Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Thirty minutes equally divided.

Mr. DOLE. I thank the Chair. I would like to commend the members of the Armed Services Committee who, under the able leadership of the distinguished chairman, Senator Thurmond, and the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], have done a first rate job on the defense authorization bill. In particular, I would like to congratulate the Armed Service Committee for the forward-looking Missile Defense Act contained in this bill. The Missile Defense Act is unique because it does not just authorize appropriations for individual programs, it also provides a strategic logic--principles, premises, and policies--thereby integrating these programs into a coherent and comprehensive approach. In my view, the approach adopted in this bill is very compelling on four important points. First, this legislation firmly establishes the critical imperative of defending the United States of America from ballistic missiles. Morally, rationally, and constitutionally this must be our top priority. Why is this important now? Very simply because the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them is dramatically increasing. I would like to commend the distinguished junior Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] for highlighting this threat, as well as the need to defend America against it, in his amendment. The Missile Defense Act notes that weapons can be acquired by our potential adversaries far more quickly than they can produce them indigenously. Mr. President, we cannot wait around for years until this threat is literally on our doorstep. We must prepare now. And so, I am very pleased with the national missile defense architecture established in the Missile Defense Act. This architecture includes ground-based interceptors, fixed ground-based radars and space-based sensors. The bill establishes a deployment goal of 2003 and provides an additional $300 million to support that goal. In my view, that is a good start, but frankly for something as important as defending our citizens, I would like to see an increase to ensure that we will be able to meet the 2003 date. Second, the Armed Services Committee's bill deals with the thorny ABM Treaty questions through an intelligent two-step approach: Step 1: It addresses what missile defenses are covered by the ABM Treaty, namely by establishing the following standard: Those actually tested against a ballistic missile with a range of over 3,500 kilometers and a reentry velocity of over 5 kilometers per second. This is the standard proposed by both Presidents Bush and Clinton. The point is that we should not drag theater systems into a treaty which was never intended to cover them. Step 2: Contrary to wild administration accusations, the bill reviews where we go next with regard to the ABM Treaty. I think we need to set straight what this bill does and does not do. It does not set us on a collision course with the ABM Treaty by mandating abrogation. Indeed, it does not mandate any particular outcome. It does recognize that an effective multiple site defense of the United States is inconsistent with the treaty as things stand today. The key here is that an effective defense requires multiple sites. It does call for a year of careful consideration of these matters before we decide how to proceed on the ABM Treaty. The bottom line is that the bill recognizes what we all should be aware of--that mutual assured destruction, the doctrine underlying the ABM Treaty is not a suitable basis for stability in a multipolar world, nor for an improving relationship with Russia. Our goal should be, as outlined in this legislation, to seek a cooperative--and I stress cooperative-- transition to a more suitable regime to this post-cold-war era. The third aspect of this bill that is noteworthy is that it establishes a cruise missile defense initiative. In view of the fact that potential adversaries now have access, in varying degrees, to the technologies necessary to build effective cruise missiles, this measure is on the mark and reflects considerable foresight. It is my understanding that in addressing cruise missiles, the committee has in no way detracted from the emphasis placed on ballistic missiles which are a current and rapidly growing threat. Finally, I would like to commend the establishment of a theater missile defense core program. The rationale behind theater missile defense is to deny a potential adversary the option of escalating by attacking or just threatening to attack U.S. Forces, coalition partners, or vital interests. The key elements of this core program are three systems already being pursued by the Clinton administration-- namely Patriot-3, Navy lower tier, and THAAD--as well as one critical addition: Navy upper tier. The committee has wisely added $170 million to Navy upper tier. Mr. President, just imagine trying to put together the Desert Storm Coalition if Saddam Hussein could have credibly threatened London, Rome, Istanbul, or Cairo with ballistic missiles. We cannot allow our political and military flexibility to be hindered. Therefore, our objective must be to prevent placing our forces, or those of our allies, needlessly in harm's way--with systems such as THAAD and Navy lower tier. Furthermore, the United States must have the ability to project a regional ballistic missile defense capability where and when we need it. Navy upper tier give us that capability. Mr. President, I would also like to note that the bill does save some money by terminating the boost phase intercept program and adding a lesser amount to explore fulfilling the same mission with an unmanned air vehicle [UAV], in conjunction with Israel. Given Israel's expertise in UAV's and its keen interest in a boost phase interceptor, this makes sense to me. In addition I would like to emphasize that the programs and approach contained in the Missile Defense Act should be viewed as an integral part of our counter- proliferation strategy. If our adversaries know that their hard-gained missiles will be of no use against America and its allies, they may well be dissuaded from acquiring them in the first place. Before I conclude, I would like to address the issue of how much all of this costs. It costs $3.4 billion. This is a substantial price tag, but does not represent even 2 percent of the total Department of Defense budget. More importantly, however, in considering the costs associated with missile defense, we need to keep in mind how the threat to our Nation's security and to our interests has changed. For two centuries, oceans protected us. Now technology gives even relatively weak adversaries the hope of attacking or blackmailing the United States. This bill takes concrete steps [[Page S 11273]] to protect us and sends the clear message that we will defend our homeland with our superior technology. Moreover, America has, and will continue to have, vital interests around the globe which must be protected, as well. Therefore, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to reject the measure offered by the Senator from Michigan--or any other amendment which would weaken or threaten the Missile Defense Act. Just let me indicate, having visited briefly with the chairman, that it is his hope, and it will happen, we will be here late tonight, and hopefully during this next vote we can line up serious amendments. Last night sort of fizzled out. Nothing very serious happened after 8:30. So tonight we would hope to have amendments up until a late hour and then conclude action on this measure tomorrow. This is a very big amendment. It has taken a long time. It is now 5\1/2\ hours into this one amendment and I think that should be, with 30 minutes to go, that should be enough time on this amendment. But this is a very substantial amendment. It is one of the more important amendments. It certainly deserves a lot of consideration. But, again, I would just say to my colleagues in the nicest way I can, that a lot of people want to have an August recess and they would like to have it start in August. We are trying to work that out, and much will depend on the cooperation of our colleagues.

Mr. DOLE. I have not made that request yet. That is going to be next. All right?

Mr. DOLE. Let us get this part and then I will make the next request. Is there objection to this?

Mr. DOLE. Amendments to the DOE bill will be in order but we would like to have the votes on those tomorrow morning.

Mr. DOLE. That is fine. We still want to accommodate the Senator from Arkansas. Is there any objection to the request on his amendment?

Mr. DOLE. Because let me indicate again, on Saturday we start off with the Treasury-Post Office appropriations bill, and I am not certain when this bill will be back again. So, hopefully, if we can accommodate the manager, who has been working very hard--he lost 5 hours yesterday. We had 7 hours today on one amendment. They are trying to catch up here. So if we can keep our amendments to a minimum, I am certain it will help the managers, who have done a good job. We do want to accommodate the Senator from Arkansas. He has a funeral to attend tomorrow.

Mr. DOLE. I understand that.

Mr. DOLE. So if that took that much time, it would be about 11:30. It would seem to me, those who are involved can stay here and debate those and then have those two votes first thing tomorrow morning, if that is all right with the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wonder if I could have the attention of all Members here so I can tell them where we are. It is my understanding we might be able to line up three votes here-- or three amendments, which will be debated tonight and voted on first thing in the morning if votes are necessary. I think the first will be an amendment by the Senator from Arizona, which will be second-degreed by the Senator from Connecticut. I am not sure that will require a vote. It may or may not require a vote. Then there is a DOE matter which will take, I understand, about 2 hours of debate. Then Senator Bumpers, we want to accommodate him because he has a personal problem tomorrow. We would like to take at least one of his, debate one of his amendments tonight and the other the first thing in the morning. Will that be satisfactory?

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, will we be able to get a time agreement on this amendment? Is it going to be accepted? We just spent 7 hours on the last amendment. If this bill is not finished by tomorrow night, I think it is gone. I hope we can get a time agreement, if it is necessary to have it.

Mr. DOLE. That is true. This only refers to this amendment.

Mr. DOLE. That is what we have done here the last several times.

Mr. DOLE. That is correct.

Mr. DOLE. That is correct.

Mr. DOLE. No, not until after a motion to table, if it is not tabled.

Mr. DOLE. Say 2 hours on that side, and 1 hour on this side? So we could vote, then, by maybe 4:30, depending on how much time we use? I do not think we need 2 hours on this side. I just want to get the time agreement. If there is no objection, let me propose this consent agreement. I ask unanimous consent that there be 3 hours on the Levin amendment prior to a motion to table, to be divided 2 hours for Senator Levin or his designee, 1 hour for Senator Thurmond or his designee, no second- degree amendments or amendments to the language proposed to be stricken be in order prior to a failed motion to table, and any second-degree amendment or amendment to the language proposed to be stricken be relevant to the first-degree amendment, and that following the conclusion or yielding back of time, Senator Thurmond or his designee be recognized to table the Levin amendment.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, when the Senator from Michigan adds the time there, we may want some time on the other side of the amendment. Hopefully not as much. I do not think it would take as much.

Mr. DOLE. I will just wait until the Senator adds it up. If we do not get it now, it may be another hour. Title 31

Mr. DOLE. I will just take a minute. I want to see if we cannot get agreement on time here. We have been on this amendment since 11 o'clock. I have been listening to people ask for time agreements. We are not even close to a time agreement. This bill is dying on the floor. This may be a very important amendment, but we intend to complete action on this bill by tomorrow night or I do not see when it comes up again. Because Friday--Saturday we will do appropriations bills, maybe one or two appropriations bills. Maybe late Saturday afternoon we can start on welfare reform, and then late in the week take up the defense appropriations bill. If we want to pass the DOD bill we have to have cooperation. If we do not want to pass it, I assume we can take 6 or 7 hours on this amendment. It has been 2\1/2\ hours. Is there any indication, any willingness to enter into a time agreement at this point? The Senator from Michigan----

Mr. DOLE. Can you give us some indication of what the amendment was?

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

Mr. DOLE. I think that is an excellent idea. Senator Daschle and I may be starting to put it together, to rotate back and forth on the sequence of amendments. I think the Senator from Arizona wants to do the same thing. Maybe we can do the Senator's this evening if he has to be gone tomorrow.

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

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate to my colleagues that there will probably be additional votes tonight. There will be an amendment by Senator Cohen, 30 minutes equally divided--15 equally divided.