J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. If the Senate votes to pass this provision and it is eventually signed into law, it could have a serious negative impact on the readiness of our military forces. Like my good friend, the Senator from Iowa, I am concerned about the amount of money that the Department of Defense annually expends for infrastructure. In fact, the Defense authorization bill that we are considering now and is before us, reduces such programs by approximately $600 million and allocates these funds for higher priority programs including force modernization. Mr. President, I believe that we should carefully examine any reduction that is proposed in order to ensure that we do not adversely impact our military forces. I am sure that my fellow Senators will agree with me when I say that we do not want to jeopardize our national security or the men and women in uniform who protect that security. With this in mind, I must inform my colleagues that the proposed amendment could force severe funding reductions to important programs such as the medical care of military personnel, military housing, and military intelligence activities. Are we sure we can reduce these programs without negatively impacting upon military readiness? Does the Senator from Iowa really believe that we should reduce such programs? Does he want to deny health care to our men and women in uniform? Does he want to force the families of military personnel to live in substandard housing? Mr. President, I cannot speak for every Member of this Chamber, but I know that I cannot support such reductions. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Iowa that we must look for new and innovative management practices in order to find ways to shift funds from the infrastructure accounts to the modernization accounts. However, we must be sure that the shifting of such funds does not significantly impair military readiness. Reducing funds for unnecessary infrastructure is a task which the Armed Services Committee performs each year during its markup of the Defense Authorization Act and, as I have already noted, this year we reduced such funds by $600 million. In addition, the bill before us today includes a provision that would require the Department to examine new ways of maintaining its forces in order to further reduce funding required for day-to-day operations, and make these funds available for force modernization. Mr. President, I cannot advocate, nor agree to support, an arbitrary cut such as that advocated by this amendment. We must preserve the flexibility of the President and the Secretary of Defense to request what they believe is necessary to ensure our national security. If the Congress disagrees with this request, it can authorize and appropriate a different mix of funding. Mr. President, I urge my fellow Senators to vote ``no'' on the Grassley amendment. Mr. President, I now yield to the able Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain.

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

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

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dan Ciechanowski, a fellow with Senator Kyl, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of the DOD authorization bill.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on or in relation to the Grassley amendment No. 4047 at 5:30 p.m., and following the conclusion or yielding back of time the amendment be laid aside until 5:30 p.m. this evening.

Mr. THURMOND. As I understand, the Senator is willing to agree to 40 minutes equally divided.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the subject matter of this amendment will probably be quite contentious. I hope not. I hope that other Members will see that the amendment does not advocate opposition to concluding a comprehensive test ban and that it does not promote testing. With that in mind, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Arizona. As I understand the amendment, it would authorize the President to conduct underground nuclear weapons tests after October 1, 1996, if a comprehensive test ban treaty has not been ratified by the United States. In order to conduct an underground nuclear test, the President would have to submit a report to Congress detailing justification for the test. In order to stop the test from being conducted, the Congress would have to pass a joint resolution within 90 days. During the debate on the Exon-Hatfield legislation which prohibits nuclear testing, I voiced my concerns for the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile without the ability to test. So long as our defense relies on nuclear weapons, we must ensure the safety and reliability of the stockpile. That requires the authority to conduct underground nuclear tests. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I now yield myself such time as may be required under the Dorgan amendment.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I should like to inquire of the distinguished Senator if he is willing to enter into a time agreement on this amendment?

Mr. THURMOND. I would suggest maybe 20 minutes to a side.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that the Senator from North Dakota does not think that the American people deserve to be defended against the only military threat that faces them in their homes every day, a threat that is growing more severe every year. Simply stated, what the Dorgan amendment seeks to do is perpetuate American vulnerability. We have heard quite a bit about how there is no threat and how investment in national missile defense is a waste of money. Let's remember that more Americans died in the Persian Gulf war as a result of a single missile attack than any other cause. I don't imagine that their families would view missile defense investments as a waste. It has been argued that there is no threat to justify deployment of a national missile defense system to defend the United States. This view is strategically shortsighted and technically incorrect. Even if we get started today, by the time we develop and deploy an NMD system we will almost certainly face new ballistic missile threats to the United States. Unfortunately, it will take almost 10 years to develop and deploy even a limited system. Much has been made of the intelligence community's estimate that no new threat to the United States will develop for 10 years or more. This estimate, however, only has to do with new indigenously developed missile threats to the continental United States. It treats Alaska and Hawaii as if they were not part of the United States. Moreover, the intelligence community has confirmed that there are numerous ways for hostile countries to acquire intercontinental ballistic missiles in much less than 10 years by means other than indigenous development. North Korea has also demonstrated to the world that an ICBM capability can be developed with relatively little notice. The Taepo- Dong II missile, which could become operational within 5 years, is an ICBM. Each new development of this missile seems to catch the intelligence community by surprise. It certainly undermines the argument of those who downplay the threat and the intelligence community's own 10-year estimate. Even if we knew with certainty that no new threat would materialize for 10 years there would still be a strong case for developing and deploying a national missile defense system. Deploying an NMD system would serve to deter countries that would otherwise seek to acquire an ICBM capability. A vulnerable United States merely invites proliferation, blackmail, and even aggression. It has also been argued that the administration's NMD program is adequate to hedge against an emerging threat. Unfortunately, the budget request does not adequately support the administration's own plan. Since the administration's NMD program is supposed to preserve the option of deploying an NMD system by 2003 it is appropriate for Congress to add sufficient funds to ensure that such an option is truly viable. The director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization has testified repeatedly to Congress that about $800 million per year is needed for NMD in order to preserve such an option. This is precisely what the Armed Services Committee has recommended. For those who argue that the Senate Armed Services Committee is throwing money at ballistic missile defense, I would point out that the amount in this bill for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization is only slightly higher than the Clinton administration's own bottom-up review recommended for fiscal year 1997. The bottom line is simple. If you think that the American people should not be defended against ballistic missiles, then you should support the Dorgan amendment. If you think that the United States should preserve the option of deploying an NMD system by 2003, then vote against this amendment. I strongly urge my colleagues to put themselves on the side of defending the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor and acknowledge the able Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe. (Mr. BURNS assumed the chair.)

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Tuesday, June 18, 1996, session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting an oversight hearing on the Federal Communications Commission.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 19, 1996, beginning at 9 a.m., and Wednesday, June 19, 1996, beginning at 9:30 a.m. until business is completed, to hold a hearing on public access to Government information in the 21st century, with a focus on the GPO depository library program title 44.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition, and General Legislation be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 18, 1996, to discuss issues that affect the livestock industry.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield Senator Inhofe 15 minutes. Is that sufficient?

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Craig Williams, a fellow on the staff of Senator McCain, be granted the privilege of the floor during the discussion of S. 1745.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to thank the able Senator from Georgia, Senator Nunn, for his kind remarks. It will be a pleasure working with him on this bill. He is a former chairman of this committee. He is now the ranking member and does a very fine job for defense, and we are very proud of him. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, Senator Nunn is expected to be here momentarily to make his opening statement. I expect that other Members will follow thereafter. We want to get as many statements completed during these initial hours as possible. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to commend the able Senator from Oklahoma for his fine statement. He is a valuable member of the Armed Services Committee. We appreciate his coming here and making a good statement. I now yield to the able Senator from Indiana, Senator Coats, another valuable member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend the able Senator from Indiana for the valuable contributions he has made to this debate. I now yield to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his comments. I look forward to a spirited debate on this subject. Mr. President, Senator Warner is a valuable member of the Armed Services Committee. He has been on the committee a long time and done a fine job. I now yield such time as he may require.

Mr. THURMOND. I wish to commend the able Senator from Virginia for the fine contribution he has made to this debate.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield to the able Senator from Texas, a valuable member of the Armed Services Committee, such time as she may require.

Mr. THURMOND. I wish to commend the able Senator from Texas for the excellent remarks she has made on this bill. She has made a fine contribution to this debate. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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