[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 82 (Monday, June 22, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6735-S6737]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 2057, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2057) to authorize appropriations for the fiscal 
     year 1999 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
     Forces, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Feinstein amendment No. 2405, to express the sense of the 
     Senate regarding the Indian nuclear tests.
       Brownback amendment No. 2407 (to amendment No. 2405), to 
     repeal a restriction on the provision of certain assistance 
     and other transfers to Pakistan.
       Warner motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
     Armed Services with instructions to report back forthwith 
     with all

[[Page S6736]]

     amendments agreed to in status quo and with a Warner 
     amendment No. 2735 (to the instructions on the motion to 
     recommit), condemning forced abortions in the People's 
     Republic of China.
       Warner amendment No. 2736 (to the instructions of the 
     motion to recommit), of a perfecting nature.
       Warner amendment No. 2737 (to amendment No. 2736), 
     condemning human rights abuses in the People's Republic of 
     China.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, John Rood is 
granted floor privileges during consideration of the pending debate of 
the defense authorization bill, S. 2057.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will make some comments on the defense 
bill that we are considering.
  This defense authorization bill, as reported by the Armed Services 
Committee, contains essential elements to ensure that our military men 
and women and the equipment that we have are prepared to respond when 
and if needed for our national security. Funds are included in the bill 
that continue to modernize the force and continue to improve the 
quality of life for our military personnel and families.
  The bill remains within the limits of last year's budget agreement. 
It cuts spending by about 1 percent in real terms from last year. The 
committee approved a budget of $270.6 billion in budget authority.
  The bill represents a number of very difficult choices--choices that 
we had to make when we proposed increases in funding for the programs 
that the committee wanted to increase. For every dollar of increase, of 
course, we had to find funds elsewhere and, accordingly, there are some 
cuts in the budget that came from the administration. There are a few 
significant departures from funding levels in programs that were in the 
budget last year. In my view, it is a more ``responsible'' budget than 
we have had here on the Senate floor in several years with regard to 
our defense spending.
  That said, the relative stability in the bill can be a good thing. It 
can also prevent us from moving swiftly in important directions that 
require a timely response. I want to speak to some of those in a 
moment.
  At its best, the bill takes good care of the military personnel and 
their families. It contains a 3.1 percent pay raise, effective January 
1, and three health care demonstration projects for retired military 
personnel, who are over 65, and for their families. These projects are 
designed to meet the concerns voiced by retirees who have served their 
country and seek equitable and quality health care services. There is a 
provision to enhance cooperation between the Veterans' Administration 
and the Department of Defense in providing health care to dual-eligible 
beneficiaries. There is a continuation of pilot and nuclear personnel 
bonuses and increased limits on certain bonuses to enhance recruitment 
and retention. There is increased funding for construction and upgrades 
of family housing. There are provisions to make it easier for military 
families to move when they are required to move.
  For my home State of New Mexico, the bill includes significant 
funding for our military bases and our National Laboratories that will 
benefit not only my State but the Nation. It includes funds for the 
High Energy Laser Test Facility and the Tactical High Energy Laser 
Program at White Sands Missile Range. It includes funding for the high-
tech research being conducted at Phillips Laboratory in Albuquerque. It 
includes substantial funding for the defense programs at Los Alamos and 
Sandia to support their work in the stockpile stewardship program, 
nonproliferation research and development, and nuclear security 
assistance programs. It includes funds for military construction 
projects that we have been seeking--a new support facility for National 
Guard in Taos, NM, refurbishment of facilities and new family housing 
at Kirtland Air Force Base, a new war readiness facility at Holloman 
Air Force Base, and a badly needed runway repair project at Cannon Air 
Force Base.
  Mr. President, for all the good things that this bill provides for 
our military personnel and to the facilities in my State and to the 
Nation, there are still some aspects of the bill that I find troubling.
  The bill continues to place relatively greater emphasis on programs 
that address potential, rather than actual, long-term threats for which 
there is no current deployment requirement. Increased spending in those 
areas has come at the expense of programs designed to meet near-term 
threats which are actual and for which validated requirements exist.
  For example, the bill contains $1.1 billion for strategic missile 
defense programs, including national missile defense and space-based 
laser programs; that is an increase of $100 million over the 
President's request. That $1.1 billion is compared to $675 million for 
programs designed to reduce the threat of proliferation of nuclear, 
chemical, and biological weapons. The committee approved cuts in 
funding to proliferation prevention programs at a time when India's 
actions, and now Pakistan's actions, remind us of the immediacy of such 
threats.

  Information provided to the committee indicates that the 
intercontinental ballistic missile threat for which the national 
missile defense is intended is limited. The Intelligence people told 
our committee that such threats from rogue nations are not likely to 
occur for many years in the future.
  The tradeoff seems clear to me. The committee prefers to allocate the 
lion's share of resources to meet a poorly defined threat that lies 
somewhere in the distant future, rather than allocating resources to 
meet the near-term, real world threat of proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction.
  Particularly, the bill does not fully fund programs intended to meet 
the threat of proliferation of weapons grade fissile materials, highly 
enriched uranium, and plutonium. A small amount of any of these 
materials in knowledgeable hands could wreak havoc upon our cities.
  It is extremely important that we continue to work cooperatively with 
Russia and with other former Soviet States to account for and secure 
former Soviet nuclear weapons and related nuclear materials.
  Despite the clear and present danger of that threat, the committee 
chose to reduce funding for the DOD's cooperative threat reduction 
program, also known as the Nunn-Lugar program, by $2 million after 
considering much deeper cuts.
  The committee cut similar programs managed by the Department of 
Energy by $20 million. Those programs are designed to improve the 
security of Russian nuclear weapons and materials and to provide 
protection against their theft, unauthorized use, or accidental misuse.
  The Department of Energy's materials protection control and 
accounting program provides those security measures to a small portion 
of Russia's nuclear arsenal. With more funding, that program could 
provide greater security against the threat of smuggling dangerous 
materials to terrorists or rogue nations.
  Instead, if the bill is passed as it stands, funding for this 
program--an essential program for our Nation's security now and in the 
future--is going to be cut. Efforts to secure hundreds of tons of 
nuclear materials at 53 sites will be delayed.
  Mr. President, I spoke of India and Pakistan a moment ago. I would 
like to take a few more minutes to relate that problem to this defense 
bill. Shocking as India and Pakistan's nuclear tests have been, they 
should serve as a wakeup call to this country and to the Senate. The 
proliferation clock ticks on, while the Senate defers debate and 
consideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Other nonnuclear 
States could be reconsidering their positions on nuclear weapons in 
light of events in south Asia.
  China, who is a signatory to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, may 
now choose not to ratify. The U.S.--the first to sign the treaty--
should have led the effort to implement a comprehensive testing ban 
before now. Perhaps our leadership in that area could

[[Page S6737]]

have forestalled the tests in south Asia. Instead, the Senate has 
chosen not to step forward. Now we see ourselves more as a follower 
than as a leader in this area.
  One element that could support a leadership role in ratifying a 
comprehensive test ban is an effective nuclear stockpile stewardship 
program. That program is an essential element for ensuring the safety 
and reliability of our nuclear weapons in the absence of testing. The 
directors of our National Laboratories at Livermore, Los Alamos, and 
Sandia have testified about the effectiveness of that program in the 
absence of nuclear testing. In spite of that testimony, this bill 
reduces funding by $145 million in prior year balances that, according 
to the DOE, no longer exist.
  Without sufficient funding for the stockpile stewardship program, 
this bill threatens the likelihood of ratifying the Comprehensive Test 
Ban Treaty. Failure to ratify that treaty plays into the hands of the 
Indian and Pakistani Governments and could encourage other nonnuclear 
nations to follow their lead. The result will be a far more dangerous 
world than the one we live in today.
  Mr. President, I am concerned that while many of my colleagues are 
focused on the long-term future security issues, they may have their 
focus in the wrong place. Funding for basic research and development 
and building, the building blocks for future technological advances, 
continues to receive low priority in this defense budget. It is not 
anticipated to increase for the foreseeable future under current 
Department of Defense plans.

  My colleagues acknowledged when considering this bill that funding 
for basic research and development has often been and remains a bill 
payer for other programs.
  Efforts to identify this problem and establish long-term spending 
goals for basic research were rejected during the deliberations in the 
committee on this bill.
  I believe that the high-tech future so many of us in the Senate 
consider an axiom of America's future security is unlikely to become a 
reality in the defense area unless we make the investment that is 
needed in the future today.
  In addition, funding for the Nation's test and evaluation facilities 
and their operations lags behind efforts to modernize our weapons.
  I have seen this with personnel cuts, neglect of infrastructure, and 
aging instrumentation at White Sands Missile Range in my State. These 
cuts reflect a low priority that has been given to the testing 
activities across the Department of Defense in this budget.
  These cuts suggest that even if our technical genius continues to 
provide new technological opportunities, we may not be able to 
adequately evaluate whether they will actually work as intended.
  Mr. President, I am concerned about the inertia contained in this 
bill. I believe that in many ways it fails to meet our most immediate 
high priority security concerns. It may also fail to lay a sound 
scientific foundation for the long-term security needs of our country.
  I urge my colleagues to consider these large issues as we consider 
the bill this week. We have an opportunity to fix some of these 
problems. I hope we are able to do so. I intend to have one or more 
amendments to offer later in the week which will help us to accomplish 
that.
  Mr. President, let me yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum at this point.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________