[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10730-S10735]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL AND INTERNATIONAL MILITARY COMMITMENTS

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the reason that I asked for the time 
this morning is I think we have a very crucial decision that is being 
made right now in our Nation's Capital, and that is how much we are 
going to fund the defense of our country. In fact, Congress is in a 
dispute with the President, as we speak, about how much we should spend 
to defend our Nation.
  I find it ironic, if not sad, that as 3,500 of our American troops 
are on their way to Kuwait right this minute that the President would 
be threatening to veto the Defense appropriations bill if $2 to $3 
billion is not cut from that bill.
  Our troops are on their way, possibly for a conflict. We hope not. 
But, as you know, as the distinguished Presiding Officer is the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the President pro tempore 
of the Senate, this is not the time to let down our defenses. This is 
not the time to say that we should be shifting valuable weapons systems 
for the protection of our troops and for their ability to protect the 
interests of the United States into unnamed other programs--social 
programs, perhaps education programs.
  I don't know what the President has in mind. But I do know that the 
President of the United States is today saying he will veto an 
appropriations bill for the Defense Department at the same time that he 
is ratcheting up a conflict in the Middle East.
  Mr. President, several people would like to speak on this issue. I 
have more to say, but at this time, I am going to yield to my 
colleague, the senior Senator from Idaho, Larry Craig.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The able Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have comments that will take probably up 
to about 8 minutes. The Senator from Arizona is with us, and I 
understand he has a scheduling conflict, so I will be more than happy 
to yield to him.
  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator 
from Arizona, who has provided so much leadership in our Nation's 
defenses, and ask how long, approximately, he would like.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I inform the Senator from Texas, probably 
about 5 minutes, if that is acceptable.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is acceptable. Thank you, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The able Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first of all, let me say the Senator from 
Texas is to be complimented for beginning this very important 
discussion which I think, frankly, is going to have to go on for some 
time here until we can get this matter resolved.
  It boils down to something very, very simple. On the one hand, you 
have the administration making substantial international commitments 
for the deployment and use of American military forces which will cost 
billions of dollars of money, and, at the same time, you have the 
administration suggesting that unless the Congress is willing to take 
money from the defense budget and spend it on other things that the 
President wants, there is the possibility of a Presidential veto of the 
defense appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, we have been, I think, appropriately discreet here in 
this body in sharing our views on international policy, especially as 
it relates to the Middle East and the President's action in Iraq. We 
passed a resolution here overwhelmingly supporting the action that the 
administration took and supporting our troops in Iraq. We have not gone 
out of our way to criticize the President's policy there, even though 
many of us have grave concerns and questions about where that policy is 
leading us.
  But when it comes to passing the defense authorization and defense 
appropriations bill, this body has a responsibility to ensure that our 
military forces have what they need to carry out these commitments. And 
nobody, Mr. President, more than you, as the chairman of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee, has fought harder over the years to ensure 
that our troops have what they need.
  I remember that after the Persian Gulf war was over and everyone was 
passing out compliments to Secretary Cheney and to President Bush and 
to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, they all 
pointed out that what won that war was the character and skill of our 
men and women who were fighting there and the decisions that were made 
10 or 12 years before by the Senate, by the House, and by the 
administrations at that time to begin the research and development of 
the smart weapons and other weapons that we used in the Persian Gulf 
war. That is what enabled us to win that war quickly and with a minimum 
of casualties.
  Now we are again engaged in conflict in Iraq, and we are again using 
those same weapons, and at the same time the President is suggesting 
that we have to cut the defense budget because he wants to spend more 
money in other areas. I remind my colleagues that last year we added 
money back into the defense bill to buy Tomahawk missiles, more than 
the President requested. He did not request that money. We said, you 
are going to have to buy more Tomahawk missiles because that is what we 
are going to need if we have another conflict in the Middle East. And 
what happened? We had another challenge from Saddam Hussein, and the 
President ordered the firing of Tomahawk missiles. I am glad that the 
Senate disagreed with the President on that last year, added that money 
in, and we had those Tomahawk missiles ready to go to fight this 
conflict.
  Now we have the same issue again. Are we going to be permitted to 
properly fund the military forces? What we are suggesting is still far 
less than the military was provided last year. So this is not an 
increase over last year's spending. It is less money. It is more money 
than the President requested, and that is because we have identified 
some areas in which we think the administration's request was 
deficient, just as it was with the Tomahawk missiles last year.
  Mr. President, it boils down to this. I have a lot of statistics here 
and might ask for unanimous consent to submit some matters in writing 
that gets into the specifics, but I know that my other colleagues here 
wish to add their voices to this concern. So I am just going to make 
this statement very generally.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
this statistical information and related material.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        [Press release from the House Appropriations Committee]

   Livingston to Clinton: Now Is Not the Time To Further Cut Defense

       Washington, DC.--Charging that President Clinton is putting 
     the nation's servicemen and women at risk overseas, House 
     Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob Livingston (R-LA) urged 
     the President to reconsider reports that his Administration 
     is now seeking $3 billion in additional cuts to the defense 
     bill.
       ``Further cuts to the defense bill will mean less medical 
     care funding for military personnel, a weakening of the drug 
     war, and an inability to relocate troops in Saudi Arabia. If 
     the President wants $3 billion more cut from the defense 
     budget, he should present our committee with a list of cuts 
     and we'll be happy to consider them.
       The defense conference report added nearly a half billion 
     dollars to the President's request for medical care, which 
     was cut in the Clinton Budget; added $600 million to the 
     President's request for barracks and base repair; and added 
     $165 million to the President's request for drug interdiction 
     and counter-drug activities.
       ``President Clinton claims Congress wants to spend $10 
     billion more than he wants, but he won't admit that he asked 
     for $10 billion less than last year's funding level for 
     defense. This cut comes at a time when our nation's military 
     is preparing for a new round of bombing in Iraq; facing more 
     than $100 million in costs for troop relocation in Saudi 
     Arabia; and underfunding Bosnia by more than $200 million to 
     date. It is a bad time to cut defense, yet that's all the 
     Commander-In-Chief offers in relation to negotiations on 
     unfinished appropriations bills,'' said Livingston.
       Even more disconcerting is the fact that the President 
     holds the Defense Appropriations bill hostage to more 
     spending cuts,

[[Page S10731]]

     while he vows to sign to the $265.6 billion Defense 
     Authorization bill (which actually authorizes more funding 
     that the appropriation bills spends). When adjusted for 
     inflation, defense spending actually declines between FY96 
     and FY97 marking the twelfth consecutive year defense 
     spending has come down.
       ``I am simply amazed that the President thinks he can dupe 
     the American public into thinking that he is pro-defense by 
     signing the authorization bill, while threatening to veto the 
     legislation that actually pays the defense bills. The 
     President's veto would deny a 3% pay raise for military 
     personnel, deny funding for a half billion dollar shortfall 
     created in the President's request for medical programs, and 
     deny essential upgrades to our nation's aging weapons 
     systems, which the President's own Joint Chief of Staff say 
     falls more than $100 billion short over the next five 
     years,'' said Livingston.
                                                                    ____


     Another Clinton Foreign Policy Failure--Crisis in Iraq Worsens

       On August 31, 1996, Saddam Hussein sent 40,000 troops to 
     seize the northern Kurdish city of Irbil.
       The U.S. responded to this with cruise missiles in the 
     South and by extending the ``no fly.''
       Clinton declares this a success.
       Rhetoric (declared victory) is inconsistent with the 
     reality in the region.
       Hussein has expanded his power over the whole Kurdish 
     region.
       A major CIA-funded effort to destabilize Saddam is 
     virtually defunct.
       The Gulf War international coalition is fractured. Kuwait 
     balks at accepting U.S. troops and few voice opposition to 
     Saddam's moves.
       The 1991 humanitarian relief program is in shambles.
       If the President is serious about achieving what he 
     believes are U.S. goals, he must act now to set his case 
     before the American people and to include their elected 
     representatives in the Congress in his deliberations. 
     Anything less would be a major failure of leadership.
       3500 (not 5000) Fort Hood troops are enroute to Kuwait 
     beginning this morning.
       23 F-16s will go to Bahrain to help enforce the ``no-fly'' 
     zone.
       8 F-117 Sealth Bombers are in Kuwait with 4 B-52s at Diego 
     Garcia.
       Within days, the force will include 2 aircraft carriers 
     with more than 150 Navy aircraft and more than 20 other 
     warships and submarines.
       Actions thus far are a replay of Administration actions in 
     previous events, e.g., Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, all of which 
     are unraveling or failing to meet original administration 
     promises.
       No notification by the Administration.
       No consultation with Congress.
       No strategic goals/objectives presented to the American 
     people.
       Failure to state what actions Hussein must take to satisfy 
     the U.S.

  Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Just to summarize it this way, nothing is more important than the 
defense of our country and ensuring that when the Commander in Chief 
gives the order for our young men and women to go into combat, to risk 
their lives, that ensuring that they have the means of achieving their 
missions in the safest way possible.
  As I read a couple days ago about the first F-111 pilot at the 
beginning of the gulf war, on the very first night, who had to fly 
through the flak over Baghdad, he drew the lucky straw, or the unlucky 
straw, as it may be. He and his wing man told the story about how the 
night was black, it was eerie, but he could see the lights of Baghdad 
in the distance. And he said, as he got closer, it looked like a big 
fireworks display, there was so much flak over that city. He knew he 
had to fly through that. But he had the training and he had the 
equipment because we provided it, and he got through in good shape and 
performed his mission.
  We can never shortchange the men and women that we send into combat 
without adequate equipment. That is why it is so important that the 
President get on board here and agree with us to fund the military to 
the degree that is necessary, to the degree that your committee has 
recommended.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield up to 10 minutes of our time to the Senator 
from Idaho.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The able Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Texas for 
requesting this morning business and special order to talk about not 
only the situation of Defense appropriations, but the impending foreign 
policy crisis in this country. And as we begin to look seriously, Mr. 
President, at ending this legislative session and completing our work, 
there are some remaining appropriations bills that simply must be dealt 
with in a fair and honest way to effectively close down the Congress. 
One of those is the 1996 Department of Defense appropriations bill.
  In short, Mr. President, saber rattling by this administration has 
occurred in places other than Iraq. Recent indications that President 
Clinton will veto the bill that the Senators from Arizona and Texas and 
I are talking about this morning, which provides funding to our 
Nation's armed services--including the current deployment in the gulf 
and those now preparing to respond to the President's call of another 
3,500 troops to be deployed, and who may well be in the air at this 
moment headed for Kuwait--is, to me, a position that our President 
should find unconscionable, but yet at this very moment the message 
coming out of the White House is, veto Defense authorization.
  The brave men and women serving this Nation and protecting our 
security and the Nation's interests should not be turned into pawns for 
Presidential election politics. I cannot begin to express my 
frustration over this situation because the timing for this President 
and his political agenda appears to be extraordinary. Therefore, I hope 
the President will respond by indicating his support for our Armed 
Forces and his willingness to sign this critical piece of legislation.
  The deployment of our troops does not occur without cost. The Senator 
from Arizona has already referenced that very effectively. The 
President has deployed U.S. forces widely in peacekeeping efforts, and 
it is time to respond in kind by paying for it. That is what the 
American public would expect of a Commander in Chief.

  Mr. President, I would like also to take a moment to again address 
some of the concerns that I mentioned last Friday in the press about 
the ongoing situation in Iraq, because it is fair to talk about that 
situation in the context of Defense appropriations, all in one 
statement, because they fit so well together. As I have said, they 
clash at this moment in what appears to be a Presidential political 
agenda that just does not fit.
  What is our policy? What is our mission? What is our goal in Iraq? It 
is a straightforward question that deserves to be answered. The 
President, as I mentioned, is now deploying troops to Kuwait. More 
American lives could well be on the line. And it is past time--it is 
clearly past time--for this President to tell the American people what 
his answer to those three questions are.
  Reports yesterday from CNN stated that 3,500 troops are headed to 
Kuwait. Claims were made that calling off the deployment now would send 
the wrong message of weakness to Iraq. I would argue that the message 
has already been sent in the form of a lack of foreign policy to 
address this situation. The deployment of troops to Kuwait is clearly a 
case in point. This announcement of sending 3,500 troops comes on the 
heels of comments by the President that he was reconsidering a decision 
to send several thousand troops to Kuwait.
  The Washington Post quotes President Clinton as saying this:

       We have sought no confrontation with Saddam Hussein. We 
     never did, and we don't now. My concern is that we limit 
     Saddam Hussein's ability to threaten his neighbors, that we 
     do it with the ``no-fly'' zone, and in so doing, we keep our 
     pilots safe.

  I am not here to criticize the worthy goal of keeping our pilots 
safe. However, this administration's policy is changing daily. The 
White House has not had its press conference this morning, so we do not 
know what the foreign policy of today is. We were told the actions of 
expanding the southern no-fly zone was a reaction and a lesson to 
Saddam Hussein that his use of force would be met with force. However, 
the message did not register. We did not address the area of violation, 
which was the introduction of 30,000 Republican Guard troops into the 
Kurdish safe haven at the request for help from one of the Kurdish 
factions. In addition, our reaction did little to dissuade Iraqi 
activities.

  The administration claimed that our actions were justified because of 
the inhumane actions of the Iraqis against the Kurds. However, we have 
already lost that battle.

[[Page S10732]]

  Hussein's troops moved into the safe haven under the vigilant watch 
of our intelligence sources and they have remained. We have done 
nothing to respond to Saddam Hussein's actions. In a recent article 
printed by the Canadian news magazine Maclean's, an unidentified State 
Department official was quoted as saying:

       By attacking in southern Iraq rather than striking at the 
     forces that Saddam used against the Kurds in the north, the 
     United States sent him a clear signal that it is concerned 
     only about the security of the oil supplies from Kuwait and 
     other Persian Gulf states, and does not care much about what 
     he does inside his own borders. . . . We've not demonstrated 
     [in all fairness, Mr. President] a lot of courage. . . . Our 
     actions have not left the region any more secure. [Bluntly 
     put] Saddam has gotten away with it.

  Mr. President, this concern is not isolated but has been quite widely 
reported in news from Government officials and independent analysts.
  These criticisms do not question the need to respond to Hussein. 
Rather, they question the nature of the response chosen by our 
President. An action was necessary, but it should have reflected 
Hussein's aggressive behavior. Brent Scowcroft, former national 
security adviser under Presidents Ford and Bush, put it very succinctly 
in an article printed in the September 23 edition of Newsweek.
  We were right to strike back, but we did so in a way that did no 
lasting military damage to him and inflicted significant collateral 
damage on us. The cruise-missile attack was quick, clean, and easy. 
But, it may have sent Saddam the wrong message--that he would only pay 
the price of a pinprick. When the smoke cleared, it looked to most 
political leaders around the world as though Saddam was better off and 
the United States was worse off than before the current crisis began.
  Mr. President, the article covers a number of other cogent issues on 
this situation. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in 
the Record following my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CRAIG. In addition to the loss of this high-stake game, I argue 
that Saddam Hussein won the divide-and-conquer battle. It is disturbing 
to note how many nations who were supportive of active participation in 
the coalition developed by President George Bush in the gulf war, have 
either failed to offer support or have condemned the American strikes 
and the American actions.
  The Russians not only opposed United States actions, but they went so 
far as to criticize the administration for playing electoral politics. 
France, once an important ally in the region, has refused to 
participate in patrolling the expanded area of the southern no-fly 
zone. Turkey, an ally since World War II, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have 
all expressed concern and refused to allow the United States to base 
some of their actions in their countries.
  By moving unilaterally, the President has isolated the United States 
in the region and weakened our position not only in the gulf, but it 
could spill over into other regional issues such as the U.S. effort to 
further the Middle East peace process.
  One point that has come to light which bothers me greatly is the lack 
of action to address growing concerns about the division and strains 
against the various Kurdish factions. Efforts to push diplomatic 
negotiations could have prevented the situation from escalating to the 
point that both Iran and Iraq were called into the conflict for support 
by the various factions.
  In addition, when new intelligence reports indicated troop movement, 
why were there no efforts to deter the looming action before troops 
were allowed to reach the Kurdish safe haven and quickly move into 
Irbil, remove the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, and execute 
approximately 100 non-Kurdish Iraqi dissidents who based their anti-
Hussein activities out of the area?
  Mr. President, the $1 billion-plus that the United States has spent 
establishing and maintaining the Kurdish safe haven is also lost. It 
has been acknowledged by U.S. officials that Saddam Hussein has left a 
massive security presence. That presence will keep his political 
opponents muted, and serve as a constant reminder to Iraqis and, indeed 
the world, that he intends to regain control of his entire country. 
Saddam is here to stay.
  In closing, while I appreciate the President's efforts to brief 
congressional leaders yesterday, I remain frustrated at the lack of a 
clear and precise direction on the part of the administration in 
dealing with Saddam Hussein. He is not going away, and neither are our 
interests in the region. We have lost ground during this go-around. 
But, we have been given a reprieve by the Iraqis, who recently 
announced a discontinuance of attacks on United States aircraft 
patrolling the no-fly zone, and ceased efforts to rebuild air defense 
systems destroyed by our missiles. Therefore, time is of the essence, 
and the President must get his policy on track, and this situation back 
into balance.
  And, President Clinton, you do accomplish this by vetoing the very 
bill that will fund our efforts in the Middle East and keep our men and 
women in uniform safe.
  I say in conclusion that it is time that the White House woke up, 
that America demand the answer to the fundamental questions: Why are we 
there? What is our mission? What is our end game?
  I must say to President Clinton, you have not demonstrated even the 
simple logic of why you would want to veto a defense appropriations 
bill at a time when you are offering expanded activities in an area 
where no mission is clear. I say, Mr. President, step up to the mike 
and step up to the country. Do what you are supposed to do as our 
Commander in Chief. Respond, in a clear, unequivocal message, as to 
what is our mission and work with us to not only defend our troops but 
to finance them, because as you send them in harm's way, you have a 
simple and most important obligation as our Commander in Chief, and 
that is to make sure that they are well financed and well cared for.

                               Exhibit 1

                    [From Newsweek, Sept. 23, 1996]

                      Why We Stopped the Gulf War

                          (By Brent Scowcroft)

       We have been listening to the same sad refrain for five 
     years; if only George Bush had finished off Saddam Hussein 
     when he had the chance at the end of the gulf war, we 
     wouldn't be in this mess today. There are two things wrong 
     with this reinterpretation of history. The first is that we 
     never had the objective of destroying Saddam's regime during 
     Desert Storm. The second is that had we continued the war and 
     overthrown Saddam, we might be worse off today.
       We had a crucial but limited objective in the gulf war, to 
     reverse Iraqi aggression, and to cripple Saddam's offensive 
     military capabilities. The international coalition that 
     President Bush put together to fight the gulf war was based 
     on this carefully defined goal. We certainly hoped that 
     Iraq's defeat would lead to Saddam's collapse, but we viewed 
     that prospect as a potentially beneficial byproduct of our 
     victory.
       If we had made Saddam's overthrow part of the objective, 
     there would have been no international coalition; even during 
     Desert Storm, our Arab allies stopped their troops at Iraq's 
     border because they wanted no part of an attack on Iraqi 
     territory. If we had continued to prosecute the gulf war 
     after we achieved or stated objectives, we would have 
     destroyed the coalition and squandered much of what our 
     victory had achieved.
       So if we had pressed on to Baghdad in 1991, we would have 
     been on our own. And if we had succeeded in overthrowing 
     Saddam, we would have confronted a choice between occupying 
     Iraq with thousands of American troops for the indefinite 
     future and creating a gaping power vacuum in the Persian Gulf 
     for Iran to fill. There was no support among the American 
     people for the first alternative in 1991, and even less so 
     today. The second alternative would have put our vital 
     national-security interests in jeopardy.
       Put simply, we recognized that the seemingly attractive 
     goal of getting rid of Saddam would not solve our problems, 
     or even necessarily serve our interests, any more than the 
     overthrow of Diem was a silver bullet to the conundrum of 
     Vietnam. So we pursued the kind of inelegant, messy 
     alternative that is all too often the only one available in 
     the real world. Having driven Saddam out of Kuwait and 
     destroyed much of his offensive military capabilities, we 
     concentrated on keeping the pressure on Iraq so that it could 
     not and would not once again threaten its neighbors. This is 
     the policy that the Clinton administration inherited. Saddam 
     may have made his move into northern Iraq two weeks ago 
     because he thought that with a presidential campaign 
     underway in the United States, we would not respond. Not 
     for the first time, Saddam miscalculated. We were right to 
     strike back, but we did so in a way that did no lasting 
     military damage to him and inflicted significant 
     collateral political damage on us. The cruise-missile 
     attack was quick, clean and easy. But it may have sent 
     Saddam the wrong message--that he would only pay the price 
     of a pinprick. When the smoke cleared, it looked to most 
     political

[[Page S10733]]

     leaders around the world as though Saddam was better off 
     and the United States was worse off than before the 
     current crisis began.
       A far more effective military response, though a more 
     dangerous one, would have targeted the Republican Guard units 
     that moved into northern Iraq. An air attack on those forces 
     would have put Saddam on notice that he must pay a real price 
     for his defiance. It also would have put on notice Iraqi 
     soldiers--on whom Saddam depends to remain in power--that any 
     time they march out on Saddam's orders, they will be subject 
     to devastating aerial bombardment.
       Now we are into the next round. Saddam has fired missiles 
     at our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. In return, we 
     have threatened a further ``disproportionate'' response and 
     are ostentatiously augmenting our military forces in the 
     area.
       The next time we hit Saddam, we should hit him hard, and 
     where it hurts him most, so that he cannot mistake our 
     message. Airstrikes will have to focus tightly on Iraq's 
     military machine, making it clear that we intend to punish 
     Saddam, not harm the Iraqi people. The Republican Guard is an 
     obvious target.
       The key point, however, is that the ``Iraq problem'' is not 
     susceptible to quick fixes. Dealing with Iraq will continue 
     to require patience and persistence, leadership and skill. 
     For the foreseeable future, a successful and sustainable--if 
     unsatisfying--policy is likely to share the same objectives 
     as the one we have followed since the end of the gulf war: 
     relegating Saddam to the category of a nuisance and 
     preventing him from re-emerging as a threat to his neighbors 
     or our vital interests.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask that I be notified at the end of 
40 minutes, and I ask unanimous consent the remainder of my 45 minutes 
then be delayed until 10:55.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Idaho 
for talking about General Scowcroft, who is one of the great foreign 
policy minds of our country, and I thank the Senator for talking about 
the principles that we should have in foreign policy. I think it is 
very important we look at the principles of foreign policy with the eye 
toward letting our enemies, as well as our allies, know what they can 
expect from us.
  Mr. President, what we are talking about today is a very important 
issue that is to be discussed in the Capitol, and that is defense 
spending. In fact, the President asked for $234 billion for defense 
spending. Congress asked the President to sign a bill for $244 billion. 
There is a difference of $9.5 billion between the President's request 
and that of Congress.
  Now, Mr. President, we are in military operations in Haiti, in 
Bosnia, we have been in Somalia, which cost precious defense dollars, 
we now have an escalation in the Middle East, we have 3,500 troops as 
we speak on their way to Kuwait because we have an escalation there, 
and yet the President of the United States, while putting our troops 
into these missions that are costing approximately $10 billion all 
together, nevertheless is asking us to cut $10 billion from the defense 
budget.
  Now, I point out some of the things that Congress would like to have 
in the defense budget that the President did not request. Two 
additional F-16's, to replace fighters that are lost due to combat, 
such as Captain O'Grady, who was shot down and was a true hero in 
surviving after being shot down by the Serbs. And, in fact, we are also 
sending F-16's right now to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to try to make sure 
that we have enough F-16's, which are such an important base of our 
operations in the Middle East. In fact, we are sending 23 F-16's right 
now. We are asking for two additional ones, which the President wants 
us to cut from the budget.

  We added $66 million above the President's request for additional up-
armored Humvees. I am sure my colleagues will remember that it was up-
armored Humvees that saved the life of one of our soldiers in the early 
days of the Bosnia conflict when his vehicle was destroyed--actually, 
it was struck by a landmine, but was not destroyed, because it was one 
of the up-armored Humvees. We want more of those to protect our troops 
if they are going to be in harm's way. But the President says ``no,'' 
he wants to cut those, even though they are proven to have saved at 
least one life in the Bosnia operation.
  Next, $190 million for additional scout helicopter aircraft. They are 
playing a major role in Bosnia today, and the Army is critically short 
of these scout helicopters. We are asking to upgrade the fleet of 
helicopters because they are such an important part of our military 
readiness. But the President says ``no.''
  Then there is $53 million for night vision devices that allow our 
soldiers to fight and win at night against this adversary that can't 
see us. That's what we are asking, Mr. President, among other things, 
for the readiness of our forces. Yet, the President, as the troops are 
going into harm's way for the protection of our interests, says he will 
veto a defense budget, unless we cut $2 to $3 billion out of it. Mr. 
President, you can't have it both ways. You cannot send our American 
troops into the world to be police and peacekeepers and to secure the 
interests of America--you can't ask them to do that if we don't have 
the equipment and the protection for them with theater defenses. Mr. 
President, you can't do it.
  Why would you threaten to veto a bill because it has $2 to $3 billion 
you would like to put somewhere else, when you are asking more from our 
military and they are performing? Mr. President, they are performing as 
they always do. They are performing with guts, with patriotism, and 
with belief in our country. They are representing our country. Mr. 
President, now is not the time to argue about cutting the defense 
budget.
  How much is this operation in Kuwait going to cost to defend against 
an aggression that might occur from Iraq? How much? We don't know how 
much. So, of course, the idea of cutting our defenses beyond bone, 
beyond muscle, but into contingencies, does not make sense.
  How could our Commander in Chief be talking about vetoing the Defense 
appropriations, the Defense appropriations bill? How could he be 
talking about vetoing the Defense appropriations bill at the time that 
he is sending our troops into a heightened area of awareness and 
caution and readiness in the Middle East? How could he do it, Mr. 
President?
  It's not right, and we, today, are calling on the President of the 
United States, the Commander in Chief, to work with us to keep our 
defenses funded. He is commanding our armed services, and he must fund 
them. Congress is trying to do that. Mr. President, work with us. If 
you expect our troops to do the great job they always do, you must fund 
them. You must give them the equipment. You must give them the 
ballistic missile protection in the theater.

  From my home State of Texas, we are sending 3,500 troops on the 
ground to Kuwait. We have sent about 120 from Fort Bliss, with the 
Patriot missiles, to protect them. Mr. President, we even have missiles 
that the President, the Commander in Chief, did not ask for, that have 
already been used in this conflict with Iraq. As the Senator from 
Arizona has said, the President did not ask for the missiles that he 
has already used. We must have the replacements. We have already used 
them. How could he at this time be talking about cutting $2 to $3 
billion out of our defense budget at the same time we are having cost 
overruns in Bosnia that will have to be funded, and we don't even know 
what Iraq will cost? This is not the time, and this is not leadership.
  Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished President pro tempore, the dean of the Senate and the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who has done so much to make 
sure that our men and women that serve our country are equipped and 
trained and protected, the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to commend the able Senator from 
Texas on this special order to have a discussion on this very important 
matter. She is a very able member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee and stands for a strong defense. She does all she can to 
promote the welfare of our men and women in uniform.
  Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in urging President 
Clinton to show his support for our men and women in uniform by 
indicating his support for the fiscal year 1997 Defense appropriations 
bill and conference report.
  In his radio address on September 7, just days after he authorized 
the cruise missile strikes against Iraq, President Clinton indicated 
that he would sign the Defense authorization bill. This legislation, 
the result of our work on

[[Page S10734]]

the Senate Armed Services Committee this year, authorizes 
appropriations for defense.
  In expressing his support for the Defense authorization bill, 
President Clinton stated:

       Once more, we have seen that at home and abroad, our 
     servicemen and women go the extra mile for us, and we must go 
     the extra mile for them. This bill makes good our pledge to 
     give our Armed Forces the finest equipment there is so that 
     they have the technological edge to prevail on the battle 
     fields of tomorrow . . . it also carries forward our 
     commitment to give our troops the quality of life they 
     deserve by funding family and troop housing improvements that 
     we want and by providing a raise of 3 percent . . .
  Mr. President, I believe the President was absolutely right in these 
statements of support for the Defense authorization bill and his 
decision to sign it. Yet, here we are within only a week or so of these 
statements, the administration is attempting to negotiate substantial 
reductions in the Defense appropriations bill.

  I have tried to determine why the President might not want to support 
the Defense appropriations bill. What events have transpired that might 
have caused him to think that the Defense appropriations bill has too 
much money for defense?
  The President has sent additonal airpower, seapower, and ground 
troops to the Middle East to bolster our military force in that 
troubled region. Every day, it appears more likely that the United 
States will have to continue some kind of military presence in Bosnia 
past the December 20 deadline currently set for the withdrawal of our 
forces currently serving in Bosnia. In addition, United States forces 
were recently dispatched to Haiti to help stabilize the government of 
President Preval.
  Mr. President, the Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1997 
authorizes for appropriations $265.6 billion--$11.2 billion above the 
President's budget request. However, in real terms, this bill provides 
$7.4 billion less than last year's defense bill. Mr. President, this is 
a very modest bill. Is there a Senator here who believes that our 
military forces will be called upon to do less next fiscal year than we 
have done in this fiscal year?
  Mr. President, the Congress has indicated strong support for the 
amounts of money provided for the Department of Defense in the Defense 
authorization bill and the Defense appropriations bill. We passed a 
budget resolution bill which supported this amount for defense. We 
passed a Defense authorization bill, voting several times in support of 
the amounts for defense in this bill. I do not believe we should now be 
negotiating these funds away for what appears to be political 
gamesmanship.
  It is clear that this administration relies greatly on our military 
services. The President must recognize that we must maintain a strong 
military, capable of performing anywhere in the world and at a moment's 
notice.
  Now is the time when the Congress and the administration must stand 
together in support of our men and women in uniform, as the President 
himself has stated, ``our service men and women go the extra mile for 
us, and we must go the extra mile for them.''
  I urge the President to indicate clearly his support for the Defense 
appropriations bill as he has for the Defense authorization bill.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 3 of the 
5 minutes that I have remaining at the end be allocated now to the 
Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, it is my 
understanding that we provided 45 minutes of morning business to begin 
at 9:30 for the majority side of the aisle, with 45 minutes of morning 
business to follow by our side of the aisle beginning at 10:15. My 
understanding is that the unanimous-consent request was previously 
propounded without objection, I think, by anyone on our side of the 
aisle, to segregate the first 45 minutes so that the last 5 minutes of 
it would occur at the end of the hour and a half block.
  If the Senator from Texas wished to change the agreement that was 
made last evening about morning business, then I would urge that we 
make that change in a manner that allows the additional 5 minutes 
between 10:55 and 11 to be controlled by the Senator from Texas and 5 
minutes controlled by me from 11 to 11:05.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Reserving the right to object, I do object, Mr. 
President. What I would like to do is ask that 3 of the 5 minutes from 
my last 5 minutes go to the Senator from Idaho now, and then I would 
like to have the last 2 minutes of the morning business time. So if you 
would like to extend for 5 minutes, would you be willing to extend 5 
minutes from 10:58 to 11:03?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I do not quite understand the request. My 
intention is not to prevent the Senator from Idaho from speaking in any 
order. My only point was that, if we are intending to change the 
agreement that was made last evening without consultation, then the 
agreement should provide, if the Senator from Texas has 5 minutes, at 
10:55 to 11 o'clock, that we would have 5 minutes from 11 to 11:05.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Let me add this. If you are wanting the last 5 
minutes, how about your taking 10:55 to 11 and letting me have my last 
5 minutes, giving 3 minutes to the Senator from Idaho at this time, and 
then 2 minutes, before you go into your last 5 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. The only caveat to that would be, why don't we just 
provide that our side will have 45 minutes? To whatever extent that 
takes us over the 11 o'clock hour, it does. We would want to have the 
full 45 minutes. We have Senator Feinstein who wants to speak, and 
Senator Biden may be here to speak on a couple of things. I would like 
to make sure that we have equal time.
  I was surprised that the agreement last evening, which was 45 minutes 
on each side, was changed this morning without consultation. I have no 
objection to anyone speaking at any time except that we would like to 
have the last 5 minutes in this block today. So the Senator from Texas 
apparently now has, by unanimous consent, 5 minutes from 10:55 to 11, 
and she is asking consent that the Senator from Idaho be included in 
that.
  Is that correct?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. I am asking consent that we also in that request add that 
we would have 5 minutes additional from 11 to 11:05 for our side to 
close in morning business.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Let me see if I can make this easier. Let me just 
take my last 5 minutes right now and then the Senator can have--if you 
are still wanting to go over, I am concerned about going past 11 just 
because of the order of voting and what Senators have been told. So if 
you would like, the point is you would like to have the last part of 
the debate, would you be willing to let me give 3 minutes to the 
Senator from Idaho, let me finish with 2 minutes, and then you take 
until 11. Would that be acceptable?
  Mr. DORGAN. No. The agreement last evening was that we would have 45 
minutes. We would insist under the agreement that our side receive 45 
minutes. It is certainly acceptable to having you complete your morning 
business now. In fact, if you wanted a couple of extra minutes, that is 
fine with me. We would simply provide that we would want an equal 
amount of time on our side.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. At this point, then, I would like to reserve my 2 
minutes at the end and give the other 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I don't 
mean to quibble about this. But does that include the opportunity for 
our side then to extend beyond 11 o'clock, as I have indicated?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Let me ask if we could do this. Let me ask the 
Senator from Idaho to have up to 3 minutes now, and then the Senator 
from North Dakota would be able to get 45 minutes, and then I would 
have 2 additional minutes, whatever that would take.
  Mr. DORGAN. I would object. Let me say to the Senator from Texas with

[[Page S10735]]

great respect that we had an agreement last evening about morning 
business. Without consultation, we have a unanimous-consent propounded 
and agreed to because no one on our side was on the floor. If you wish 
to propound a further unanimous-consent request, I will object unless 
we restore the agreement that was obtained last evening of 45 minutes 
on each side. You are certainly welcome to 5 minutes toward the end, 
provided you accord the same opportunity to us. If you choose not to do 
that, I would be constrained to object.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. In an effort to give the Senator everything I think 
he has asked for, not to be quibbling, the only reason that I would 
give up what I have by unanimous consent is because the Senator from 
Idaho has been waiting, and in order to give him 3 minutes I am going 
to give you whatever you want. So I will say that I will ask unanimous 
consent that the 3 minutes of the 5 minutes that I have left be given 
to the Senator from Idaho, and that then I will have 2 additional 
minutes for my 45 minutes, and then the Senator from North Dakota will 
control 45 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Idaho is 
recognized.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. These are precious 
3 minutes. I will make the best use of them.
  For the 11th year in a row, we have cut the defense of this Nation--
11 years. Last year, the administration assured the Senate Armed 
Services Committee that this year there would be no further cuts and 
that we would see the adding of funds for procurement so that we could 
buy the ships and the tanks and the trucks our men and women in the 
military so critically need.
  As passed, the current budget for the Department of Defense, the 
budget that is now in question and we are talking about this morning, 
does not even keep up with inflation. What is in it? Things that are so 
straightforward, such as a 3-percent pay increase for men and women in 
the military, a very real issue, and all of the equipment that they 
need.
  Later today, the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing 
on General Downing's report on the terrorist bombing of Khobar Towers 
in Saudi Arabia. Nineteen Americans lost their lives in that bombing.
  Yesterday, the President announced he was sending an additional 5,000 
American soldiers to Kuwait to keep Saddam Hussein in Iraq. In Bosnia 
the elections have taken place. Now the administration is considering 
keeping the American soldiers in Bosnia after the 1-year deployment we 
were told would do the job. These so-called peacekeeping missions have 
shown us repeatedly that the world remains a very dangerous place for 
Americans and certainly for the men and women in uniform. We must make 
the hard decisions and spend what is required to protect our Nation's 
vital interests.
  If the President wants to once again reduce funding for defense, I 
would ask him, which requirements does he propose to cut? Which 
requirements does he propose to cut? Is the President ready to remove 
our troops from Bosnia? If so, declare it. Is the President ready to 
end our enforcement of the no-fly zone over Iraq? If so, declare it. Is 
the President willing to now say there is no need to send the troops to 
Kuwait? If so, declare it. What do the cuts do to the responsibilities 
he is giving to our troops? We continually ask our troops to do more 
and more and we ask them to do it with less and less. That is wrong. 
That is not what a Commander in Chief should be asking of those troops 
that are under that Commander in Chief's command.
  Last night, we had the celebration of the 180th anniversary of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee. We acknowledged the leaders that have 
been in that position. We acknowledged Senator Strom Thurmond and 
Senator Sam Nunn, who I believe are together on this issue. There was 
an interesting quote that was pointed out to us last night by President 
Calvin Coolidge who said:

       The Nation which forgets its defenders will be itself 
     forgotten.

  I think that says it all. Let us not forget our defenders. Let us not 
forget the men and women in uniform that we repeatedly ask to put their 
lives on the line.
  No more cuts, Mr. President. No more cuts.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized 
for 45 minutes under the previous order.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think the previous order was that I 
had the last 2 minutes after Senator Kempthorne's 3 minutes and then 
the Senator from North Dakota would have 45 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator wishes to take the time now, 
that is fine, if there is no objection.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. That was the agreement. I thank the Chair.
  I think the Senator from Idaho said it all. If you are going to cut 
the defense budget at the same time that you continue to ask our 
military to do more with less, tell us where you want to cut.
  The President of the United States is now threatening to veto the 
Defense appropriations bill if we do not cut $2- to $3 billion out of 
it. As 3,500 troops are on their way to Kuwait to defend the interests 
of this country, the President is threatening to veto the Defense 
appropriations bill. How could he do it? With troops going into Haiti, 
with troops in Bosnia, overruns there right now, and more troops on the 
way to a hot spot in the Middle East, and he is telling Congress cut 
$2- to $3 billion out of the defense budget.
  Mr. President, where do you want to cut? Are you going to cut F-16's, 
as you send 23 more to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? Or are you going to cut 
the cruise missiles that you did not put in the budget in the first 
place which have already been used in your operation over Iraq? Is that 
what you want to cut? Or do you want to cut the Humvees with the added 
armor that has already saved one life in Bosnia when a landmine was run 
over by a Humvee but the protection was there and an American life was 
saved? Is that what you want to cut?
  Those are the things in our budget that the President did not ask for 
and would be asking us to take out. Mr. President, step up to the line. 
If you are going to cut the defense budget, you tell us where you want 
to cut. It is very clear we are going to need Stealth bombers. We have 
already used them. Are we going to start cutting Stealth bombers as we 
are sending them into harm's way?
  Mr. President, step up to the line. Tell us where you want to cut. 
Let us be responsible. Let us fund our men and women who are defending 
the interests of this country.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous unanimous consent 
agreement, the Senator from North Dakota is recognized for 45 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I shall not use the entire 45 minutes. 
Senator Feinstein from California is here. I believe Senator Biden 
wishes to speak. I do want to call a couple of items to the attention 
of my colleagues and I do want to respond some to the comments that 
have been made this morning in the previous 45 minutes.

                          ____________________