J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this matter has been cleared on this side. This amendment as written would be under the Commerce Committee. But it has been cleared by the Commerce Committee. We have no objection on this side. I urge its adoption.

Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2444 (Purpose: To require a report on the disposal of certain property at the former Ford Ord Military Complex, CA)

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in behalf of Senator Boxer and ask for its consideration.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment that I have offered on behalf of Senator Boxer is an amendment which requires the Secretary of Defense to report to the Congress on the disposal plans of 477 acres of real property located at Fort Ord, CA. Mr. President, I believe this is a noncontroversial amendment also that has been cleared on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this side of the aisle.

Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2446 (Purpose: To require that the fiscal year 1997 report on budget submissions regarding reserve components include a listing of specific amounts for specific purposes on the basis of an assumption of funding of the reserve components in the same total amount as the funding provided for fiscal year 1996)

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in behalf of Senator Robb, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment would modify section 1007 to require DOD to provide Congress with a prioritized list of modernization and investment priorities, at least for large amounts, amounts that will be funded by Congress this year. This will ensure that the Congress gets DOD's best advice on priorities for reasonably sized funding packages. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been agreed to by those on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. EXON. This represents the responsible role for the operation of support aircraft and responds to the recommendations by management of these aircraft by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Commission on Rules and Missions of the armed services. We strongly support the amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2449 (Purpose: To transfer funds for procurement of communications equipment for Army echelons above corps)

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment would allow the Army to continue its program to make theater-level communications units more capable, lighter and more easily deployable in emergencies. We think it is a very good amendment. We urge its adoption.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, just before we recess, if I may make a brief statement, I thank once again the chairman of the committee for his cooperation. I thank my friend from Virginia. For the last few minutes we have worked together to pass a whole series of amendments that were not controversial. I simply say that we are making remarkable progress, and I understand that when we reconvene at 2:15, following the statement the Senator from Virginia is about to make, we will be moving forward and tentatively have unanimous consent on an agreement that is going to collapse about an hour and a half of time which would otherwise be required, followed by another amendment the Senator from Nebraska had intended to offer if this amendment does not pass, which I understand will now. So I am overjoyed to announce to Senators that we are making remarkable progress under the bipartisan cooperation of both sides. It would appear to me that if we can continue this remarkable speed, we could have a chance of passing both the defense authorization and appropriations bills at a very fair and early hour this evening. I thank my friend from Virginia and those on that side of the aisle for their cooperation.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other side.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we have just heard the announcement in the typical style of the great Senator from the State of Rhode Island. Certainly, he has left his mark. I will not be here to miss him at the conclusion of his term but others will miss him. The institution of the Senate will miss him because I can say that I know of no one who has been more forthright in demonstrating to his colleagues in the Senate and the folks that he has so ably represented back home in Rhode Island what a U.S. Senator should be, what a U.S. Senator is all about. Claiborne Pell has been a man of outstanding character, a very hard- working, dedicated soldier for the Senate and for the United States of America and, of course, for Rhode Island. Certainly, he has distinguished himself in many areas during his term of service. Most distinguished, I suspect, has been the steady hand he has provided as a very senior member of the [[Page S 12557]] Foreign Relations Committee. He is the former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. The people of the world will miss the steady hand that Claiborne Pell has always provided. During my terms in the Senate, I have considered him a model of consistency, thoughtfulness, a true gentleman of the Senate, the likes of which we may never have seen before, probably the likes of which we will never see again. Claiborne, congratulations on your outstanding statement. I wish you well. The most exciting part of your speech to me was you indicated you still would be active, you still would be around, you still would be fighting the principles that have been your hallmark all during the time you have been a Member of this body. Thank you so much for your contribution of a personal nature. Thank you so very much for your friendship over the years. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be continued for whatever time is necessary for any Senator who wishes to make remarks with regard to the announcement that we have just heard from the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Whether intentional or not, what the opponents of our amendment did was distort, for their own purpose, the latest report from the JASON group. I quote briefly from the article from the Washington Post that I just referenced. The story opens with this statement: A group of eminent U.S. physicists and nuclear weapons designers has concluded that the military has neither ``a present nor anticipated'' need for small nuclear weapons tests that a Senate majority voted last week to spend $50 million to prepare for. Mr. President, it goes on in the next paragraph: The scientific group concluded after a six-week study for the Department of Energy that conducting the small explosives would not add measurably to the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which the scientists said has been solidly established by more than 1,000 nuclear explosions. Then, Mr. President, I go to the last paragraph of the story which sums it up. This summary [that I have been referencing] stated that the group's detailed findings ``are consistent with [a] U.S. agreement to enter into a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty of unending duration'' provided that the treaty allows the country to withdraw if warranted by ``supreme national interests.'' I believe that this study represents the views of a very diverse and experienced scientific community, said Drell, the Panel's chairman. Now, Mr. President, I hope and I expect that the Members of the United States Senate will study very carefully this whole issue, before we rush ahead. That is why I strenuously object to the inclusion of this matter in the appropriations bill, where it was left out during the considerations of that committee. So I repeat, whether intentional or not, these false statements that the opponents used against our amendment distorted for their own purposes the latest report of the JASON group, by confusing the justification for nonnuclear ``hydro-dynamic'' testing with that of low-yield nuclear detonations associated with ``hydro-nuclear tests,'' which is what is authorized in the defense authorization bill. By generally falsifying the report's conclusions and selectively lifting statements, the opponents of the Exon-Hatfield amendment were able to buttress their ill-advised and false arguments. Mr. President, I hope this statement and the following report from the Washington Post and other events that are likely to occur in the immediate future will make it clear to all Senators who may have been unfortunately misled by the debate on the [[Page S 12200]] Exon-Hatfield amendment by the opponents that what the true findings of the JASON report are might study it, might change their minds. I hope certain Members will reconsider their positions in light of this clarification and vote to overturn the committee provisions at some time in the future. To protect that possibility I must reemphasize once again that I will do everything reasonably within my power to make certain that that is not authorized, the $50 million is not authorized as the JASON committee and others say it is not necessary. It is a waste of money. So I thought I had the obligation tonight, since I just found out about this, to advise the Senate and especially the two leaders of the Appropriations Committee, whom I have great respect for, because I did not want to blindside them. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Aug. 9, 1995] Physicists Say Small Nuclear Tests Backed by Senate Are Unnecessary (By R. Jeffrey Smith) A group of eminent U.S. physicists and nuclear weapons designers has concluded that the military has neither a ``present nor anticipated'' need for the small nuclear weapons tests that a Senate majority voted last week to spend $50 million to prepare for. The scientific group concluded after a six-week study for the Department of Energy that conducting the small explosions would not add measurably to the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which the scientists said has been solidly established by more than 1,000 test nuclear explosions. ``The United States can, today, have high confidence in the safety, reliability, and performance margins of the nuclear weapons that are designated to remain in the enduring stockpile,'' said a summary of the group's report. It was signed by several of the country's veteran bomb designers under the auspices of JASONS, a group of academic scientists who consult for the government on national problems. The report, which has been presented to Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, Secretary of Energy Hazel R. O'Leary and other top administration officials, was issued during a growing debate in Congress and within the administration over the merits of additional nuclear testing. The Clinton administration has been unable for months to decide whether to propose additional nuclear tests, due to disagreement between testing proponents at the Pentagon and opponents at the Energy Department, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the office of the White House science adviser. On Friday, the Senate voted 56 to 44 to keep $50 million to prepare for so-called hydronuclear tests, even though the administration has said it does not plan to conduct any during 1996. Proponents of additional nuclear testing, largely from the Republican majority, have argued that more explosions are needed to ensure that weapons remain safe and reliable. The administration, in negotiations being conducted in Geneva on a global accord barring all nuclear testing, has similarly insisted on the right to continue setting off extremely small-scale nuclear explosions for the purpose of maintaining the U.S. arsenal. The group's report was endorsed by four of the principal designers of the U.S. nuclear arsenal: John Kammerdiener and John Richter of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, Robert Peurifoy of the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico, and Seymour Sack of the Livermore National Laboratory in California. The 14-member group also included noted Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson, IBM scientist Richard Garwin, University of California physicist Marshal Rosenbluth and Stanford physicist Sidney Drell, each of whom has worked on aspects of U.S. nuclear weaponry for more than three decades. Besides challenging the merits of the hydronuclear tests, which would have an explosive yield equivalent to about 4 pounds of TNT, the report also challenges the prevailing Pentagon view that conducting larger nuclear explosions is also essential to ensuring that U.S. nuclear weapons will continue to operate. It states that while such tests would doubtless provide interesting data, the country should pursue other, better routes to maintaining the nuclear arsenal, such as supporting an extensive program of weapons surveillance and a ``significant industrial infrastructure'' to maintain aging weapons components. The summary stated that the group's detailed findings ``are consistent with [a] U.S. agreement to enter into a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) of unending duration'' provided that the treaty allows the country to withdraw if warranted by ``supreme national interest.'' ``I believe that this study represents the views of a very diverse and experienced scientific community,'' said Drell, the panel's chairman.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, if I might have the attention of the managers of the bill, I must make a statement that I had not intended to make, but because of a very recent development I have a responsibility to advise the Senate that I have just been advised that the junior Senator from the State of Texas has filed an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill before the Senate that would duplicate the provisions in the Defense authorization bill allocating up to $50 million for hydronuclear testing. It has not been generally known, I guess, but it should be established now that this Senator has been the principle proponent of a move to block passage of the Defense authorization bill until after the recess, primarily because the authorization for such tests that are also in the authorization bill on which we had a debate last week was a very close vote. I had agreed after many people on this side of the aisle in talking to me, I had agreed not to press this issue and thereby to not delay passage of the Defense appropriations bill that is now before the Senate and is generally thought to be ready for passage sometime tomorrow. If the Senator from Texas persists with her amendment in that regard, I withdraw my understanding not to interrupt passage of the appropriations bill. Mr. President, earlier in the day I had written some thoughts that I am going to deliver now that were aimed primarily at the Defense authorization bill, but much of my objection to the Defense authorization bill is also incorporated in the appropriations bill that I had not intended, until the action by the Senator from Texas, to bring up until some other time. To fully explain this to the Senate, and I have been under a lot of pressure from those on this side to not take the stand that I must take because I think a very important principle is involved, [[Page S 12199]] and I might say that there are many Senators on this side of the aisle and some, including the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who agreed with me. Mr. President, I am advising the Senate that I will do everything reasonably within my power to block passage of the Department of Defense authorization bill that is still before the Senate and under the new action by the Senator from Texas that has now expanded to include the Defense appropriations bill, as well. This is, indeed, a sharp departure from the norm by this Senator. For the first time in my 17 years here, I am diametrically opposed to the package of a Department of Defense authorization bill and the appropriations bill, as well. There is still time to make some significant changes necessary that may allow for passage of the appropriations bill, but time is wasting. My remarks apply to both the defense authorization and the appropriations bills. There are many specific provisions in the Defense authorization bill and the appropriations bill that are, in my opinion, absurd and fraught with deficiencies with regard to the legitimate national security interests of the United States of America. Equally appalling are the parts of this bill that clearly rebuke our Nation's stated policies, our treaty obligations, and our responsibilities as a leader of the free world. In many respects this bill is an abomination from the standpoint of our Nation's thoughtful policies concerning the security of mankind tomorrow and well into the next century. If ever there was a clear example of the United States sticking its head in the sand to escape reality in the most thoughtless manner, this is it. Obviously, Defense policy and foreign affairs go hand and hand. The net result of the Defense authorization and to a considerable extent, the appropriations bill, as presently written, is that we are simply throwing up our hands in applause of short-sighted isolationism. For the purpose of this discussion, allow me to concentrate on only two of the most glaring potential disasters in the legislation as it has come out of committee, each of which has been affirmed by relatively close votes on the floor of the Senate last week. They both have to do with nuclear weapons initiative. They both dramatically reverse existing national policies. I speak of the provisions in the Defense authorization bill concerning the violation of the antiballistic missile ABM Treaty and the related matter that the United States resume nuclear weapons testing which would likely end any chance of successfully concluding a comprehensive test ban treaty agreement. Mr. President, this Senator has been pressing the administration for a firm statement on this policy. This is necessary more than ever because of the recent announcements by the French that they are continuing nuclear testing again, and now that is causing great political unrest against the Government in France because of that action as has been quite prominently displayed in the press. Likewise, the Chinese are doing additional nuclear testing. If the United States of America begins any kind of nuclear testing, and I emphasize any kind, it is going to eliminate any chance that we could have a real comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. The unilateral break out of the ABM Treaty was thoroughly debated on the floor last week and the Senate's final disposition of the issue remains unresolved. There can be no question that the President will veto this bill as it is written. There has been some progress towards correcting some of the most onerous provisions with regard to the ballistic missile treaty. I am studying those at the present time, but I wish to focus tonight on a controversy that is in the long run maybe even more damaging to world peace. That is the resumption of nuclear testing and its affect on the comprehensive test ban negotiations. While both arms control matters are extremely important, the ABM Treaty issue involves only two countries: The United States and Russia. On the other hand, the comprehensive test ban treaty involves almost every country in the world, regardless of their size or nuclear capability today and in the future. I have reason to believe that in the very immediate future the Clinton administration is going to take a very strong stand on this matter that will clearly indicate that the Senate did the right thing 3 years ago, when the Hatfield-Exon-Mitchell amendment was agreed to. And the Senate did the wrong thing when it reported out of the Armed Services Committee the beginning of tests all over again. In Friday's debate on the nuclear testing issue, there were gross misstatements about the Exon-Hatfield et al amendment to delete the $50 million funding authorization to resume testing reported out by the Armed Services Committee. This proposal would violate the carefully crafted Hatfield-Exon-Mitchell nuclear testing law of 3 years ago. The gross distortion of facts I refer to, possibly unwittingly but nevertheless untrue, contributed to the narrow vote overturning our Nation's nuclear testing policy. I refer primarily to the series of false statements made by the opposition to our amendment on the recent report of the Jasons group. The Jasons group is a collection of the most renowned and best informed scientists from our three national laboratories, including noted physicist Sidney Drell, regarding the resumption of so-called small nuclear tests at our Nevada test site. While I inserted the complete text of the JASON report--the executive summary of the JASON report into the Congressional Record on Friday, I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Bingaman amendment. The amendment takes the funds added into the Defense appropriations bill for an unrequested $1.3 billion LHD-7 assault ship and shifts them to the readiness accounts to cover the cost of ongoing United States operations in Bosnia and Iraq. As I stated earlier in my opening remarks on the defense authorization bill, the cost of the 1996 defense budget to the taxpayer is not complete at the committee-passed funding level of $264.7 billion. Members of the Senate as well as those at home watching this debate should be aware that there is a built-in cost overrun in the appropriation bill before the Senate. In the rush to fund unrequested and unnecessary weapons programs totaling billions of dollars, the committee did not fund the anticipated expenses for ongoing Department of Defense operations in crisis spots such as Iraq and Bosnia. This unfunded expense, the cost of which will in the mean time come out of Pentagon operations accounts, will come due next calendar year and I warn my colleagues to not be surprised when this $1 billion cost overrun is covered in part by more domestic spending cuts. Ironically, this built-in cost overrun is nearly identical to the cost of the LHD-7 assault ship added on to the administration's budget request. I find to interesting that the so-called readiness debate we used to hear so much about is dead after only 1 year. This year, the funding increases in the bill are going to new ships, planes, and weapons systems the administration has not asked for. The operation and maintenance accounts we watched so many in Congress wring their hands over last year are now being undercut in this year's multibillion- dollar arms spending spree. The committee decided to short-change the Pentagon's readiness funding in order to feed the large appetite of home State defense contractors. I believe this is fundamentally wrong. I support the Bingaman amendment because it corrects this upside-down order to defense funding priorities. The Bingaman amendment places the operations funding of our troops in the field above the cost of building an unneeded naval vessel, as is appropriate. We have heard that the LHD-7 is part of the Pentagon's future years defense program and therefore is a legitimate requirement. We have also been told that by buying the LHD-7 earlier than anticipated it will cost us less. Both of these points are true. But this is true of everything we ever buy. If we buy it now, it is going to be cheaper than if we buy it next year. That is because of inflation. It is common sense that this money will be saved by buying something today rather than 5 years from now--it is just not sound budgeting. Does that mean we should accelerate the funding for every future ship in the 1996 budget, under the assumption and for the reason that if we buy it now, we will save money in the future? That is like my wife going to a sale and being forced to buy a dress because of the amount of money she has saved. Of course, such a proposal would be foolish. So the question remains, why the $1.3 billion LHD-7? The present 6-year shipbuilding would have us purchase the LHD-7 in the year 2001, 5 years from now. Under the committee bill, we are leapfrogging it over all other ships to be bought during this time period. Also, why should this accelerated purchase and the resulting $1.3 billion add-on to the budget request take precedence over the readiness needs of our troops overseas, in the field, participating in ongoing operations in Iraq and Bosnia. In my opinion, first things first. We should fund the readiness needs of our military before we start looking into next century and start picking out pet projects for certain home States and buying them well in advance of their military need. Mr. President, I simply say the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico is a very sound one. Ordinarily I would be for these additional ships as needed on down the line but I do see no reason whatsoever to be moving them up in the priorities now, especially when we would definitely be hurting readiness. [[Page S 12144]] I urge Senators to vote for Bingaman amendment and eliminate the billion-dollar cost overrun hidden in this bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, 4 minutes is adequate.

Mr. EXON

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