[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.

                          ____________________