[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 139 (Tuesday, October 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12077-S12080]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   SOME DEPARTING THOUGHTS ON OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE AND FOREIGN POLICY

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, this is one of a series of general policy 
speeches I am delivering as my tenure in the Senate draws to a close. I 
will focus here on national defense and foreign policy issues--what my 
priorities have been as a Senator, where we stand in terms of our 
preparedness, and what the future might bring. It is not my intent here 
to be entirely comprehensive, for that would necessitate far more time 
than we realistically have. Instead, what I want to do here is simply 
to look back over my 18 years in the Senate and draw upon specific 
debates, crises, decisions, programs, and legislative efforts to 
reflect upon where we were when I came here, where we are now, and 
where we might go tomorrow, after I am again a private citizen.
  First, I wish to emphasize that we as a nation should be grateful 
that we face no immediate threat to our borders from foreign military 
powers. I am particularly proud that I have played some role in 
rebuilding our Armed Forces and military strength during the aftermath 
of the Vietnam war. This commitment on the part of our Nation 
contributed substantially to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and 
its Communist philosophy. In my opinion, it was probably the major 
reason. This commitment proved itself again during the Persian Gulf 
war.
  With my own experiences in World War II and observations since that 
time, I have felt compelled that we must at all times endeavor to 
obtain lasting peace, and that the primary road to achieving this goal 
is through military strength.
  It is often stated on this floor of the U.S. Senate that for the 
first time in decades there is no Soviet missile targeted at the United 
States. In general, we are fortunate that our national security and 
defense policy are no longer focused on a single massive Soviet 
adversary. But, in other ways, our decisions are now far more complex, 
for they must take into account far more players, some of whom may not 
be clearly identifiable. Moreover, I believe the United States needs to 
continue the development of certain initiatives originally intended to 
respond to the Soviet military threat. Although we no longer need to 
fear a nuclear superpower, other countries now have access to Soviet 
weapons. Many countries also have achieved the technological capability 
to produce nuclear weapons and

[[Page S12078]]

other weapons of mass destruction. We still face the threat of an 
accidental launched missile with no reliable means of defending the 
continental United States.
  Former President Reagan deserves a great deal of credit for pursuing 
his Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983. SDI has faced tough 
opposition from its inception. I have fought with many of my colleagues 
to fund the program in the Senate. In 1984, we managed to save the 
program and, in fact, the American Security Council, then-majority 
leader Howard Baker, and the President credited me with swaying the 
critical votes to save funding for that year. I will always remember 
the President phoning me and saying ``Bless you. Bless you.'' It has 
remained a difficult task to continue to provide research and 
development funds for this program. In 1989, changing relations with 
the former Soviet Union continued to fuel the opponents of the program 
and debate has continued into the post-cold-war era.

  I feel that we must continue our efforts here in Congress to deploy 
an antiballistic missile system. And in my opinion, we should do it in 
evolutionary stages. The space-based laser incarnation of the 
antiballistic missile program must have continued research technology 
for the future. Today, we have the technology to develop and deploy a 
missile system to defend against an attack or accidental launches. We 
should develop and utilize that technology.
  Actually, I advocated this position some time before President Reagan 
called for the development of the SDI program. In fact, in a meeting 
with him, I urged him to call for such a program. When the President 
established an inter-agency panel to recommend the best way to proceed 
with the strategic defense initiative, I lobbied for this approach, and 
was quite pleased to learn that the panel reached the same conclusion. 
In later years, I introduced amendments that would require the focus of 
the strategic defense initiative to the deployment of ground-based 
systems first. Then, as now, we need a ground-based technology rather 
than a space-based system, like Brilliant Pebbles. The ground-based 
system proved itself in a theater concept during the Persian Gulf war.
  The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty has been both a consideration and a 
limitation in the deployment of this technology. I called for 
reconsideration of the ABM Treaty with the Soviets before it came up 
for review in 1982 while the nuclear arms race was ongoing. It seems to 
me a wiser approach to develop weapons that will be used only in a 
defensive nature. More recently, I urged the immediate deployment of a 
single antiballistic missile site that would be considered treaty 
compliant, and I have strongly advocated negotiations to allow the 
deployment of multiple ABM sites. Ultimately, the Congress hammered out 
a compromise the President could accept and which complied with the 
treaty to allow an unspecified number of sites to be deployed in the 
year 2003.
  Since the very early days, when critics labeled the strategic defense 
initiative as an absurdly futuristic plan, public opinion of ABM 
technology has changed. A poll last year indicated that 90 percent of 
the American people believe that the United States should develop a 
missile defense system. The Congress and the President of the United 
States have the support of the people, the technology to accomplish 
this and the means to deploy these systems. I strongly urge my 
colleagues in this Congress and future Congresses to not let this 
initiative die.
  Mr. President, in order to continue the preeminence of the U.S. 
military strength, I believe we need to continue with the development 
of smart weapons technology connected directly or indirectly to 
strategic defense. A few examples of programs I have supported over the 
years include the ASAT [Anti-Satellite Missiles], THAAD and other ABM 
technology.

  Even though the United States is preeminent in military technology, 
we must maintain a large and well-prepared conventional military force. 
Throughout my Senate tenure, I have always been a proponent of the 
American arms buildup. President Carter called for NATO nations to 
increase its military spending by 3 percent, which I supported. This 
was the first step toward rebuilding our military. In 1980, I pushed 
for increased defense spending because I feared that the Soviets had 
surpassed us in many ways, including conventional weaponry, chemical 
warfare, and most importantly, trained manpower. In the following years 
of President Reagan's two terms, I consistently supported his efforts 
to increase national security.
  More recently, I have urged a slowing to our military cutbacks. I 
supported President Clinton's decision to seek higher defense spending 
levels to deal with increasing need for the U.S. involvement in world 
affairs, including Haiti, Somalia, Rwanda and Kuwait.
  The conventional forces of the United States have assumed an 
additional role during my time in the Senate. In order to cope with the 
number of small-scale threats around the world, our Nation desperately 
needs to maintain its quick-strike capabilities. I first advocated this 
type of force during the Iranian hostage crisis. At that time, it 
became obvious to everyone that the United States could no longer rely 
on its nuclear arsenal to combat the increasing number of brush fires 
around the world. We in Congress must make a commitment to see that the 
men and women in the Armed Forces have the training, the support, and 
technology that is deserving of the commitment these young people have 
made to protect our interests all around the world.
  Manpower remains a significant element of our national defense 
posture. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in late 1979, I 
supported the reinstatement of draft registration. I have also 
advocated increased compensation for the men and women in the military. 
The quality of our forces is essential to our security. Although I 
opposed including women in the draft and in combat, I have fought to 
ensure the military uses all of its personnel to the best of their 
abilities. I joined in introducing a bill in 1979 to end sexual 
discrimination in promotions, particularly in the Navy and Marine 
Corps.
  The Navy may well be the most important element of our conventional 
forces. When I first came to the Senate, the United States had two 
ocean naval fleets. The Iranian Hostage Crisis, however, led me to 
believe that the United States needed to maintain a presence in the 
Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf. I advocated this position at the 
time, but of course, it is even more important now. This region will 
continue to be a focal point in defense and foreign policy for years to 
come. We must be prepared to address unforseen developments in other 
regions as well.
  In 1981, I was alarmed to learn that our Navy had halved its strength 
since 1969. President Reagan and Secretary John Lehman's leadership 
called for the creation of a 600-ship Navy. This buildup turned out to 
be an effective tool in the cold war and we cannot allow too large a 
reduction in our current naval force. We need to maintain the ability 
to convey our Forces around the world and provide the strike potential 
of our carrier groups. For these reasons, I was particularly proud to 
support naming a carrier after President Reagan.

  I also believe that the United States must continue to focus on 
continuing to improve air forces. Air superiority on the battle field 
often times determines the outcome before the ground forces are ever 
deployed. The United States must continue to upgrade its fleet of B-52 
bombers. In fact, this was an issue in my first campaign. I have been a 
supporter of the B-1 bomber since 1979, because even then, the 30-year 
old B-52's needed replacement. Stealth technology was still on the 
design table and this aircraft in my opinion was the most reasonable 
alternative. Opponents argued that the United States did not need a 
manned bomber; however, I think the need was proven in the Persian Gulf 
war. We must continue to embrace the stealth technology and improve 
upon it to maintain our air superiority.
  In this post Communist world, weapons proliferation still poses 
serious threat to our national security. For this reason, I would like 
to commend my colleagues, Senator Nunn and Senator Lugar, for their 
hard work to prevent the distribution of the weapon stockpile of the 
former Soviet Union. We must also not lose focus and emphasis on the 
United States need to keep control over its own technology. I have 
opposed certain nuclear sales in

[[Page S12079]]

the past, such as President Carter's uranium fuel deal with India. 
India was, in my opinion, a blatant violator of the 1978 Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Act and I believe India also violated the 1963 act by 
using United States supplied nuclear fuel to build a bomb. I tried to 
prevent similar sales by joining in offering an amendment to the Export 
Administration Act of 1984 to require nuclear regulatory commission 
guidelines in fuel sales.
  Chemical warfare is another increasing threat to American security. 
In 1980, I attended a briefing in Fort McClellan, Alabama and learned 
that the Soviets greatly outmatched our defensive chemical 
capabilities. The Soviets had significantly more trained specialists 
and their regular troops were much better equipped and informed. 
Furthermore, reports indicated that the Soviets were willing to use 
offensive chemical weapons, and in fact, they had delivered chemical 
attacks in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Laos, and Yemen. I was pleased that 
Secretary Haig called attention to this threat in 1981.
  To respond to this threat, I supported the construction of a binary 
chemical weapons facility at Fort Smith, AR. My recollection is that 
then-Vice President Bush voted to break the tie vote on this issue 
after I cast the tie vote. The existing U.S. chemical weapons dated 
back 30 years; I felt they were obsolete and relatively ineffective. 
The threat of chemical warfare has not lessened. In fact, the potential 
danger is probably even greater now, as we learned in the gulf war. 
Increasing terrorism, like the Tokyo subway bombing, also underscores 
the need for chemical weapon response readiness. In order to address 
this problem, the Senate passed a number of chemical weapons provisions 
in its antiterrorism bill last year, including an amendment I offered 
to criminalize the possession of toxic nerve gas, which I was shocked 
to learn was not illegal to possess.

  With this in mind, I have fought since 1990 to keep Fort McClellan 
and its chemical school open. Senator Shelby, Congressman Browder, and 
officials from Calhoun County and the Federal Affairs committee at the 
Calhoun County Chamber of Commerce headed by Gerald Powell deserve a 
tremendous amount of credit for their efforts to advocate our position 
before the Base Closure Realignment Commission.
  Even though the Defense Department last year recommended the closure 
of this facility, the BRAC Commission twice recognized the need to keep 
this facility open and viable. General Schwartzkoff offered a ringing 
endorsement to the U.S. Senate of the live agent training and the 
continued operation of Fort McClellen. The General noted that chemical 
training had bolstered the morale of troops serving in the gulf armed 
with the knowledge of dealing effectively with these deadly weapons. 
The commander of British chemical training also argued that live agent 
training greatly increased confidence and morale. Even though the third 
BRAC Commission voted to close Fort McClellen--mistakenly, in my view--
I still hold the conviction that the United States must continue vital 
chemical warfare defensive training and it must keep the live agent 
training in the chemical school at the same facility.
  In order to maintain America's conventional forces at the highest 
level during a time of continued fiscal austerity and national debt, I 
want to emphasize the necessity of keeping the Pentagon at its most 
cost effective. In 1981, I sponsored a measure to establish an 
inspector general for the Department of Defense. At that time, 
estimates indicated that the simple elimination of waste might cut 
defense spending by nearly one-third. In 1983, Congress created the 
office, but I thought it was a mistake to make the inspector general 
accountable to the Secretary of Defense rather than being an 
independent official. I argued that an independent solution would have 
been more effective.
  I have also been an advocate of consolidated development efforts 
within the Pentagon, as well as revolving door and contract guidelines 
to increase competition. I also fought for the establishment of a 
central procurement office at the Pentagon. My efforts were driven to 
some degree by revelations made during judiciary subcommittee hearings 
held in 1985. At these hearings, we learned that the Pentagon had lost 
control of its spending, pouring hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of 
dollars into a single hammer or other simple item.
  Another way of increasing the cost-effectiveness of our Armed Forces 
is maximizing efficiency through consolidation. I worked throughout my 
time here to enact such a plan at Fort Rucker, AL. Beginning in 1979, I 
advocated a plan to merge helicopter training from all four branches at 
the fort, and continued my efforts during President Reagan's first 
years in office. I urged the Defense Secretary and the OMB Director to 
adopt the plan, and solicited studies to examine its feasibility. 
Senator Shelby and I renewed this effort under President Clinton, but 
again, we were unable to get the Department of Defense to carry out the 
implementation. However, I remain firmly convinced that such 
consolidation plans, if put into place across the country, are obvious, 
commonsense ways to address wasteful duplication of effort.

  Increased profit through defense conversion will also be a helpful 
means of saving money. To this end, I supported President Clinton's 
technical reinvestment project to provide grants for small firms to 
convert from defense production to the development of technology with a 
dual-use, both civilian and military.
  With regard to antiterrorism efforts, I believe the United States 
needs to maintain training to cope with attacks now more than ever in 
its history. One facility which has served our antiterrorism goals well 
is the bomb school at Redstone Arsenal, AL. When I came to the Senate, 
this school was the only facility of its type in the country. It was 
run by the Army and funded by the Law Enforcement Assistance 
Administration. Later, when the LEAA was eliminated, Congress decided 
to fund the school through the FBI. There was a gap in the funding for 
fiscal year 1981, and we succeeded in including a line-item 
appropriation for the school.
  The importance of these programs only continues to increase. After 
the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, the Judiciary Committee held 
hearings to consider ways to prevent and combat terrorism in the 
future. We listened to testimony from the FBI director and officials 
from the Southern Poverty Law Center, among others. In fact, the 
bombing hit close to home for me personally, since just a little over 5 
years before, a terrorist mailed pipe bombs to four locations in the 
South. My close friend, Judge Bob Vance, died in one of these attacks. 
Of course, I strongly believe in the individual rights provided in the 
Constitution, but we must work to strike a balance which preserves 
these rights, yet also prevents individual terrorist acts.
  Espionage has also taken on a different form in today's world. We are 
now faced with spies who embrace a new motivation--greed. They do not 
act out of ideology or beliefs, and have no goals but their own gain. I 
introduced legislation in 1985 to address this new motivation. It would 
have stripped any convicted spy of anything acquired through espionage, 
and it would have denied movie or book rights about treason.
  Since then, the Aldridge Ames case has demonstrated that this problem 
is only growing. We cannot allow ourselves to think that espionage is a 
thing of the past, nor that it exists only as a remnant of the Cold 
War. Instead, it will continue to increase, and we have as much or more 
to lose in the future if we cannot combat it effectively.
  We need to keep a close eye on our intelligence community. When Ames 
was finally caught, I learned that the FBI and CIA did not have access 
to his personal financial records. I introduced a bill to require 
financial disclosures from key intelligence officers at the CIA. I 
believe such a requirement would protect intelligence officers while 
also preserving our security.

  I also want to stress the importance of increasing our self-
sufficiency in terms of energy consumption. In the past, events such as 
the oil crisis in 1979-1980 have taught us that the United States is 
too heavily dependent on foreign countries for its defense materials. 
Those same countries which provide us with vital raw materials could 
become our adversaries. At that time, I

[[Page S12080]]

called for contingency plans and investigation of the possibilities of 
utilizing our domestic resources, including the Alaska oil reserves. 
Since then, we have faced other energy scares, such as that which 
contributed to the Persian Gulf war. There is no reason to believe that 
such crises will not recur, and I urge Congress to continue exploring 
alternatives to dependence on foreign energy sources.
  Military alignments among nations will be a major consideration in 
the future. One reason I supported the defense buildup in the 1980's 
was to reassert the U.S. position among our allies, which needs to be 
sustained. The expansion of NATO into the former Eastern bloc remains a 
key question of alignment. In 1993, NATO began to consider the 
admission of new members, including Poland, Hungary, and the Czech 
Republic, but Russia's position was unclear. The fall of communism did 
not bring a conflict-free Europe, but instead brought back some of the 
old alignments and hostilities that had existed before the two world 
wars. As chairman of the Senate delegation on the North Atlantic 
Assembly, I introduced a plan to provide specific guidelines for 
getting nations ready for NATO membership pursuant to the Partnership 
for Peace plan. Congressman Doug Bereuter of Nebraska, a vice chairman 
of the Assembly, joined me in this effort. Our plan calls for NATO 
applicants to demonstrate civilian control of the military and police, 
free and open elections, policies against international terrorism and 
crime, and other commitments desirable of NATO members. The plan also 
required the NAA's permanent committees to consider and report on any 
reform these countries might need to implement before NATO admission. I 
believe we need to be very cautious in the future about not treating 
NATO as a type of European United Nations, and remember that it is 
first and foremost a military alliance.
  In my role as chairman and cochairman of the NAA Senate delegation, I 
have also gained direct input from European parliamentarians on such 
matters as lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia. Many of these leaders 
feared that a unilateral lifting of the embargo would cause a 
spillover. I argued that given the complexities of the war in Bosnia, 
there was simply no good way to know what effect it might have. With 
great reservation, I ultimately supported an amendment in the Senate to 
lift the embargo only under the auspices of the U.N. and NATO.
  While I firmly believe in keeping our military strong--the best in 
the world--I also believe that reducing nuclear weapons and other 
weapons of mass destruction should remain a top priority. In so doing, 
we must again look at recent history as a guide. When President Carter 
signed the SALT II Treaty in 1979, I had serious reservations about its 
provisions. Could we rely on the Soviets to be honest about compliance? 
More importantly, could we confirm their compliance? These questions 
and others weighed heavily on my mind, as they undoubtedly did on those 
of all involved. There were methods available to verify Soviet missile 
tests and other related activities, including telemetry, satellites, 
and radar. But, if our then-adversary violated the treaty, the problem 
of dealing with noncompliance remained.

  At that time, I advocated tough diplomacy backed up by definitive 
intelligence information. I felt this was the only realistic way to 
proceed. Of course, that was easier to say than do. What would the 
Soviet reaction have been? Would we have been able to rely on our own 
technology and intelligence for confirmation? Would they view such a 
stand as provocative or threatening?
  Another problem was the fall of the Shah of Iran. A number of our 
primary detection stations were in Iran, and the CIA estimated that it 
would take at least 5 years to recover what we had lost, due to the 
instability there. Ultimately, the treaty died when the Soviet Union 
invaded Afghanistan.
  To make the point even more clear, look at the situation in 1991, 
when Presidents Bush and Gorbechev signed the START agreement. I was 
very hesitant about ratifying that treaty. Its signing came shortly 
after the attempted coup in August of that year. This kind of 
instability would almost certainly come into play with other 
unpredictable nations who are becoming nuclear powers. In 1991, the 
outcome was favorable, but we cannot always bank on such an outcome.
  When we do have to defend our vital national interests, economic 
sanctions and embargoes will continue to be an effective tool. I have 
usually supported sanctions over force, at least initially. I first 
called for the use of sanctions against Iran, after the hostage crisis 
began. I also introduced legislation to compensate the hostages from 
frozen Iranian assets in the United States. Similarly, I would have 
preferred the use of sanctions against Haiti rather than the threat of 
force.
  But, we must be careful with the sanctions strategy, because it is 
not always effective, and sometimes it hurts Americans as much as the 
country we are trying to influence. I felt this was the case with the 
grain embargoes against the Soviet Union, which hurt United States 
farmers more than the Government of the U.S.S.R. Generally speaking, we 
should ensure the effectiveness of embargoes through a cooperative 
international effort.
  Generally, I have been proud of the Senate for rallying behind the 
American President whenever he has determined the necessity of using 
our Armed Forces. The finest example of this resolve came during the 
Persian Gulf deployment in the fall and winter of 1990-91. I was 1 of 
11 Democratic Senators to vote in favor of authorizing the use of force 
before the bombing began, although the entire Senate formally back 
President Bush after the hostilities began.

  I have been consistent in embracing the philosophy of supporting the 
Commander in Chief, regardless of the party or what I might have felt 
personally could have been done differently or better. I supported 
President Carter throughout the Iranian hostage crisis. There was 
nothing to be gained by second-guessing his decisions--even after the 
failed rescue mission of April 1980. I felt this support was especially 
important given the Ayatollah's strategy of portraying a weak resolve 
on our part. Along these lines, I was particularly horrified by Ramsey 
Clark's kangaroo-court style probe of United States policy toward Iran, 
and pressed for a criminal investigation. I also supported the invasion 
of Grenada to protect American citizens and the removal of the corrupt 
Manuel Noriega to protect our vital interests in the Panama Canal 
region.
  There have been other instances where I have been opposed to military 
action itself, but felt the President had the constitutional authority 
to initiate such action. Haiti was one example of this. I voted against 
a resolution requiring the President to adhere to a waiting period, 
although I did not want to see United States troops sent to Haiti. 
Another example was the deployment of ground troops in Bosnia, which I 
did not view as serving our vital national interests. However, I did 
argue that it was important to unite behind the President once his 
decision had been made and the troops had been deployed.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to urge the Congress to be 
extremely careful about cutting back our Armed Forces in the years to 
come. Despite what we think of as a relatively stable world, the 
future, in reality, is very uncertain and unclear. The nature of 
threats to our security is unfocused at this time. Tensions in Iraq 
have again flared, and instability may return to other areas of the 
world as well. Although world peace is our ultimate goal, it would be a 
serious mistake to allow ourselves to think we have reached that goal. 
The tensions that remain all around the world dictate that we continue 
our military preparedness in a manner that will allow America to be 
victors in any conflict that may arise with the fewest casualties 
possible.

                          ____________________