[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11209-S11210]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   STROM THURMOND NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                        1998--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I have heard many of the statements made 
here today and yesterday regarding the defense authorization conference 
report and, indeed, I had hoped to come to the floor earlier, but I was 
involved in a meeting in my office with the Foreign Minister of the 
Republic of Yugoslavia in a very serious and protracted discussion 
about the possible military options that Mr. Milosevic's Government and 
our Government were considering with respect to the situation in 
Kosovo, and the readiness of the military forces as well as the ability 
of those forces to respond to various contingencies was a significant 
part of our discussion.
  Many of our colleagues have expressed their concern over the degraded 
state of readiness of our armed services. Mr. President, I share those 
concerns, especially as they relate to our fundamental ability to fight 
and win two major wars as is called for by our national military 
strategy.
  Admittedly, the need to fight two such wars has been challenged by 
many, but until the tense situations in the Middle East and the Korean 
peninsula are behind us, we do not have the luxury of cutting force 
structure anymore. Indeed, in the words of the well-known Broadway 
musical, ``we've gone about as `fer' as we can go.''
  Yesterday, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the four 
service chiefs confirmed that the risk we now associate with fighting 
in a second theater is high. By ``high risk,'' we mean that the level 
of troop losses in such a conflict could be unacceptably high. This, 
Mr. President, is a serious development and one which merits our 
immediate attention. Many of our colleagues have also expressed 
frustration that we were made aware of this and other readiness 
problems only recently.
  While I share some of these frustrations, I also appreciate the 
complexity of predicting problems even a few months out. Pilot 
retention, for example, can be a function of the strength of the 
economy. Moreover, I appreciate the comments by our service chiefs in a 
hearing yesterday that reinforced the immense complexity of managing 
our readiness, especially like a major downsizing unlike anything we 
have been through since the end of World War II.
  This having been said, we have a serious readiness problem that 
threatens to nosedive very quickly. We are already eating our seed 
corn, and the threat of a hollow force, according to our witnesses 
yesterday, looms only 5 or perhaps a few more years out.
  Some fixes can be made in short order; others, such as fielding new 
equipment that won't consume so much of our resources to maintain, may 
take years.
  The obvious solution and one quoted by many of those participating in 
the hearing and certainly by our service chiefs is more money.
  While I will support supplemental funding for the Department of 
Defense, I do so with considerable frustration over this Congress' 
inability to have the courage to cut wasteful defense spending. While 
we rail on and on about the administration for underfunded readiness, 
we refuse to cut bases. One more base closure round should realize 
around $3 billion a year in steady-state savings, enough to pay for a 
host of readiness problems.
  While some attack our service leaders for not being forthcoming, we 
add hundreds of millions of dollars in military construction projects 
that, although requested by the military for future years, we rush to 
build today so we can score points back in our States and districts 
just before an election. While some claim we have had no indications of 
a looming readiness problem, the fact is that we have. But despite 
this, we added over $2 billion in this bill for procurement and 
research and development projects that were simply not requested by the 
military. I am not suggesting they are not necessary in the long term, 
but they were not requested by the military in this bill.
  Mr. President, I support this conference report. I will support the 
supplemental funding package. But I hope each and every Member will 
find the will next year to support substantial infrastructure 
reductions and stop pushing so many Member interests

[[Page S11210]]

onto the defense authorization bill so that we can put those limited 
tax dollars that we do have available for our Nation's defense to work 
directly and exclusively for the soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines 
who are willing to risk their lives for this Nation.
  With that, Mr. President, there will be more to say tomorrow when the 
defense authorization report is formally considered by the Chamber.
  I ask unanimous consent that the previous unanimous consent order be 
modified to accommodate the distinguished Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia for making that request. I will be very brief.
  First, I compliment the Senator from Virginia. I came here to speak 
on another subject, but his remarks on what is the current topic about 
military readiness were very topical and timely. He made one very 
salient point that needs to be reinforced, and I would just like to 
lend my support because, as you know, I will not be here next year, and 
I regret it for a number of reasons, but one of the reasons is because 
I won't be here for the debate about just how bad off our Defense 
Department is on readiness, No. 1. No. 2, the question keeps coming 
back to me on why, if $270 billion, which is this year's defense 
budget--or maybe that is the amount we appropriated for next year, $270 
billion--if that isn't enough when you consider the fact that that is 
more than all the defense expenditures of the rest of the world and 
twice as much as China and Russia and the so-called seven or eight 
rogue nations, you have to ask yourself, what are we doing with that 
$270 billion?
  When you add NATO to it, NATO and the United States combined spend 
well over twice as much as the rest of the world combined.
  I wish I was going to be here for this so-called readiness debate. I 
have watched this thing happen about five times since I have been here, 
where we go along and all of a sudden the Defense Department comes over 
and says, ``Our readiness is declining; our ability to meet the 
contingencies that we see are something we are not going to be able to 
meet with our existing manpower.''
  It makes me wonder, because then Senators begin to hear from their 
constituents back home that the Joint Chiefs have said we are woefully 
inadequate in this department, woefully inadequate in that department. 
And among other things, General Shelton pointed out yesterday in the 
Armed Services Committee that one of the reasons they feel like their 
readiness is slipping is because they have things imposed on them to 
the tune of about $4 billion or $5 billion this year they didn't ask 
for.
  When you consider the fact that our retention rate of pilots is 27 
percent, and we are in the process of building about 700 new F-18s and 
339 F-22s, you have to ask yourself, Who is going to fly those planes? 
If we can't compete with commercial airlines, then we ought to raise 
the salaries of our pilots.
  It is absolutely unconscionable that we spend the amount of money 
that we do--hundreds of thousands of dollars--training pilots only to 
watch the commercial airlines take them away from us once they have 
been trained. The only way you are going to overcome that is to change 
the salaries of pilots so you can retain them.
  I am like Senator Robb, I will have more to say on this subject 
later.
  I really came over to give another brief statement.
  This is the eighth year I have been trying to kill the space station. 
Everybody knows that. I only have about 6 more days to speak my mind in 
the U.S. Senate.
  I know that everybody is going to be extremely rhapsodic and excited 
to hear the good news, and that is, since I stood on the floor about 6 
months ago and tried to kill the space station once again, the cost of 
it has only gone up $8.3 billion. We are now headed into the second 
$100 billion for the space station. You have to bear in mind that that 
is only if the Russians are ready, for example, with a service module 
by April of 1999, and even NASA itself says they are not likely to be 
ready until the fall of 1999.
  When I tell you that we are soaring past the $25 billion mark right 
now, and we will probably be at $30 billion by April of next year as 
best we can project, and you understand that the Russians are not going 
to be ready with a service module by next April as anticipated, and if 
it is next fall, just keep adding a billion here and a billion there.
  Mr. President, all I can do is to tell my children and grandchildren 
I did my best to stop this thing before it got completely out of 
control, and I failed miserably. I never received more than 35 votes, 
maybe 40 at one time.
  I have to admit, it is extremely gratifying to come over here and 
tell you, ``I told you so.'' There is just nothing politicians like 
better than to be proven right.
  I will be down in Arkansas watching C-SPAN occasionally. Senator 
Pryor tells me he is so happy now he doesn't even watch C-SPAN anymore. 
He says sometimes it just ruins his whole day. I will be down there and 
probably watching C-SPAN as I watch the cost of the space station soar 
from $100 billion--it is about $104 billion right now--right on up to 
$150 billion and watch the U.S. Senate put their imprimatur on it and 
say, ``Sic 'em, tiger; go at it, and we'll just keep spending the 
money.''
  It doesn't make any difference. I can tell you right now it does not 
matter what the space station winds up costing; we are going to build 
it. Nobody can tell you why, but we are going to.
  I will have a little more to say on this the first opportunity 
tomorrow or Friday.
  I yield the floor, and I assume we will stand in recess.

                          ____________________