Samuel Nunn

Mr. NUNN

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

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, and the Senator from California, Senator Boxer, I send an amendment to the desk that provides that cost-type contract DOD reimbursement of contract executive compensation would be capped at $200,000. This is similar to the amendment the Senate adopted on the DOD appropriations bill.

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

Mr. NUNN. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feinstein, the Senator from California, I offer an amendment which authorizes the Secretary of the Navy, upon concurrence of both the General Services Administration and HUD, to convey 1,450 acres of property at the Naval Communications Station, Stockton, CA, to the Port of Stockton. This amendment also allows for all existing leases involving Federal agencies located on the site to remain under existing terms and conditions. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other side.

Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2456 (Purpose: To authorize a land conveyance, Naval Communications Station, Stockton, California)

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment, and this side has cleared the amendment.

Mr. NUNN. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Byrd, the Senator from West Virginia, I offer an amendment which would authorize the Navy to use operation and maintenance funds up to a total of $2 million to address essential safety concerns at a Government-owned, contractor- operated weapons facility. I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment. I believe the other side has cleared this amendment.

Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2454 (Purpose: To set aside $2,000,000 for the Allegany Ballistics Laboratory for essential safety functions)

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, at the request of the Majority and Minority Leaders, Senators Cohen, Levin, Warner, and I have been meeting intensively for the past several days to address issues raised by the proposed Missile Defense Act of 1995, as set forth in S. 1026, the pending national defense authorization bill. The goal of our effort was to develop an amendment establishing a missile defense policy that could be supported by a broad bipartisan group of Senators. Today, we have filed a bipartisan substitute amendment reflecting our best efforts to meet that objective. I want to begin by expressing my thanks to my three colleagues for the diligence, tolerance, and goodwill each of them showed throughout the long and, at times, difficult negotiations that have led to the agreement embodied in the substitute amendment. I believe the amendment is a significant improvement to the version in the bill, and I support its adoption. The bill as reported set forth a proposed policy for future national missile defenses. It also proposed a demarcation between theater and anti-ballistic missile defenses. In my judgment, however, and that of many other Senators, the proposal addressed these vital issues in a manner that unnecessarily presented major difficulties in terms of arms control and constitutional considerations. Mr. President, I support the development of national missile defense. I have supported a missile defense system against limited, accidental, or unauthorized attacks since the early 1980's when I called for a development of ALPs--an accidental launch protection system. I will support the deployment of a system to defend against limited, accidental, or unauthorized missile attacks, assuming that the system meets the deployment decision criteria set forth in this amendment--it must be affordable and operationally effective; an appropriate response to the threat, and we must weigh carefully any ABM Treaty considerations that could affect a deployment decision. The revised version of the Missile Defense Act of 1995, as set forth in the bipartisan substitute amendment, addresses these issues in a manner that serves three important functions: First, it clarifies the intent of the United States with respect to decisions about future missile defenses; Second, it defuses a potential constitutional contest between the Executive and Legislative branches; and Third, it makes clear to the international community our policy toward the ABM Treaty. Let me try to highlight these accomplishments by comparing what was in the bill as reported and what the bipartisan substitute amendment would provide, if adopted. Section 233 of the bill as reported would set forth a policy to ``deploy'' a multi-site national missile defense system. The same section of the bill as reported also stated that the system, ``will be augmented. . .to provide a layered defense against larger and more sophisticated [missile] attacks.'' This phrasing confused the stated objective--to have an effective defense against accidental, unauthorized, or limited attacks--with the concept of a thicker missile defense system to defend against larger attacks. It is important to keep the system focused on the appropriate objective-- defending against limited, accidental, or unauthorized attacks. The substitute version of section 233 in the bipartisan amendment makes the following changes: The policy is no longer stated as a binding commitment to deploy a national missile defense system. That is a decision that will be made in the future. Instead, the national missile defense policy in section 233(2) of the bipartisan substitute amendment is to ``develop for deployment''. The substitute adds several important qualifiers, such as: The system must be ``affordable and operationally effective''. This requirement appears in section 233(2) and is reemphasized throughout the amendment. The system is limited to addressing only ``accidental, unauthorized, or limited attacks''. That qualification, which is set forth in section 233(2), is repeated throughout the amendment. There is no commitment to deploy an augmented system. It depends on the threat. Under section 233(2) of the substitute, any development of an ``augmented'' system will also be confined to augmenting a defense capability to address ``limited, unauthorized, or accidental'' missile attacks. One of the most important qualifications under the substitute is the requirement in section 233(3) for ``congressional review, prior to a decision to deploy the system developed for deployment . . . of: (a) the affordability and operational effectiveness of such a system; (b) the threat to be countered by such a system, and (c) ABM Treaty considerations with respect to such a system.'' These vital issues will all be considered before we take any step in the future to authorize and appropriate funds for the deployment of a national missile defense system. Section 235(e)(2) of the bipartisan substitute amendment specially requires the Secretary of Defense to provide an assessment as to whether deployment is affordable and operationally effective''; and Perhaps the most important qualification, both in terms of arms control and the separation of powers is section 233(8), which requires the Secretary of Defense to carry out the policies, programs, and requirements of the entire Missile Defense Act ``through processes specified within, or consistent with, the ABM Treaty, which anticipates the need and provides the means for amendment to the Treaty.'' The revised version also contains language taken from the Cohen amendment which was approved by a 69-26 vote last week, and which is largely incorporated into the substitute amendment in sections 233(2) and 237. Collectively, the Cohen provisions encourage the President to undertake negotiations with the Russian Federation to provide modifications or amendments to allow us to deploy a multisite national missile defense in compliance with the Treaty, and, if the negotiations are not successful, they call for consultations with the Congress to review our options, including our legal right to withdraw. Section 235(a) of the bill as reported required achievement of an initial operational capability (IOC) for a multisite national missile defense system in 2003. The substitute provision in the bipartisan amendment calls for development on a timetable that would make it, ``capable of attaining'' such an IOC, if there is a decision to deploy such a system. Finally, Mr. President, let me address the theater missile demarcation provisions briefly. Section 238 of the bill as reported would have established [[Page S 12331]] in permanent law a specific demarcation between theater and strategic missile defenses, and would have prohibited the President from negotiations or other actions concerning the clarification or interpretation of the ABM Treaty and the line between theater and strategic missile defenses. The bipartisan substitute amendment strikes all of section 238, and provides a limited funding restriction in section 238(c), with the following provisions: The funding restriction that applies only for fiscal year 1996; This substitute restriction applies only to the implementation of an agreement with the successor states to the Soviet Union, should one be reached, concerning: A demarcation between theater and strategic defenses for the purposes of the ABM Treaty; and Additional restrictions on theater missile defense systems going beyond those in the demarcation. In addition, to being limited to one year, the substitute funding limitation in section 238(c) has three exceptions. The limitation does not apply: ``To the extent provided'' in a subsequent Act; To ``implement that portion of any such agreement that implements'' the specific terms of the demarcation set forth in the amendment; and To ``implement an agreement that is entered into pursuant to the Treaty-making power of the President under the Constitution.'' Mr. President, there are many other changes for the better in the bipartisan substitute amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a line- in-line-out version of the amendment, comparing the amendment to the bill as reported, be printed in the Record. I believe the bipartisan substitute amendment provides a useful statement of Congressional policy and intent, presented in a framework that makes clear that we seek a negotiated set of changes with the Russian Federation to allow for more effective defenses against limited missile attacks than either side is permitted today. I believe the bipartisan substitute amendment is not, and should not be seen by Russia as a threat by the United States either to abandon the ABM Treaty or to reinterpret the Treaty unilaterally to our advantage. Both we and Russia face a threat of ballistic missile attacks; the threats may differ somewhat, but the need for defenses should be clear to both sides. What we have to do is to arrange for both sides to be able to deploy more effective defenses than exist today, against accidental, unauthorized and limited strikes, while maintaining overall strategic stability.

Mr. NUNN

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

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

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment that would fully fund the Department of Defense budget request for Junior ROTC. The bill as reported, would freeze the program at the fiscal year 1995 level of funding, which would have the effect of precluding the Department's planned expansion to an additional 435 schools, covering approximately 30,000 students. Junior ROTC is a nationwide partnership program between the military services and high schools which emphasizes self-discipline, citizenship, personal responsibility, and sound work habits. It features classroom instruction, extracurricular activities, and summer camp. The program has received strong support from high school faculties, community leaders, and parents. Junior ROTC makes an enormous contribution to our nation, both in terms of the impact on military recruiting and the impact on the individuals and communities who benefit from this outstanding program. In the early nineties, the program was substantially expanded as a result of an initiative by Gen. Colin Powell and President Bush to address the issues of citizenship and self-esteem among at-risk teens in the wake of the LA riots. President Bush said that JROTC is ``a great program that boosts high school completion rates, reduces drug use, raises self-esteem, and gets these kids firmly on the right track.'' General Powell said: With its emphasis on self-discipline, personal responsibility, values, citizenship, and saying NO to drugs, JROTC provides America's youth with positive incentives to stay in high school and graduate. * * * I believe immediate expansion of the JROTC program is the best opportunity for the Department of Defense to make a positive impact on the Nation's youth. The present members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff strongly support the program, and I ask unanimous request that a letter dated August 3, 1995, signed by all of the Chiefs be printed in the Record, and I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. NUNN. This has been cleared with this side. I urge adoption.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment clarifies the authorities concerning the Civil-Military Cooperative Action Program and that would extend the pilot program for reducing the demand for illegal drugs. On a bipartisan basis, Congress established the Civil-Military Cooperative Action Program (10 U.S.C. 410) in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1993. The purpose was to build upon the longstanding tradition of the Armed Forces--acting as good neighbors on a local level--in applying military resources to assist in worthy civic projects when they would not be competing with the private sector. The statute required DOD to develop a coordinated program so that DOD could insure that such programs were consistent with national policy of protecting military readiness and avoiding competition with the private sector; DOD could share information among commands about useful ways to provide such assistance; and DOD could coordinate requests for assistance to avoid duplication among DOD activities and between DOD and other Federal agencies. The statute requires DOD to establish a ``Civil-Military Cooperative Action Program'' to ``use the skills, capabilities, and resources to the Armed Forces to assist civilian efforts to meet the domestic needs of the United States.'' It further requires DOD to establish advisory councils on the regional, State, or local level, as appropriate, comprised of representatives from business, civic, and social service organizations, and Federal, State, and local agencies. The advisory councils provide recommendations on projects and program guidance. In addition, DOD is required to issue regulations governing the types of assistance, and guidance to assure nonduplication of public service and noncompetition with the private sector. The Civil-Military Cooperative Action Program builds upon a longstanding tradition of military commanders serving as good neighbors--coordinating training activities and providing assistance to local communities to help with worthy civic projects. The statutory program is designed to ensure that these efforts are conducted in accordance with national goals--that is, they must be consistent with readiness and there must be no competition with the private sector or other public activities. At a time when we are providing over $250 billion in funding for defense--and when defense is the only segment of the Government receiving a substantial budget increase--it is no time to tell our communities that the military cannot or will not provide assistance consistent with military readiness and training. The civil-military cooperation cannot and should not be a military mission. But there is no reason why the Armed Forces cannot conduct training--particularly in terms of the activities of support troops--in a manner that can have incidental benefits to civilian society. A good example is medical screening. When troops go on cold weather training in Alaska, why shouldn't the medics assist medically underserved communities with screening and basic medical supplies-- particularly when the shelf-life of those supplies will expire if not used? The bill as reported by the committee makes a number of useful changes in the current statutory authority to emphasize military readiness, but several improvements are needed in the language recommended by the committee. The bill as reported would restrict the program to the reserve components. My amendment would make it clear that the program also applies to the combat support and combat service support elements of active duty regular components. The bill as reported would eliminate Federal agencies labor unions from participation in the advisory councils. The advisory councils were designed to bring together business, civic, and government leaders to ensure that there is no private sector competition and no duplication of services offered by other public agencies. We should not exclude Federal agencies and labor unions from the process since that could lead to unnecessary duplication of Federal and private sector services. My amendment does not affect the provision of the bill providing that the management of the program should not be located under the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. Since the program clearly applies to the active and the reserve components, oversight should be provided by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. It is my expectation that the expertise and experience of those who have been responsible for the program to date would be relied upon by the Under Secretary in his oversight of this program. My amendment also extends for 2 years the pilot outreach program to reduce demand for illegal drugs, authorized by section 1045 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995. The pilot program has been reviewed by the Rand Corp. and has generally received good reviews. There has been insufficient opportunity at this point, however, to determine the long-term effectiveness of the program, so a 2-year extension of the pilot is warranted. Mr. President, I note that the Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995, as reported by the Appropriations Committee, fully funds the administration's request for the Civil-Military Cooperative Action Program and the related Challenge and Starbase Programs. That funding is fully consistent with the continuing authority provided by the Armed Services Committee for these important programs.

Mr. NUNN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. NUNN. On this amendment I thank Senator Glenn, Senator Grassley, and Senator Roth. They were very helpful in developing these amendments and they will be having statements on this amendment on Monday.

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

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

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

Mr. NUNN. That is correct.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Glenn, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. I concur with the chairman and join in his commitment.