war is conducted 
on the battlefield--and that is where the lives are going to be put in 
danger--it seems to me, the extent to which we need 12 more generals 
ought to be related to the number of people that are going to be 
fighting and potentially shedding their blood.
  In regard to the Goldwater-Nichols Act, it did place special emphasis 
upon joint operations, joint staff, and joint duty. I suppose that is 
how this works its way into the committee report. But it seems to me 
that that should not constitute a license to expand joint headquarters 
staff when force structure is shrinking, shrinking by 25,000 marines. 
In fact, joint headquarters should replace duplicative service 
headquarters. If the Marines need more generals in joint billets, then 
they should reduce the number assigned to Marine headquarters.
  The report language makes it clear that the extra generals are not 
needed for combat jobs. Instead, they are needed for bureaucratic in-
fighting in the Pentagon budget wars. Those are my words. I suppose the 
people that write the reports are going to take exception to that 
explanation on my part. But when you talk about more people needed at 
the Navy/Secretariat level, to make the points of view for the Marines, 
that is the way I read it.
  I suppose it also sounds like the Marines want to be topheavy with 
rank, just like the other services, like the Navy, for example. The 
Navy is approaching the point where it has one admiral for every ship. 
I suppose, to be more accurate, I should say 1.67 ships per admiral.
  The Navy got the job done with 20 ships per admiral in World War II. 
If we apply the World War II ratio to today's fleets, the Navy should 
have no more than 20 admirals to get the job done. But the Navy has 218 
admirals.
  The proponents of section 405 might also suggest that technology 
creates a need for more generals. That is possible. But the reverse is 
also possible. Technology could reduce the need for so many generals 
and admirals.
  I would like to have you take C CUBED-I, for example. This is the 
command, control, communications and intelligence. This bill contains 
billions of dollars for C CUBED-I. C CUBED-I gives the top generals and 
admirals the capability to run the battles from the Pentagon. It gives 
them the ability to communicate directly down to the smallest unit, the 
smallest unit operating anywhere in the world.
  I do not expect you to take the judgment of the Senator from Iowa on 
that. But it seems to me, if you read Colin Powell's book, ``My 
American Journey,'' you can see how he did it. If he did it just a few 
short years ago, we ought to be able to do it.
  So C CUBED-I technology could reduce the need for having so many 
admirals at sea with the fleet. It could reduce the need for having so 
many generals forward deployed with the fleet Marine force.
  So, Mr. President, I do not understand or see the need for the 
increase in the number of generals provided for in section 405. The 
number of generals should be decreased as the Marine Corps gets 
smaller, as I said, down from 199,000 to 174,000 today. Yet we are 
going to increase the number of marines, potentially, from 68 to 80.

[[Page S6987]]

  Now, again, you may not want to believe Colin Powell in his book, 
``My American Journey,'' you may not want to listen to the Senator from 
Iowa, but maybe you would like to listen to a marine general, John 
Sheehan, commander in chief of the U.S. Atlantic Command. I quoted him 
very extensively on some debate last week. I quoted him when I was 
trying to make my case to freeze defense infrastructure costs. General 
Sheehan, Marine Corps general, argues that, ``Headquarters should not 
be growing as the force shrinks.'' Could I repeat that. We have a 
Marine Corps general saying that ``headquarters should not be growing 
as the force shrinks.''
  The force is shrinking, from 199,000 to 174,000. That is a fact of 
life already. The number of marine generals is suggested to increase 
from 68 to 80. The possible explanation in the committee report--need 
more generals at the Navy Secretary level, so the marines have more of 
a voice at the higher echelons of decisionmaking. General Sheehan, a 
marine general, same branch of the military, as we are increasing the 
number of marines, commander of Atlantic forces, General Sheehan hits 
the nail right on the head when he says, ``The growth in headquarters 
staff jobs is threatening the military's war-fighting capability.'' He 
says that after he said, ``Headquarters should not be growing as the 
force shrinks.''
  Surely marines in the U.S. Senate--and I have not served in the 
military; I want to make that very clear. I am no military hero, as 
Senator McCain and a lot of other people in this body, but I can read. 
I do not know why any marine in this Senate would question General 
Sheehan when he says, ``Headquarters should not be growing as the force 
shrinks.''
  ``The growth of headquarters staff jobs is threatening the military's 
war-fighting capability.''
  General Sheehan has identified the root cause of the problem. He 
helps me understand why the Department of Defense cannot cut 
infrastructure costs, as I tried to do a week ago on my amendment. The 
growth in headquarters staff is being driven by one powerful force--
excess generals and admirals searching for a mission. Each senior 
officer needs a place to call home and to hoist a flag. Every senior 
officer needs a command, a headquarters, a base, a staff, or a large 
department of some kind, somewhere, someplace. Each general, then, 
created by section 405, will need some new real estate that is going to 
cost our tightly written defense budget very much. It is going to 
weaken our defense and not provide the national security that it ought 
to provide.
  All of this makes me think, Mr. President, that this new section 405, 
increasing the number of generals from 68 to 80, may not be such a hot 
idea, particularly when Marine General John Sheehan says, 
``Headquarters should not be growing as the force shrinks.'' And when 
it does, he says, ``The growth of headquarters staff jobs is 
threatening the military's war-fighting capability.''
  I hope my colleagues on this floor who, out of their heart and 
probably even out of their intellect, firmly believe and so state on 
the floor of this body that we do not have enough money for defense--
and I may disagree with them on that point, but I know my colleagues 
who say that sincerely believe it--if they do believe it, and we have a 
defense dollar that is so terribly squeezed, why we are adding this 
number of personnel at the highest ranks of the marines at the same 
time the marine force is shrinking.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will have the opportunity to study in 
some detail the comments of my distinguished colleague. I am not 
prepared at this time to respond to the detailed statement that he 
made, but I think it is very worthy of having a response. I will make 
certain tomorrow that I will address the issues.
  I know first and foremost that comes to mind, having served in the 
Navy Secretariat and dealt with the flag, promotions, and the need for 
flag officers, and listening to the Senator harken back to the days of 
World War II when, indeed, an admiral did command a good number of 
units, what has changed is the joint service arena, requiring so many 
flag officers to participate in joint service assignments. That has 
made up, in large measure, for the expansion of the numbers of our flag 
and general officers, particularly in the Navy and the Marine Corps.
  However, tomorrow, Senator--your statement is highly deserving of a 
reply--I will present my own views on it.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, if I could have a moment to respond to 
the Senator from Virginia.
  Thank you very much for giving it the thought that I know the Senator 
will give it and the explanation the Senator will give. I would 
particularly like to have the Senator comment, as the Senator thinks 
about it, on what Marine Corps General Sheehan has said and written 
about. I have quoted him, but he has also published, as well, in one of 
the defense publications on a longer basis than what I quoted. I think 
he ought to have considerable credibility in this area, because he is 
making the same criticisms.
  Second, I am not sure I can be here, and I do not have to be here, 
but if the Senator will notify me when the Senator will be on the floor 
to respond, I would appreciate that.
  Mr. WARNER. I will acknowledge both of those requests, and, indeed, I 
share the distinguished Senator's high regard for General Sheehan.


                           Amendment No. 4349

       (Purpose: To take measures to protect the security of the 
     United States from proliferation and use of weapons of mass 
     destruction)
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment temporarily be laid aside, and I send to the desk an 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for himself, Mr. 
     Lugar, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Biden, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
     Lieberman, and Mr. Specter, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4349.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')

                          ____________________