J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the able Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith].

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we have no objection.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Maine.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to commend the able Senator from Oklahoma for his excellent remarks. He does a fine job as a member of the Armed Services Committee, and we are very pleased to work with him. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to commend the able Senator from Maine on the excellent remarks he just made. He is a staunch member of the Armed Services Committee, and we are very proud of what he does for the defense of our Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that it be divided equally, charged to each side.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I do not believe that I will use the 20 minutes allotted for me to respond to Senator Leahy, as I spoke about my concerns with his landmine provision yesterday. I will, however, reiterate a number of concerns expressed by myself, and other members of the committee, as well as the Department of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Department of Justice, with regard to the landmine provision which is no longer in the defense authorization bill, and the reporting and certification provision. The Senator from Vermont has been a strong proponent of legislation that would eliminate anti-personnel landmines. I applaud the Senator for his efforts to make the world safer for innocent women and children who fall victim to these weapons of war used in many civil wars in the Third World. I cannot, however, support legislative efforts that would needlessly place U.S. Armed Forces at risk. In my view, and the view of a number of my colleagues on the committee, that would be the effect of the provision that was incorporated in Senator Leahy's landmine moratorium--which I emphasize is not in the Defense authorization conference report, pursuant to Senator Leahy's request, but is in fact in the Fiscal Year 1996 Foreign Appropriations Conference Report. Mr. President, the provision currently in the Defense authorization conference report would require the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to submit a report to the congressional defense committees each April 30 for 3 years, that would include the following information: The extent to which the defensive use of anti-personnel landmines by U.S. Armed Forces adheres to international law; The effects that a landmine moratorium on the defensive use of the current U.S. inventory of remotely delivered, self-destructing antitank systems, antipersonnel landmines, and antitank mines; The reliability of self-destructing antipersonnel and antitank mines in the U.S. inventory; The cost of clearing the antipersonnel currently protecting our naval station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and other United States installations; The cost of replacing those antipersonnel mines with substitutes and the level of protection provided by the substitutes; The extent to which the defensive use of antipersonnel and antitank landmines are a source of civilian casualties around the world and the extent to which the United States and the Department of Defense have contributed to alleviating the illegal and indiscriminate use of these munitions; The impact or effect of the moratorium on U.S. Armed Forces during operations other than war. Last, the provision would require the Secretary of Defense to certify that a legislated moratorium would not adversely affect U.S. Armed Forces defensive capabilities and that they have adequate substitutes. The Department of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Department of Justice have raised objections to the Senator's provision, and particularly to the implementation of a moratorium on the use of antipersonnel landmines by the U.S. Armed Forces for defensive purposes because of its detrimental impact on the ability of the military forces to protect themselves. The Department of Justice also believes that the provision would seriously infringe on the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief on how weapons are to be used in military operations. Mr. President, as I stated yesterday, I do not understand why the Senator from Vermont would not want this information. Certainly, he would want to know that the moratorium would not seriously risk or endanger the lives the U.S. Armed Forces who are to be sent out in to situations where their very lives are at stake, with the necessary munitions and weapons to defend themselves. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the able Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to commend the Senator for his remarks, and it will be a pleasure to work with him and the Governmental Affairs Committee in trying to correct anything here that should be corrected.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I now yield 10 minutes to the able Senator from Virginia.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to commend the able Senator from Virginia for the outstanding remarks that he has made on this bill.

Mr. THURMOND. I understand my colleague's concerns regarding the project distribution under the MANTECH Program, but it is the Conferees' intention this program be administered on a project-by- project basis, especially with regards to the cost-sharing provisions. However, in implementing this provision, the committee would be willing to look at alternative methods of accounting that the Department of Defense may propose, such as bundling similar projects for fulfilling the cost-sharing requirements, on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, please let me make it clear we did not intend for Government funds to fulfill the non-Federal cost-sharing requirements of this provision. I believe this interpretation will maximize our leverage of federal resources. This issue is already addressed in the regulations implementing cost-sharing in dual-use technology programs.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to assure my colleague from Michigan that this waiver is only expected to be implemented after every good faith effort is made to find suitable and sufficient projects to obligate all these funds. This waiver authority is intended as a last alternative, and every other conceivable effort should be made to follow these requirements, including bringing new and current potential participants into the competitive process. Finally, I will assure my colleague that the Armed Services Committee will scrutinize DOD reports prior to their implementing such a waiver.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to commend the able Senator from New Hampshire for the excellent remarks he made on this bill. He is a valuable member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he renders this country a great service. I will yield 10 minutes to the able Senator from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne, and after that, I will yield 10 minutes to the able Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, then 10 minutes to the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, and then 10 minutes to myself.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I regret the able Senator is not voting for the bill, but I thank him for his kind comments. I now yield 10 minutes to the able Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe. He is a valuable member of the Armed Services Committee, and we are very pleased to have him speak at this time.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as we consider the conference report to accompany the fiscal year 1996 national defense authorization bill, it is imperative to put aside recent partisan criticism of the bill and remember that this legislation contains a significant number of provisions that will benefit our men and women in uniform, many of whom are being sent to Bosnia by our President. In view of the dangers our forces will meet in Bosnia and the hardships their families will endure during the holiday season, it is incredible to believe that many would put politics above the interest of the Nation. I point out just a few of the provisions beneficial to the Members of our Armed Forces and their families. This is not all of them, this is just a few I am going to mention. The full military pay raise, if you kill this bill, they will not get the pay raise; increase in quarters allowance, that is badly needed; authority to pay a family separation allowance to geographically separated families. This is important; authority to pay enlisted airmen hazardous duty incentive pay; authority to pay dislocation allowance to those forced to move as a result of base closure; increase specialty pay for recruiters; automatic maximum coverage under the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance; cost of living COLA equity for military retirees; Reserve components initiatives: Authorized a reserve component dental insurance program; and established an income insurance program for reservists who are involuntarily mobilized. Mr. President, all of these are good things. These are things the servicemen want. These are things the soldiers want. You kill this bill, you will destroy all this. During the Senate-House conference that considered the fiscal year 1996 defense authorization bill, we conducted bipartisan negotiations with members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the House of Representatives Committee on National Security, and included representatives of the Department of Defense and White House staff in an effort to craft a bill that would be acceptable to all. We conferred with all these people. We did the very best we could to get a bill that would be acceptable to everybody concerned here. Mr. President, I hope that we can pass this conference report in the same bipartisan manner. I urge Members to come to the floor, debate the issues, and then give this conference report the strong support it deserves. Naval Petroleum Reserves Mr. President, while I am on the floor, I observe that my good friend, Senator Nunn referred to the naval petroleum reserves and indicated the Government would not be protected properly under this bill. That is incorrect. I want to say this. The conference agreement on the sale of Naval Petroleum Reserves contains a number of safeguards to ensure that the Federal Government receives full value. Among these safeguards are the following two clauses which clearly spell out the conferees' intent that the reserves can be sold only if this will result in the highest return to the American taxpayer. The first is the mandated minimum acceptable price. This price will be established by five independent experts who shall consider: all equipment and facilities to be included in the sale, the estimated quantity of petroleum and natural gas in the reserve, and the net present value of the anticipated revenue stream that the Treasury would receive from the reserve if the reserve were not sold. The Secretary may not set the minimum acceptable price below the higher of the average of the five assessments; and the average of three assessments after excluding the high and low assessments. This requirement ensures that the minimum acceptable price has to be at least as high as what the Government would receive for these reserves if any other course of action is taken including the establishment of a Government corporation, the leasing of the reserves, or the continuation of the current operation of the field. The second key clause is the authority to suspend the sale. This clause gives the Secretary the authority to suspend the sale of NPR-1 if the Secretary and the Director of OMB jointly determine that the sale is proceeding in a manner inconsistent with achievement of a sale price that reflects the full value of the reserve; or a course of action other than the immediate sale of the reserve to be in the best interests of the United States. Mr. President, these two clauses essentially mean that NPR-1 cannot be sold unless the Government gets a price for the field that exceeds the value that would be achieved by any other option, and that the entire sale proceed in a manner that is in the best interests of the United States. The sale will provide an estimated $1.5 to $2.5 billion to the Federal Treasury. This does not include the several hundred million dollars that the Government will receive in increased tax revenues. What is more, the Government will save about $1 billion in operating costs over the next 7 years. Mr. President, the sale of these reserves was initiated--and I want to remind my friends on the Democratic side of this--by the administration, and, in fact, the administration has come out in support of this provision. We have worked in a very bipartisan manner to draft this provision so as to incorporate the maximum safeguards possible. I hope that we can continue this bipartisanship and vote to approve the conference agreement which includes this provision. So, our Government is thoroughly protected under this bill in the matter of the petroleum reserves. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as may be needed.

Mr. THURMOND. Incidentally, the distinguished Senator from Ohio asked for 5 additional minutes. I ask unanimous consent that our side have 5 additional minutes.

Mr. THURMOND. If the additional 5 minutes he received is going to come out of that time, then I will not ask for 5 additional minutes. I just wanted to be sure each side had the same number of minutes.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to address the central objection raised by certain Members and the administration against this conference report concerning ballistic missile defense. The administration has argued that we do not need and cannot afford a national missile defense system. This is a debatable point and everyone is entitled to their own view. But the administration has also claimed that the NMD system called for in this conference report would require the United States to unilaterally abrogate or violate the ABM Treaty. This assertion is simply false. Over the last several months, the majority conferees engaged the administration and the minority conferees in a detailed negotiation to ensure that all legitimate concerns having to do with the ABM Treaty, the START II Treaty, and the President's prerogatives in the area of arms control were addressed and resolved. This negotiation produced the ballistic missile defense provisions in this conference report. Unfortunately, once these concerns were addressed, the administration moved the goal line and changed its demands. At the last moment, the White House made it clear that even if we resolved all concerns having to do with the ABM Treaty they would oppose this conference report over a simple commitment to deploy a national missile defense system, even if that system were fully compliant with the ABM Treaty. Let us be clear about the administration's reasons for opposing this conference report. The administration opposes any National Missile System; they argue that there is no threat and that we cannot afford one anyway. Ironically, the administration is willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on a National Missile Defense Technology Program that is specifically designed never to lead to deployment. What we are saying is at that level of investment we ought to get something real in return--an actual deployed system. On the subject of the threat, there is no doubt that there is an existing and expanding threat to the United States from ballistic missiles. With Russian ICBM technology virtually up for sale and with North Korea developing a missile capable of reaching the United States, I do not see how one can argue that there is no threat in sight. This is just another excuse for doing nothing. To provide some context, I urge Senators to look back at the Missile Defense Act of 1991, which was a bipartisan effort. The 1991 act called on the Secretary of Defense to deploy a National Missile Defense System in 5 years, by 1996. In contrast, the conference report before the Senate today gives the Secretary of Defense 8 years to deploy a similar system. What has changed since passage of the Missile Defense Act of 1991 is that the administration no longer wants to deal with the problem. I regret this and I urge my colleagues to reject the artificial arguments regarding the ABM Treaty. There are many in the Senate who want to see us abrogate the ABM Treaty. This conference report, however, does not do it. Mr. President, I would like to respond to a couple of remarks made by the Senator from Ohio. The Senator from Ohio registered his support for administration success in securing the unconditional extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. He then went on to articulate his concerns with the ballistic missile defense language in the defense authorization conference and the potential detrimental impact on Russian ratification of START II. He also mentioned his concern about the lack of concern by the new majority with regard to export controls and other measures that would contribute to staunching the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Let me highlight provisions in the Defense authorization conference report which I believe the Senator would agree supports his concerns. With regard to START II, there are two provisions, one which expresses the Congress' support for ratification and implementation of START II, and another provision expressing the Congress' belief that the United States not take any action to unilaterally retire or dismantle systems until such time as START II is ratified and implemented by both parties. This is consistent with the testimony by the Under Secretary of Policy for the Department of Defense, Walt Slocombe, before the Senate Armed Services Committee during its START II hearing this year. Let me quote Mr. Slocombe's response to a concern that I raised about premature reductions to the U.S. strategic forces, Mr. Slocombe replied, . . . we will not begin the reductions necessary to reach the START II levels until the Treaty has been ratified, and we will ensure that the pace of our reductions are reasonably related to the pace of Russian reductions. It seems ridiculous to me that the administration would oppose the Defense authorization conference report and cite provisions that articulate the administration's stated policy. With regard to export controls, the Defense authorization conference report includes a provision that expresses the concern of the Congress that it is in our national security interests to maintain effective export controls. Additionally, the conference report expresses its deep concern that the administration has lowered restrictions on a number of dual-use items and technologies with defense capabilities. The conference report would require them to evaluate licenses for the export of militarily critical items that should be controlled for national security reasons; requires the Department to review export licenses for biological pathogens; and requires a report on actions taken by the administration to ensure that it is maintaining an active role in review export licenses in a number of areas, such as space launch vehicles, supercomputers, biological pathogens, and high resolution imagery. The conference report also makes recommendations to strengthen proliferation regimes, such as the Missile Technology Control Regimes. The conference report also contains provisions to strengthen the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act of 1992. Last, the Senator from Ohio mentioned his concern that the Defense authorization conference report does not contain enough funds to pay our peacekeeping assessments to the United Nations. Mr. President, the Defense authorization conference report is not the appropriate legislation to pay peacekeeping assessments, the appropriate legislation is the foreign aid and foreign operations appropriations bills. The Defense conference report before the Senate contains funds to pay for contingency operations in Iraq, which Secretary of Defense Perry asked for, but was not included in the Defense budget request. It also includes $50 million for humanitarian assistance and $20 million for humanitarian demining activities. Items which quite frankly should be funded in the international affairs budget function, but which this committee has supported. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to commend the able Senator from Mississippi for the excellent remarks he has made on this bill. He is the Republican whip in the Senate and does a great job there. He is also a valuable member of the Armed Services Committee and has made a great contribution to our country by sitting on that committee. Again, I want to thank him for all he has done to promote this bill. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to commend the able Senator from Indiana for the excellent remarks he has made on this bill. He is a valuable member of our Armed Services Committee and made a fine contribution throughout this year to the work of that committee. We appreciate it very much, Senator, all that you do for your country.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend the able Senator from Virginia for the excellent remarks he has made on this bill. The Senator from Virginia was once Secretary of the Navy. He served in the Marines. He is a valuable member of the Armed Services Committee. He has rendered long service here and with great distinction to country and I want to commend him.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. That is all right.