J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Madam President, these programs, in the opinion of most senior military leaders, are unnecessary. Even if the Pentagon had the money, the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs have said that they would not fund these programs this year, not next year, not in 1999, not in the year 2000, and not in the year 2001. Since both the administration and the Republican majority propose to spend virtually the exact same amount on defense over the next 6 years, funding these programs directly takes away from others that the Pentagon says it needs. Is this a way to budget responsibly for our national security? I suggest not. Is this a way we should spend the taxpayer's hard-earned dollars? I think not. Some of my colleagues will assert that some of these increases are justified because they were included on one of the infamous wish lists that the services circulated on Capitol Hill. But none of these service lists was ever approved by the joint staff, who determines what is necessary. They are the experts. It seems to me that we should realize and recognize that the full coordination with the services and our joint military needs should be kept in mind when we implement our military strategy. Over the past 40 years, Congress has worked hard in a bipartisan manner to strengthen the joint capabilities of our armed services-- first, by unifying the command of the services under the Secretary of Defense, and then by creating a strong joint staff and a strong Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This year's use of the wish lists directly undermines 40 years of work by promoting the services' parochial interests at the expense of our overall national defense strategy. Madam President, I believe my friend and colleague on the Armed Services Committee, Senator Coats from Indiana, a dedicated Republican, who has great knowledge of national defense issues, summarized the situation well when he said at a conference on April 24, 1996: Few priorities on the ``wish lists'' stress how the programs can improve joint war-fighting capabilities. It seems counterproductive that the services would work to a consensus . . . only to deviate from this course during the authorization cycle. . . Such lists are not effective ``gap closers'' when they do not adhere to a logical, overreaching defense plan. So the fact that some of these increases in the defense authorization bill were on a wish list is in reality no justification whatsoever for Congress to fund them. Madam President, how long can this Congress continue doling out scarce discretionary funds to the Pentagon with this blank check philosophy? As many have warned, spending of the taxpayers' dollars so irresponsibly will undermine the public's confidence in the Congress as well as erode its support for adequate funding for national defense. We have heard many speeches about how we need to cut unnecessary Government spending. This is an ideal opportunity for Senators to stand up and do just that. This amendment is reasonable. This amendment is moderate. I wish we could do more. I am willing, although reluctantly, to give the Pentagon this year an additional $9 billion for programs it did not request this year. I am even willing to give the Pentagon an additional $600 million so that it can fund so-called congressional priorities. But enough is enough. Some sense of fiscal sanity is necessary. Madam President, I simply say that the $4 billion in the cut that myself and the others are proposing is going to be accepted, at least in part, by a follow-on amendment that I understand will soon follow my amendment offered by the two leaders of the Armed Services Committee, by my distinguished friends, Senator Thurmond from South Carolina and Senator Nunn from Georgia. What they are proposing to do is to take roughly half of the cuts that this Senator has proposed and reduce the Senate Armed Services Committee bill from its $13 billion increase figure down to the budget resolution figure of $11.4 billion. I salute them for that. It is a step in the right direction. The Exon amendment roughly cuts $2.4 billion below that to make an overall reduction in the armed services authorization figure of $13 billion less $4 billion down to a $9 billion increase. In a nutshell, that is the difference between what the Exon amendment does and what is proposed to be done on a lesser scale by the chairman and ranking member of the committee.

Mr. EXON. I will be glad to yield in a moment. I am even willing to give the Pentagon an additional $600 million so that it can fund some of these so-called priorities. I want to emphasize that. But I still say that we are going way too far. I think that is such a reasonable amendment that I cannot imagine it not being endorsed and accepted by the Senate as a whole. In closing, I urge my colleagues to join me in saying ``no'' to some of these wasteful increases to the Pentagon's request. They are unwise and they are unaffordable in the budget climate that we find ourselves in. I urge all to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. I yield the floor. I will be glad to yield for a question so long as it is on his time.

Mr. EXON. I do not have it.

Mr. EXON. I will be glad to look at it and give you my explanation of it. I will simply point out that the Exon amendment still allows for a $9 billion increase over what the President and the Pentagon has recommended. I would think, regardless of the technical details, that most realize and recognize that such should be fully adequate given the budget constraints that we face. I yield 7 minutes to my colleague from Wisconsin.

Mr. EXON. I will be glad to do that.

Mr. EXON. I simply say that Admiral Boorda or any other military leader, given such an opportunity, would be derelict in his duty, it seems to me, if he could not come up with some concept or idea. That is the wish list that I talked about earlier. The last time I saw Admiral Boorda was shortly before his death when he came to my office. I said, ``What can I do for you, admiral?'' He said, ``You can't do anything for me, Senator. I just want to thank you for the great support that you have given the U.S. Navy all of these years.'' So I do not propose to speak for Admiral Boorda, but I simply say that I think Admiral Boorda, when he signed onto the real needs of the Navy, meant just what he said. And I suspect that if Admiral Boorda were here, he would say that you should take a close look, Senators, at adding $9 billion over what myself and other members of the Joint Chiefs recommended as incorporated in the President's budget. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks there be printed in the Record a letter dated June 19, 1996, to myself, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Kohl, from the Taxpayers for Common $ense in support of the Exon amendment.

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank you. I thank my friend from South Carolina. We have debated this very thoroughly. Basically what the Exon amendment does is a very modest decrease in the amount authorized in the defense authorization bill. Basically what we are talking about here, Mr. President, is simply that the defense committee came up with $13 billion over and above the President and the Pentagon which is being cut by the amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Georgia, down to $11.4. They had to do that anyway because that was the amount included in the budget resolution. The Exon amendment still allows $9 billion over and above what the Pentagon and the President wants. It is a $2.4 billion decrease only beyond what the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee recognize and realize is needed. I hope that we will be fiscally responsible and recognize that, with the cuts that we are making across the board, we have to nick just a little bit the defense bill as well. I hope the Exon, et al., amendment will receive solid support of the Senate.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I am sorry; I could not hear the Senator. What was the unanimous consent request, I ask my friend from South Carolina, to do what at 5:15?

Mr. EXON. I have no objection. I thank my friend from South Carolina.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I object.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the reason I am objecting to the other time is that we have tried to put this vote off until tomorrow, but that was not possible. We are going to have a vote, and I think we have an obligation to use up the hour and a half equally divided on this very, very important amendment, and then have a vote. Then there will be ample time after that, as I understand it, for all the morning business that anybody wants. I think we have an obligation to this body to move ahead in an orderly fashion. So, at this time, I will begin the debate. I yield myself what time I might need to begin the debate in opposition--and strong opposition, I might say--to the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona. Mr. President, I wish to submit for the Record three letters that I have from various important people representing important organizations in strong opposition to the amendment offered. Mr. President, the basic situation that confronts us is that the Kyl amendment, regardless of how well-intentioned, could not possibly be offered at a worse time, as it would adversely affect the nuclear test ban treaty that, right now, is being negotiated in very tense, tedious negotiations in Geneva. The nations of the world have set June 28, which is Friday, as the deadline to come to some kind of an understanding. The President has left, or is about to leave, for a meeting of some of the heads of state of the important nations of the world. I would not be surprised at all if that would come up there. Here, back at the ranch, the U.S. Senate is trying to pass an amendment that is opposed by the President of the United States to give, supposedly, the President of the United States more power, if you will, more influence, if you will, with regard to resuming nuclear testing. After the end of the negotiations in Geneva, which we hope and pray, for the good of mankind, will be successful and, hopefully, eliminate nuclear tests underground or otherwise, because if the world continues to rely primarily, as far as we can see into the future, on more and more nuclear tests, then I say that mankind will be living under a shadow of ever-increasing numbers of nations becoming nuclear powers. That is what the nuclear test ban treaty that is being renegotiated right now is all about. So I simply say that regardless of how well-intentioned the amendment of the Senator from Arizona is, it could not possibly come at a worse time. Mr. President, I reference a letter from the National Security Council of June 19. In that letter the National Security Council said: Dear Senator Exon: You have requested the Administration's views on the amendment offered by Senators Kyl and Reid concerning nuclear testing and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The Administration is strongly opposed to this amendment. We believe that the amendment could not come at a worse time. The States that are negotiating in the CTBT negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva have set a deadline of June 28--next Friday--to complete this historic treaty. The amendment could be interpreted by some CD states as signaling a possible U.S. intent to conduct a round of nuclear testing after the CTBT is completed but before it enters into force. The Administration has no such plans or intentions, nor has it requested funding for any such tests. Moreover, the amendment would relax the existing legislative moratorium on U.S. testing just at the time the only remaining state still conducting nuclear tests, China, has announced that it will join the global moratorium in September. I ask that the letter in its entirety be printed in the Record. It is signed by William C. Danvers, Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs.

Mr. EXON. In addition to that, Mr. President, I have a statement from the Secretary of Energy, Hazel O'Leary, who has the immediate responsibility in the whole area of nuclear testing and nuclear weapons. I quote from her statement: The nuclear weapons testing moratorium instituted by the Hatfield-Exon-Mitchell amendment has made a significant contribution to U.S. nuclear non-proliferation efforts. During the duration of the moratorium, the US stockpile of nuclear weapons has remained safe and reliable. There is no requirement to resuming testing or even to plan to resume testing for safety or reliability or any other purpose, at this time. The Department of Energy, with the full support of the Department of Defense, has embarked on an ambitious stockpile stewardship program to ensure that the safety and reliability of the stockpile is maintained into the foreseeable future, without nuclear testing. One of the elements of stockpile stewardship is maintaining the readiness of the Nevada Test Site to resume testing if it is in the supreme national interest of the United States to do so. DOE is committed to maintaining this readiness, consistent with Presidential direction. DOE has confidence in the stockpile stewardship program and does not need the authority that this amendment would provide. President Clinton has already outlined his commitment to maintain the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile under the existing moratorium and under a comprehensive test ban treaty. It is premature to make any statutory changes to the existing moratorium legislation. Any changes should be made only in the context of a negotiated and signed comprehensive test ban treaty. Any changes in the current statutory prohibition on underground nuclear weapons testing at this time certainly does not help the negotiation process, and could very well set it back. Achieving a comprehensive test ban treaty is a key to reducing the global nuclear danger including proliferation of nuclear weapons and the spread of nuclear terrorism. Mr. President, I also have a very short letter that I am going to read from the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, dated June 19: Dear Senator Exon: Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs, William C. Danvers, has provided you the Administration's reasons for opposing the Kyl/Reid amendment to the FY 1997 Defense Authorization Bill. As I represent the lead agency in the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) negotiations in Geneva, I want to emphasize our belief that this amendment could undermine our efforts to negotiate a Treaty that would end nuclear testing for all time by suggesting a possible U.S. interest in resuming testing before a CTBT enters into force, that does not, in fact, exist. Since the end of President Eisenhower's tenure, the United States has pursued a CTBT as a long-term goal. Now, when such a treaty is in hand, we urge the members of the Senate to oppose this amendment and to reaffirm our country's longstanding bipartisan efforts to achieve a CTBT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters I have referenced be printed in the Record.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have just checked with the Parliamentarian. I believe there are 40 minutes left on that side. I have a net of 3 minutes left because I am reserving 10 minutes for Senator Hatfield under a previous arrangement. I guess I have been in debates in the U.S. Senate for a long, long time, but the other side, who are proposing the amendment, do not seem to want to talk. I do not quite understand. It certainly is not fair, under the usual procedures that we follow here, for one side to use up its time and then the other side sit in deafening silence when their time comes to talk. I suggest to the Chair, it would not be fair for the other side not to make their arguments for the proposition that they are trying to force on the United States of America. When you enter into time agreements, you expect some fair assumption of the responsibilities of the managers of the bill on both sides. This Senator has been here on the floor. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from Nebraska have remaining?

Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Tricare

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. EXON. I yield such time as he may need to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I simply say I know the Senator from Oregon is about to come into the Chamber. In deference to the Senator from Oregon and his long service to this body, I would like to ask unanimous consent that we delay temporarily until the Senator from Oregon is able to come on the floor to offer the tabling motion.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I had asked for unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the Wellstone amendment for the purpose of the Senator from Nebraska offering an amendment. That has been objected to by the chairman of the subcommittee, which blocks my attempt to offer the amendment. Therefore, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. What is the request?

Mr. EXON. I say, Madam President, there are people we have lined up waiting. I thought I yielded 10 minutes. I thought that would suffice. How much more time?

Mr. EXON. I will agree to 2 additional minutes.