Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I think Senator Voinovich is going to be on the floor shortly. I would like to be briefed on what our time restraints are. How much time do we have on the amendment?

Mr. ALLARD. I compliment the Senator from Ohio for his hard work on this particular issue. It is a pleasure to work with the Senator on looking at fair alternatives to pay down the debt. This is important to future Americans. People ask, how will it affect me personally? If you buy a new car, the Government is not competing with you for that money; or if you go to pay for college education, the Government is not competing with you for that money; if you buy a home, the Government is not competing with you for that money. It tends to hold down interest rates. That means it costs less. It costs less to get a college education, costs less to pay for your home, and it costs less to buy a new car. It is important not only to the security of this country, but to Americans individually. I thank Senator Voinovich from Ohio for his steadfastness in fighting this issue. It has been a pleasure to work with him and the other cosponsors on this amendment.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. That is correct.

Mr. ALLARD. I just resent the fact that the Senator suggests in some way----

Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator from Arizona yield to me for a point of order?

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Virginia. Mr. President, I came to the floor to talk about the importance of the authorization of the Department of Defense. This is an important piece of legislation. I am not here to impugn the motives of some of the other Members of the Senate or to try to mischaracterize what their reasons might be for coming to the floor. This is a good piece of legislation. Senator McCain from Arizona is certainly a hero in my mind; he continues to be that. I know he is trying to do what he thinks is best for this country. I respect that. I think we have before us a very important piece of legislation. We should not put it at risk. This is an authorization bill that increases, by some $4.5 billion, defense spending over what the President proposed. It is a 4.4-percent increase in real terms over what we spent last year. If there is anything we have neglected over the last several years in the budget, it is our defense. We have been obligating our troops overseas. In fact, if we look at the record, between 1956 and 1992, our troops were deployed some 51 times. Between 1992 and today, we had the same number of deployments. At the same time we are increasing our reliability on our fighting men and women, we are cutting their budget. I think that is inexcusable. It is time Congress recognized what the problem is that the President of the United States in particular recognizes: We are not appreciating the service of our men and women in the Armed Forces. With this legislation, we begin to appreciate the dedication and hard work of the men and women who have been serving us in the Armed Forces. Again, I thank Chairman Warner for allowing me another opportunity to speak in strong support of this essential bill for our men and women in the Armed Forces. This bill is a fitting tribute for those who served, are serving, and will serve in the armed services in the future. The defense bill is simply too important to be mired in political goals but should show them respect and provide them the best defense authorization bill we possibly can. The fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization Act is a bipartisan effort. For the second year in a row, we have reversed the downward trend in defense spending by increasing this year's funding by $4.5 billion over the President's request for a funding level of $309.8 billion. As the Strategic Subcommittee chairman, we held four hearings. The first hearing was on our national and theater and missile defense programs. The second hearing was on our national security space programs. We had a third hearing, the first congressional hearing on the newly-created and much-needed National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA, and we had a fourth hearing on the environmental management programs at the Department of Energy. In response to the needs we have heard during the hearings, the Strategic Subcommittee has a net budget authority increase of $266.7 million above the President's budget. This includes an increase of $503.3 million to the Department of Defense account and a decrease of $263.3 million to the Department of Energy accounts. There are two provisions I will highlight which pertain to the future of our nuclear forces. The first relates to the great debate we had on Tuesday and Wednesday regarding the amendment by Senator Kerrey and the second degree by Senator Warner. The original provision requires the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to conduct an updated Nuclear Posture Review. It was in 1994 that we had the last Nuclear Posture Review. However, with the adoption of the Warner amendment, there is not in place a mechanism by which the President may waive the START I force level requirements. The second provision requires the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to develop a long-range plan for the sustainment and modernization of U.S. strategic nuclear forces. We are concerned that neither Department had a long-term vision about their current modernization efforts. Both of these provisions are important pieces of the puzzle for the future of our nuclear weapons posture. A few budget items I will highlight include an increase of $92.4 million for the airborne laser program that requires the Air Force to stay on the budgetary path for a 2003 lethal demonstration and a 2007 initial operational capability; an increase of $30 million for the space-based laser program; a $129 million increase for national missile defense risk reduction; an increase of $60 million for Navy theaterwide; and an extra $8 million for the Arrow system improvement program; and for the tactical high energy program, an increase of $15 million. For the Department of Energy programs, we increase by $87 million a program within the NNSA, which is an increase of $331 million over last year. In the Department of Energy's environmental management account, we decrease the authorization by $132 million. However, I will stress that this bill still increases the environmental management account by more than $250 million over last year's appropriated amount. Again, I will mention a few important highlights of the authorization bill outside of the Strategic Subcommittee. There are many significant improvements to the TRICARE program for active-duty family members. The bill includes a comprehensive retail and national mail order pharmacy program for eligible beneficiaries, no enrollment fees or deductible, resulting in the first medical entitlement for the military Medicare- eligible population. I am very happy with the extensions and expansions of the Medicare subvention program to major medical centers and the number of sites for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Demonstration Program. Yesterday, the Senate, by a vote of 96-1, supported Warner- Hutchinson, which eliminated the law that forced military retirees out of the military health care system when they became eligible for Medicare. Now they have all the rights and benefits of any other retiree. With regard to the workers at the Department of Energy, we provide employee incentives for retention and separation of Federal employees at closure project facilities. These incentives are needed in order to mitigate the anticipated high attrition rate of certain Federal employees with critical skills. Just today, we accepted a very important amendment which established an employee compensation initiative for Department of Energy employees who were injured as a result of their employment at Department of Energy sites. As the Strategic Committee chairman, I believe this bill is the only vehicle to provide such an initiative for these workers and their families. I think that is very important. This bill is the only vehicle to provide such initiative for those workers and their families who work at the Department of Energy sites. On Tuesday, this bill added an additional piece of funding for a memorial which should have already been built. The amendment added $6 million for the World War II memorial. I will include for the record a copy of the opinion editorial I wrote concerning the World War II memorial. I ask unanimous consent that that be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD. Finally, I want to mention my strong support for the Smith amendment, of which I am a cosponsor. This amendment would prohibit the granting of security clearances for DOD or contractor employees who have been convicted and sentenced for a felony, an unlawful user or addict to any controlled substance, and any other criteria. To be brief, our U.S. national security is too important to risk by granting clearances to felons. We are all concerned about personal rights, but when it comes to security issues, these must override all others. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Warner for the opportunity to point out some of the highlights in the bill which the Strategic Subcommittee has oversight of and to congratulate him and Senator Levin for the bipartisan way in which this bill was developed. I ask all Senators to strongly support S. 2549. One of Congress' main responsibilities is to provide for the common defense of the United States. I am proud of what this bill provides for our men and women in uniform. We must not be blinded by political motives when it comes to our men and women in the armed services. All of the issues that come before the Senate are critical, but I hope that when it comes to this bill, we will remember why we are doing this. This bill is not for us and our political goals, but for our young men and women in the armed services. I see this bill as a tribute to the dedication and hard work of these young men and women--the same men and women I had the opportunity to visit a few weeks ago on the U.S.S. Enterprise. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that a piece I wrote regarding that visit and dedication be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask for a strong vote on this bill in order to get the much needed and well-deserved resources to our military personnel. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD. I object.

Mr. ALLARD. I object.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator from Nebraska yield for just a moment? I would like to be able to answer his question.

Mr. ALLARD. In considering this issue, we need to have a careful Nuclear Posture Review. It is not going to happen quickly. What the Senator from Nebraska wants to see happen in public policy where we would carefully evaluate where we are in comparison with the rest of the world is not going to happen in 3 or 4 months. It is going to take time. We have to have input from civilian experts. We have to have input from military experts. From a practical standpoint, it is probably not going to be an opportunity on which this President can act. Whether it is a Democrat or Republican President, whoever is in office next, I think the same policy is going to have to apply because the ultimate goal is to have a careful posture review and make sure we do not unilaterally disarm this country, that we do not make it more vulnerable than it is today. I yield my time to the chairman of the committee.

Mr. ALLARD. The Chairman made a good point. We need to run a comparison. The question the Senator asked is, Do we need to delay actions? The answer is, No, we don't want to unnecessarily delay action. But I think we need to have a responsible decisionmaking process set up. These are very complex issues. There are a lot of issues involved. Hearing the Senator's comments sounds to me as if he would agree with what the committee has tried to do. They said: Look, these are complicated issues. We need to have a careful review. In fact, the Strategic Subcommittee, which I chair, has set up a process where we have two studies to review our nuclear posture of where we are and move into negotiations. For the committee to be informed means we have to hear from the professionals who deal with these issues. They need to bring the information to the committee. We represent the people of the United States in the Congress and the Armed Services Committee tries to represent those interests. We have to set up a process to do exactly what the Senator from Nebraska is talking about. A lot has changed since the last posture review in 1994, and what was relevant in 1994 is not necessarily relevant today. We have new leadership, by the way, since that review. In Russia, we have new leadership. We have new leadership around the world. We have leadership that has changed even in this country. We need to reevaluate in the context of this new political environment. We need to reevaluate in the context of new technology, new positions as far as the nuclear posture is concerned. This amendment is critical to protecting our country and stabilizing the world. We need to get the current crop of experts, military and civilian--it is proper to bring in the civilian role--to formulate recommendations given today's dynamic changes. It seems to me the Senator from Nebraska would agree with what the committee is trying to do. We agree perhaps times have changed. As the chairman pointed out earlier, the law expressly prohibited the President. Now we are saying, with a careful Nuclear Posture Review, maybe we can move ahead and review some of these issues. (Mr. L. CHAFEE assumed the chair.)

Mr. ALLARD. Let me tell you what the committee was thinking, as chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee, when we looked at this and said we need to have a careful Nuclear Posture Review. The Senator is trying to imply there was a political motive with that. This committee, made up of Democrats and Republicans, said we need to have a careful Nuclear Posture Review and we need to look at the facts. We recognized that in 1994 we had a review. We need to go back.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to point out that the START II agreement is not a unilateral agreement, it is a bilateral agreement. It takes the approval of both the Duma and the Russian leadership, as well as the United States. Also, to clarify the record, in 1997 the Quadrennial Defense Review didn't include a Nuclear Posture Review. I think it is entirely appropriate that we have a Nuclear Posture Review. Since 1994, a lot of leadership has changed. A lot of technology has changed. Certainly I would like to see us move forward with disarmament. But it needs to be verifiable. It shouldn't be unilateral. I think those are two very important conditions as we move forward on the disarmament discussion. I congratulate the chairman because I think he is moving forward with this amendment pretty much with the strategic committee; that is, we need a very careful Nuclear Posture Review. It should involve civilians as well as the military. This is not going to happen quickly. It is going to take time. This should happen no matter who the President of the United States is. We shouldn't rush into these agreements until we fully understand where we stand and where our posture is. I know we have some Members on the floor who may want to speak. But I say to the chairman that I think perhaps at this time we ought to have a little bit of review as to what has been happening here in the debate. I would like to take the time to do that and to clarify some statements that have been made in this debate. Since fiscal year 1996, Congress has passed, and the President has signed, legislation prohibiting the retirement of strategic nuclear delivery systems--bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and strategic submarines--until the START II agreement enters into force. This provision was designed to put pressure on Russia to actually ratify the START II agreement. The idea was not that they were going to send back a counterproposal to the United States. Again, it would have to be considered by this Congress. This was not an inflexible position. I point out that, for example, last year the law was modified to allow the Navy to retire 34 Trident strategic submarines. Moreover, the law has been and continues to be consistent with the administration's own policy. We have heard quite a bit about the statement made by Gov. George W. Bush relating to U.S. strategic forces. What has been overlooked in his focus on the need to have a comprehensive review of our strategic guided forces is the statement that originally was made by Governor Bush. He said, ``As President, I will ask the Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of our nuclear force posture.'' Then he goes on to say, ``the exact number of weapons can only come'' after this careful assessment. I think we are very much in step with what the committee has been saying, what George W. Bush would like to see happen, and what I hear the chairman of the Armed Services Committee saying he would like to see happen. I would like to again review where we are with the Warner amendment. The Warner amendment substitute would include additional items to be considered in the review required by section 1015, including whether reductions can be conducted in a balanced and reciprocal manner, whether changes in our alert posture would enhance our security and strategic stability, and whether U.S. strategic reductions could adversely impact our conventional delivery systems, such as the B-52 bomber. The Warner substitute amendment provides authority for the President to waive the limitations in current law regarding the retirement of the strategic nuclear delivery systems once the Secretary of Defense has completed the Nuclear Posture Review required by section 1015. The amendment by the Senator from Nebraska, on the other hand, would not be consistent with a policy enunciated by Governor Bush, nor would it satisfy the concerns Congress has raised for the last 5 years. It could lead to misguided and uninformed reductions rather than a forced posture review based on careful review of all of our strategic requirements and how they relate to overall national military strategy. I thank the chairman for his leadership. I pledge that I will continue to work with the Senator for disarmament, move towards disarmament, but it has to be bilateral and verifiable.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Glen Davis, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the entire debate of S. 2549.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I would like to respond to that. On page 4 of the Warner amendment, it says after submission of a report, consult with the new Congress in subsection (c). I think if those positions are met, we can move forward.

Mr. ALLARD. In my view, and the way I read the amendment--and I think you are missing the main point of the amendment--is that you have a careful review before making a decision. From a practical standpoint, hopefully, it is not going to be an easy decision arrived at. If you are using February as an example, I think it may be possible, because if you look into it, it says after the quadrennial review of 2001.

Mr. ALLARD. I thought the Senator from Virginia was controlling the time.

Mr. ALLARD. That is correct.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Doug Flanders of my staff have floor privileges during the entire debate of S. 2549.