Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 98 (Friday, June 28, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 98 (Friday, June 28, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7280-S7282]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I regret I cannot vote for this bill. I do
congratulate, however, the managers of the bill and the staff of the
Armed Services Committee for their meticulous attention to the details
of the legislation and for their skillful handling of the bill.
There are many good provisions contained in it, provisions that
address legitimate defense needs and provide support for the men and
women in our military. Worthy provisions have been added to this bill,
such as the amendment offered by Senators Nunn, Lugar, and others, to
provide assistance to Federal and local law enforcement agencies to
defend against terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction and to help
safeguard or destroy foreign sources of nuclear weapons materials.
Another provision establishes a commission to review our national
security needs, which will help to shape more realistic future defense
budgets. And I am pleased that an amendment I offered was accepted that
will provide medical assistance to the children of Gulf war veterans
with birth defects and other medical problems while scientific research
determines whether their maladies may be a result of their parents'
service.
But in the end, this bill remains billions of dollars above the
administration's already generous request for the Department of
Defense. Other government programs addressing important domestic needs
face flat funding or are being reduced, while the defense budget is
flush with unrequested funds. Of the amount added to the defense bill,
over $4 billion is designated for procurement programs that are not in
the Future Years Defense Plan or on the military services' wish lists.
Purchasing weapons that the military has not asked for on this scale is
an ill-disguised attempt to provide a defense jobs program. I support a
strong, well-equipped military, but buying weapons in 1997 that the
military has not planned to purchase until after the year 2000 is not
``buying in bulk'' to achieve savings. It is welfare for defense
contractors. Buying weapons early means turning down the spigot of
technological advances, reducing to a trickle the incorporation of
improvements, and shutting off the possibility of switching to a new
and better design. And what will we do after the turn of the century,
when these weapons are built and the shipyards and the aircraft
production lines begin to be idle? Buy more weapons before they are
needed, to keep the lines open? Where does it all end?
An amendment by Senator Exon, which I cosponsored, would have cut
that amount from the bill and direct it toward deficit reduction. It
failed. Another amendment, offered by Senator Wellstone, would have
authorized the transfer of $1.3 billion of these unrequested funds to
education programs, bringing those programs up to the President's
requested level. It failed. But $855 million was added in the defense
bill to a multibillion dollar ballistic missile defense program
designed in part to protect the United States against the unlikely
prospect of a rogue ballistic missile attack. It will not protect us
against a terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction, but only
against a very limited number of ballistic missiles. Billions have
been, and likely will be, spent to build this ``Star Wars Lite'' or
``Son of Star Wars'' while the needs of our people go unmet. I cannot
support these kinds of skewed priorities.
Mr. President, is war so glamorous, are weapons of war so beguiling,
that we must turn a blind eye to domestic cares? Must our schoolbooks
fray and our bridges crumble in order to slake an unquenchable thirst
for unnecessary tools of destruction? History will not judge us on our
military might alone. It will also cast a critical eye on our wisdom,
our learning, and our music and our arts. It will look upon our
families, and the way that we treat our children.
Mr. President, Napoleon is remembered for his military exploits, for
the battles he fought and the death and destruction that resulted from
his actions. But in the end, for all of his personal ambitions, was
France any greater as a result of his militaristic acts? What great
artists, what great musicians, and what great philosophers were killed
in those battles, who might have benefitted all mankind? What monies
spent on Napoleon's great armies might otherwise have built spiral,
soaring cathedrals, beautiful parks, and stately roads, or fed and
educated children? I fear that, like Napoleon, we are in danger of
letting our ambitions and priorities become skewed so far in favor of
military spending and military might in the pursuit of our role as
``the last superpower'' that we will be remembered in history only
as Napoleon is remembered, for acts of war rather than acts of
progress.

Which reminds me of Robert G. Ingersoll's oration at the grave of
Napoleon:

A little while ago, I stood by the grave of the old
Napoleon--a magnificent tomb of gilt and gold, fit almost for
a dead deity--and gazed upon the sarcophagus of rare and
nameless marble, where rest at last the ashes of that
restless man. I leaned over the balustrade and thought about
the career of the greatest soldier of the modern world.
I saw him walking upon the banks of the Seine,
contemplating suicide. I saw him at Toulon--I saw him putting
down the mob in the streets of Paris--I saw him at the head
of the army of Italy--I saw him crossing the bridge of Lodi
with the tricolor in his hand--I saw him in Egypt in the
shadows of the pyramids----
I saw him conquer the Alps and mingle the eagles of France
with the eagles of the crags. I saw him at Marengo--at Ulm
and Austerlitz. I saw him in Russia, where the infantry of
the snow and the cavalry of the wild blast scattered his
legions like winter's withered leaves. I saw him at Leipsic
in defeat and disaster--driven by a million bayonets back
upon Paris--clutched like a wild beast--banished to Elba.
I saw him escape and retake an empire by the force of his
genius. I saw him upon the frightful field of Waterloo, where
Chance and Fate combined to wreck the fortunes of their
former king. And I saw him at St. Helena, with his hands
clasped behind him, gazing out upon the sad and solemn sea.
And I thought of the orphans and widows he had made--of the
tears that had been shed for his glory, and of the only woman
who ever loved him, pushed from his heart by the cold hand of
ambition.
And I said I would rather have been a French peasant and
worn wooden shoes. I would rather have lived in a hut with a
vine growing over the door, and the grapes growing purple in
the kisses of the autumn sun.
I would rather have been that poor peasant with my loving
wife at my side, knitting as the day died out of the sky--
with my children upon my knees and their loving arms about
me--I would rather have been that man and gone down to the
tongueless silence of the dreamless dust, than to have been
that imperial impersonation of force and murder, known as
``Napoleon the Great!''

So, Mr. President, like Ingersoll in his writing of that beautiful
prose, captured my feelings as I watch what has been taking place over
the last few years. I support a strong military, prepared and equipped
to defend the United States and its genuine security interests abroad.
But I am not so bedazzled by a military gilded and draped with a
surfeit of unnecessary weapons--with trappings ``fit almost for a dead
deity''--that I cannot recall other priorities closer to home. I hold
my family, and all American families, high on my list of priorities. I
hope that in conference we will be able to rethink these spending
priorities, to reduce the untimely procurement proposed in this bill,
avoid a threatened veto, and produce a bill that balances our
legitimate security requirements with our very critical domestic needs.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Senate
Armed Services Committee's national defense authorization bill for
fiscal year 1997. I voted to report the bill out of the Armed Services
Committee because I believe it should be openly debated on the Senate
floor. I cannot support this bill in its current form as it contains
significant and questionable spending increases from the original
authorization requested by the Pentagon.
This bill recommends a total spending level for the Pentagon of
$267.3 billion in fiscal year 1997, an extra $13 billion beyond
everything the Pentagon requested for the year. In today's climate of
budget cuts, Federal deficits, and balanced budget debate, it is
irresponsible to spend an additional $13 billion on top of the
Pentagon's budget

[[Page S7281]]

request. It is a rare Government agency that is granted everything it
asks for in its annual budget, and an additional allocation of $13
billion above and beyond its top request level is quite extreme.
Balancing the budget is a priority for me. I do not believe that we can
afford to spend this much money--especially when military experts
question the need for it.
One example of this bill's overspending is the case of the F-16. The
Department of Defense has planned to build four F-16's in fiscal year
1997. When asked what additional resources they might need related to
the F-16 program, DOD responded that they ideally would like to have
two more, for a total of six. The Senate Armed Services Committee
somehow considered it prudent to provide an additional $107.4 million
so that the Air Force may purchase a total of eight F-16's. This is a
national defense bill, not a national jobs bill.
I am also puzzled by the committee's position on the funding of
nuclear attack submarines. Although a full procurement plan was laid
out by the committee in last year's defense authorization bill, this
year's bill overrides that schedule and instead spends $701 million to
accelerate the development of these submarines. Although some may
assert that forcing production costs to occur earlier saves money,
there is a point where acceleration of production actually costs more
money in the long run. If engineers are not provided enough time to
work out the bugs of a new design before building phase II of the same
vehicle, cost overruns are likely to occur. There are sound reasons why
we take time when developing a new combat vehicle, and to suggest that
speeding up production saves money is not always the case.
Some of the most dangerous provisions in this bill are in the section
on ballistic missile defense. The Senate has already considered
alternative ballistic missile defense policy this year in the Defend
America Act. It is clear that there is not overwhelming support for an
acceleration of a ballistic missile defense system.
The President vetoed last year's defense authorization bill because
it mandated deployment of a national missile defense system. The
administration's current deployment policy is a 3+3 program which
continues research for 3 years--into fiscal year 1999--and allows a
decision to be made at that time to deploy a national missile defense
system in 3 years or to continue research if the perceived threat does
not warrant deployment. The committee has added $300 million to the
national missile defense accounts in an effort to make sure that
a system is deployable by 2003. Since the administration has not
changed its position on reviewing deployment in 3 years, for the
committee to suggest that deployment is needed in 3 years is beyond the
previous mandate of the Senate and equivalent to asking for a veto from
the President.

It is not just the ballistic missile defense policy questions that I
would call into question. The committee has added $856 million to the
Pentagon's $2.8 billion request for funding the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization [BMDO]. The committee boosts star wars funding by
adding $40 million to the requested $7.4 million for the Applied
Interceptor Technology Program; by adding $70 million to the requested
$30 million for the space-based laser; by adding $140 million to the
requested $482 million for the theater high altitude area defense
system; and by adding $246 million to the requested $58.2 million for
the Navy upper tier system. These aggressive funding increases clearly
accelerate development of the star wars initiative far beyond what the
Pentagon had requested; this additional level of spending is almost
unfathomable in an age of fiscal austerity.
In addition, this bill contains language that would impede efforts
the President is making to abide by the Antiballistic Missile Treaty.
The ABM Treaty was originally negotiated in 1972 between the United
States and the Soviet Union; since the breakup of the Soviet Union,
President Clinton has been trying to determine how the treaty can still
apply to the independent states now replacing the former Soviet Union.
The committee states that ``* * * the United States shall not be bound
by any international agreement entered into by the President that would
add one or more countries to the ABM Treaty or would otherwise convert
the treaty from a bilateral to a multilateral treaty, unless the
agreement is entered pursuant to the treaty making power under the
Constitution.'' The administration has expressed serious reservations
with this language. If this language is adopted, Russians will have
ample reason to believe that the United States no longer intends to
abide by the provisions of the ABM Treaty and would likely become
reluctant to negotiate any further nuclear weapon reductions.
Mr. President, we really ought to think twice before we vote on this
bill. With an extra $13 billion in increased spending levels and
substantive changes in ballistic missile defense policy, I do not feel
comfortable supporting it. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

CRITICAL DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROGRAMS

Mr. THURMOND. I rise to discuss the important national security and
environmental missions that are carried out at the Department of
Energy's Savannah River Site and invite the distinguished Senator from
New Mexico to engage me in a colloquy on this matter.
Mr. DOMENICI. I would be happy to engage the Senator from South
Carolina in a colloquy.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the programs carried out at Savannah
River are among the most important in the Nation. From nuclear waste
processing to defense production, the Savannah River Site hosts a
unique mix of skills and capabilities that are critical to our national
interest. Many of these capabilities do not exist anywhere else in the
DOE weapons complex.
Mr. DOMENICI. I would agree with the Senator that the missions
carried out at the Savannah River Site are critical, not only for the
citizens of South Carolina, but for the Nation as a whole.
Mr. THURMOND. The Savannah River Site is currently the only site in
the DOE weapons complex with the capability to process high-level
radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel rods in such a way that these
wastes will be acceptable for permanent, geologic disposal.
Mr. DOMENICI. I am aware that S. 1745 provides an additional $43
million to keep the F- and H-canyon processing facilities in full
operation in order to accelerate treatment of spent nuclear fuel and
other wastes located at Savannah River. I am also aware that S. 1745
provides an additional $15 million for the newly constructed defense
waste processing facility to accelerate the volume of wastes to be
processed and packaged for disposal. I fully support these initiatives
and will ensure that they are among my highest priorities as the Energy
and Water Appropriations Subcommittee moves forward with its fiscal
year 1997 appropriations bill and that bill is signed into law.
Mr. THURMOND. I appreciate the distinguished Senator's support of
these programs. In addition to those environmental missions, the
Savannah River Site also has very important national security missions.
The committee required the Department of Energy to accelerate its
phased approach to restring tritium production. Tritium is a critical
element in ensuring the credibility of our nuclear deterrent and it is
essential that the Department of Energy move forward as rapidly as
possible to select a production technology.
In addition, the committee restored $45 million to the Department of
Energy production plants and provided additional funds for
manufacturing modernization, both at the National Laboratories and
production plants. These programs will ensure that the Department can
maintain the skills and capabilities to meet its national security
missions well into the future.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am aware that S. 1745 provides an additional $60
million to the administration's request to accelerate the Department's
decision to restore tritium production by the year 2005. I am also
aware that S. 1745 provides an additional $45 million to restore DOE
cuts to the important functions carried out at DOE production plants. I
support these initiatives. I want to indicate that the important items
contained in this colloquy and the other important programs for the
Department of Energy can be funded if the allocation to the Energy and
Water

[[Page S7282]]

Subcommittee provided by the Senate Appropriations Committee is agreed
to. The House has not agreed to such allocations as of this time. If
the House and Senate appropriations conferees do not agree on such
allocations, I will do my best to ensure that the programs we have just
discussed and the base administration request for the Savannah River
Site are among my highest priorities during the House-Senate
appropriations conference.
Mr. THURMOND. I appreciate the commitment that the able Senator from
New Mexico has expressed for these programs. I look forward to working
with my colleagues to ensure that these programs are fully implemented.

amendment No. 4382

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Feinstein,
Kyl, Grassley amendment that will establish a more vigilant system of
oversight of the sale of chemicals from Government stockpiles.
Recently, Senator Feinstein's office in California noticed a large,
commercial sale of iodine from DOD stockpiles on the open market.
Iodine is one of the precursor chemicals used in the manufacture of
methamphetamine. Both Senator Feinstein and I have been very concerned
about the manufacture and sale of this very dangerous drug. Together we
have sponsored legislation that would increase controls over the
chemicals used in making meth. Thus, when Senator Feinstein's office
noticed the sale of large quantities of iodine by DOD they asked if the
Government authorities knew who their customers were. It was a good
question. They did not. With the realization that the Government could
have found itself selling chemicals to possible illegal drug dealers,
it became clear that the amendment that is being offered was an
important step. By asking for a review of future sales by the
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the amendment
establishes a safeguard on inappropriate sales while still permitting
agencies to sell surplus items. I am pleased to support this timely and
essential amendment.

amendment no. 4420

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with
the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee,
Senator Strom Thurmond and my distinguished colleague from Alabama,
Senator Howell Heflin.
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I welcome the opportunity to enter into a
colloquy with the distinguished chairman and my fellow Alabamian.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I too would be happy to enter into a
colloquy with my friends from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, I disagree with premise of Senator Conrad's
sense of the Senate amendment regarding the Air Force's National
Missile Defense proposal. The program would violate the ABM Treaty and
perhaps even the START I Treaty, the cornerstone of nuclear arms
reduction. I certainly hope that the committee's acceptance of this
sense of Senate amendment does not constitute an endorsement of this
highly questionable program.
Mr. HEFLIN. I agree with Senator Shelby that the Air Force program is
a bad idea. It is dead-end technology that would leave us with a system
of extremely limited capability and no growth potential to meet a
changing threat. I, too, hope that the committee has not expressed an
endorsement by accepting this amendment.
Mr. THURMOND. The committee does not specifically endorse the Air
Force proposal. I strongly support the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization's existing National Missile Defense program which includes
the ground based interceptor, ground based radar and the Space and
Missile Tracking System. I agree that this proposal presents a number
of serious questions regarding arms control implications and potential
future growth. The committee supports the need to have a serious
examination of these questions before any significant amount of funding
is directed to further evaluating the Air Force Proposal.
Mr. SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for addressing our concerns.
Mr. SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. President.

Taxpayer Subsidies for Military Contractor Mergers

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk No. 4178.
It deals with taxpayer subsides for military contractor mergers. This
is a very important and timely amendment. I was outraged to learn
recently that taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill, in one case
to the tune of up to $1.6 billion, for these mergers.
In the interest of not delaying my colleagues, and to give an
opportunity to continue discussions with those who have raised concerns
about my amendment, I will defer offering it until we get the DOD
appropriations bill early next month.
The House Appropriations Committee adopted a bipartisan amendment
identical to mine earlier this month. Therefore, that would be an
appropriate vehicle.
Before I end, I just wanted to have printed in the Record several
quotes from different groups on this subject.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

It's time for the Pentagon to drop this ridiculous ``money
for nothing'' policy.--Taxpayers for Common Sense
The new policy is unneeded, establishes inappropriate
government intervention in the economy, promotes layoffs of
high-wage jobs, pays for excessive CEO salaries, and is
likely to cost the government billions of dollars.--Project
on Government Oversight
The costs associated with mergers should not be absorbed by
Federal taxpayers. This is an egregious example of
unwarranted corporate welfare in our budget.--The CATO
Institute
. . .[T]axpayer subsidization is no more necessary today to
promote acquisitions and mergers than it has ever been. Just
about every major defense company today is the product of a
merger, some of them decades old. . . Even today in the
supposed ``bull market,'' plenty of bidders vie for the
available companies. . . It is hard to believe that if
taxpayer subsidies were not available, companies would not
buy available assets if it made good business sense. If they
paid a little less for their acquisitions, the taxpayers
rather than the stockholders would benefit.--Lawrenece J.
Korb, Under-Secretary of Defense under President Reagan

Mr. HARKIN. We simply must make reforms here. So, I will pursue this
on the DOD appropriations bill and try to put an end to this ill-
advised waste of taxpayer money. I look forward to working together
with Senator Nunn and other of my colleagues in reaching a successful
conclusion to this issue. I appreciate his good faith efforts to try to
resolve this and I believe the additional time may help us to that end.

____________________