J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 2 additional minutes be allowed to the Senator and that it not be charged to anybody.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to correct several incorrect statements that have been made over the last several days regarding the ballistic missile defense provisions in this conference report. It has been asserted that this conference report requires the United States to deploy a multiple-site national missile defense system and even a space-based system. Both of these assertions are flat wrong. The conference report does require the Secretary of Defense to deploy a ground-based national missile defense system by the end of 2003. But nothing in the conference report requires the system to include multiple sites. I continue to believe that the United States should ultimately deploy a multiple-site system, but nothing in this conference report requires such a system. Nor does the conference report advocate, let alone require, a violation of the ABM Treaty. The language in the conference report urges the President to undertake negotiations with Russia to amend the ABM Treaty to allow for deployment of a multiple-site national missile defense system. This and other provisions in this conference report envision a cooperative process, not unilateral abrogation. It has been asserted that there is no way to defend the territory of the United States from a single site, and therefore this conference report indirectly requires a multiple-site system. While I believe that a multiple-site system should be our goal, I must point out that the Army has concluded that it can defend all 50 States, including Alaska and Hawaii, from a single, ABM, Treaty-compliant, site. I would also point out that the Army's report on this subject was prepared at the request of the ranking minority member of the Armed Services Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the Army report, entitled ``Evolutionary Approach to National Missile Defense,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, unfortunately, despite all our efforts in conference to resolve concerns related to the ABM Treaty, we continue to hear the artificial argument that this conference report constitutes an anticipatory breach of the ABM Treaty. Since there is no requirement to deploy a multiple-site national missile defense system in this conference report, there can be no anticipatory breach contained in it. But even if there were a multiple-site requirement, this would still not constitute an anticipatory breach. Since there are treaty-compliant ways to get to a multiple-site system, just having a policy that points us in that direction cannot constitute an anticipatory breach. To quote the senior Senator from Alabama, who was a distinguished judge prior to coming to the Senate, ``While there are legal methods to deploy multiple sites within the framework of the ABM Treaty, there can be no anticipatory breach.'' It has also been argued that this conference report requires a space- based defense. The conference report does call on the Department of Defense to preserve the option of deploying a layered defense in the future. But there is no requirement to deploy any specific space-based system or to structure an acquisition program that includes space-based weapons. The conference report does increase funding for the space-based laser program. But this increase is merely to keep a technology program alive. We have asked for a report to illustrate what a deployment program would look like, but this is hardly a mandate to deploy. We can certainly debate the merits of what this conference report requires. But let's be clear about what it actually contains. If Senators want to debate the need for deployment of a national missile defense system by 2003, that is a legitimate debate. But to argue, as several Senators have, that this conference report requires deployment of space-based weapons and mandates a violation of the ABM Treaty is simply an act of disinformation. Senators are entitled to their views, but they owe the American people an honest statement that distinguishes between fact and fiction. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask that the time for the quorum call not be charged to either side.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to thank the able Senator from Virginia for his able remarks he made on this bill. He is chairman of the Rules Committee but he is a prominent member of the Armed Services Committee and has rendered great service to his country. We all appreciate that very much.

Mr. THURMOND. This defense authorization bill is a sound bill and should be enacted into law. I wish to thank the Senators and the staff members on both sides who helped to prepare and support this bill for the great service they rendered to their country. Mr. President, I am pleased that Senators will now have the opportunity to express their support for our military men and women by voting to approve the conference agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996. As my colleagues prepare to vote on this agreement, I would ask them to make absolutely sure that they do so with the full knowledge that this is a period of high risk and exceptional danger for our military. The President has committed more than 30,000 uniformed men and women to a hazardous and lengthy operation in the former Yugoslavia. The Congress must make every effort to ensure that nothing--absolutely nothing--is done to jeopardize or impede them in any way. I find it impossible to understand how any Senator could vote against a defense authorization bill when the President is ordering troops into harm's way. This bill contains many essential authorities for programs, systems, acquisitions, administration, operations, and quality of life. I do not know how I could face my constituents if I voted against taking care of the troops, who are on their way to Bosnia, for any of the reasons I have heard offered by those who want to defeat this bill. Mr. President, the fine men and women who now serve in our military are being asked, once again, to put their lives at risk in a foreign land. They do not have the option to refuse to go if they disagree with some aspect of the operation. Many of us in the Senate continue to have serious doubts about this mission, yet, every member of the Senate has gone on record to support the troops unequivocally and to provide them with all the necessary resources and support to carry out their mission and ensure their security. The Senate resolution in support of the troops will ring hollow without the action to back them up. The authority necessary to translate those words into real, tangible support, is contained in the conference agreement now before the Senate. I am dismayed to see so many of my colleagues picking out some provision in the report, and then stand here on the floor of the Senate to say that they cannot vote for the bill because they disagree with the provision. There are 995 pages in the conference agreement this year. It reconciles two of the most complex bills produced by the Congress. I would suggest to my colleagues that no bill meets everyone's expectations completely. Only gridlock could result from such an approach. Mr. President, this is not the time to turn a defense bill into a political issue, as some have chosen to do. The only result of politicizing this bill will be to disadvantage the Department of Defense and our troops at a time when they are focused on a major international operation. The House recognized this and approved the conference agreement on a vote of 267 to 149. It is important that my colleagues and the administration clearly understand that every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine will feel the effects if this agreement is not adopted. We have heard objections from the minority that this bill adds $7 billion that the President did not ask for. However, they have not mentioned that defense is now underfunded by at least $150 billion, according to the General Accounting Office. The Comptroller of the Department of Defense, John Hamre, testified before the Committee on Armed Services that defense is underfunded by at least $50 billion. Now we are engaged in a major deployment when the resources of the Department of Defense will be stretched even more. After having dramatically underfunded defense, reducing the Armed Forces, and at the same time requiring the military to perform at an operations tempo higher than during the Cold War for missions in Somalia and Haiti, the President is again deploying troops. How can there be any objection to additional funds? One of the most important parts of this agreement is a provision that adjusts the automatic level at which service members can enroll in the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance program to $200,000. Ironically, we need to make an adjustment to SGLI again as we are deploying U.S. Forces in harm's way; the last time we did this was prior to the Persian Gulf war. I sincerely hope that no family will lose a loved one and therefore need to receive this increased benefit. However, the President has told us to expect casualties in Bosnia, and this protection will not take effect unless this bill is enacted. The Committee on Armed Services concentrated on improving the quality of life for our military personnel and their families. We did not do this because our forces would deploy to Bosnia, but because there was a need. The list of initiatives in this area reflects a high degree of success. However, none of these improvements will occur unless this agreement is enacted. We authorized a 2.4-percent pay raise and a 5.2-percent increase in the basic allowance for quarters effective January 1, 1996. We also attempted to repair a breach of faith with our military retirees by restoring the military retirement COLA dates to the same schedule as Federal civilian retirees. If the authorization is not approved, military retirees will continue to be treated unfairly, and military personnel will be denied the full pay raise and increase in the quarters allowance. We included a provision that permits military families to use CHAMPUS for well-baby care, routine immunizations, and school physicals. The administration talks about doing this, but military families will continue to do without, or pay for these services out of pocket, unless this conference agreement is enacted. I cannot understand how any Senator or the President could ask our service members to go to Bosnia, leaving their families alone in Germany and other places far from their homes, while at the same time denying them the pay raise, insurance coverage, allowances, and other quality of life improvements they deserve. The bill contains the authority to reform the acquisition and procurement processes in accordance with the general effort to streamline Government. It also reforms the process for managing the procurement of information technology in order to provide our front- line troops with the latest and best information about their situation. All the acquisition reform provisions contained in sections D and E of the bill will be lost if the conference agreement is not enacted. Procurement funding has declined by 44 percent since 1992 and procurement is at the lowest level as a percentage of the budget since the years prior to the Second World War. This agreement takes a step toward resolving that deficiency by authorizing items needed to fight and win decisively while minimizing the risk to our troops. It buys basics, invests to achieve savings, and focuses on the future. The conference agreement would also authorize funds for the counterproliferation support program. The nerve gas attacks in Japan and the bombing in Oklahoma this year show the need to protect not only our military personnel but also our citizens within the United States against the use of weapons of mass destruction. The conference report requires the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy and other appropriate Government agencies to report to Congress on their military and civil defense preparedness to respond to such emergencies. The conference report also authorizes DOD to provide assistance in the form of training facilities, sensors, protective clothing, antidotes, and other materials and expertise to Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies. The conference agreement authorizes funds for arms control to enable the United States to meet its treaty obligations to destroy or dismantle chemical and strategic nuclear weapons and material. It also provides $300 million for the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program for the destruction of nuclear and chemical weapons in the former Soviet Union. On the question of theater missile defense demarcation, the conference outcome is virtually identical to the Senate-passed provision. This should alleviate concerns about constraining the President's prerogatives in negotiations while fulfilling the constitutional responsibility of Congress to review the results of those negotiations. I believe we have addressed all the concerns of the administration and the minority conferees on this issue. I am very disturbed to hear that some are working to defeat or veto the conference agreement over the ballistic missile defense provisions. These provisions are balanced and fair. If this veto comes to pass, it will become clear that the administration's arguments over the ABM Treaty were merely attempts to block the deployment of any type of national missile defense system, to include one that complies with the ABM Treaty. I find it hard to believe that the President would veto this important bill simply to deny the American people a defense against ballistic missiles. Many aspects of this bill are important not only to military men and women but to all our citizens. The section on Department of Energy National Security Programs focuses resources on cleaning up the highest priority nuclear waste problems at the former nuclear materials production sites. It also funds the isolation and reduction of spent nuclear fuel rods, some of which are beginning to corrode. These problems cannot be addressed in fiscal year 1996 unless the authorization bill is enacted. The agreement establishes uniform national discharge standards for vessels of the Armed Forces and directs the clean up of DOD environmental problem sites. These and other environmental initiatives will be lost if the bill is not enacted. President Clinton has urged our citizens and the Congress to support his Bosnia intervention. I have listened to his arguments about world leadership and our role in the world. Our troops will bear the brunt of his decision and they deserve to be supported, but their support will be compromised without the defense authorization. I am dismayed that any Senator would consider voting against this legislation or attempt to use this bill for political purposes. Politics used to stop at the water's edge, especially when our forces were deployed to a hostile fire area. I urge my colleagues and the administration to work toward the enactment of this conference agreement and not to jeopardize, disadvantage, or impede our Armed Forces. Mr. President, I yield the floor. How much time do I have left?

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

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest we take 20 minutes to wait for Senator Daschle to get here from the White House. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we yield back time remaining on both sides and proceed to a vote, and we keep the vote open for 30 minutes after those present have voted.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. THURMOND. I would like to express my deep appreciation to all of the Members who worked hard to prepare this bill and who supported it. I also would like to express my deep appreciation to all the staff members who worked so hard to prepare this bill. This is a good bill. It serves the military well. It serves the country well. And I am sure all who support it will be proud that they did support it because it is going to help the soldiers and their families in every way possible. Thank you very much.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, although we have reached agreement with Senator Leahy on the landmine provision, I would like to respond to remarks made by the Senator from Vermont regarding a provision that would impose a moratorium on landmines that was included in the Senate Defense authorization bill. When the Senator from Vermont introduced his provision in the Chamber, I, along with Senators Nunn and Warner, raised objections to his provision. The provision would express the sense of the Congress with regard to a treaty review conference on conventional weapons, sanction foreign governments that export antipersonnel landmines, and it would impose a moratorium on the defensive use of antipersonnel landmines by U.S. Armed Forces. Mr. President, the portion of the provision that caused us such grave concern was that portion that would place a moratorium on U.S. Armed Forces use of antipersonnel landmines for defensive purposes. Mr. President, the Department of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Department of Justice raised objections to this provision and specifically the portion of the provision that would place a moratorium on the use of antipersonnel landmines by the U.S. Armed Forces for defensive purposes. Specifically, DOD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff strongly opposed the provision because it would have a detrimental impact on the ability of the military forces to protect themselves and require the removal of mine fields emplaced in demilitarized zones. The Department of Justice opposed the inclusion of this provision because it is their view that it is a serious infringement on the President's authority as Commander in Chief, stating, ``* * * the Congress may decide upon the weapons available to the President, it may not dictate how those weapons are to be used in military operations.'' Throughout the conference the House objected to this provision. The Senate defended the provision of the Senator from Vermont. At the same time, there were discussions with the House of the need to obtain a report from the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the impact of a moratorium on the defensive use of antipersonnel and antitank mines. Additionally, the House asked that prior to the implementation of a moratorium, that the Secretary of Defense certify that the moratorium would not adversely affect U.S. military capabilities, and that there were adequate substitutes. Mr. President, I would point out that the Senator's provision is in the fiscal year 1996 foreign operations appropriations conference report. After the foreign operations appropriations conference report was agreed to, with this provision in it, the Senator from Vermont came to me and asked that the committee drop his provision from the Defense bill. Based on his request, the Senate conferees dropped the landmine moratorium provision from the bill. However, the committee retained the report requirement. I do not understand why the Senator from Vermont would not want to have a report submitted to the Congress about the impact of his provision, or, for that matter, why he would not want assurances from the Secretary of Defense, that his provision would not detrimentally impact on the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to defend themselves. Mr. President, in his remarks on the Senate floor on the deployment of United States Armed Forces to Bosnia, the Senator from Vermont raised concerns about the great number of landmines that are in and around Bosnia. I might point out that this conference report contains $20 million for humanitarian demining activities, and $20 million that would provide for advanced detection systems to find mines, so they do not pose such a great threat to our Armed Forces, and the forces of our allies, as well as innocent women and children. These provisions would be lost if the conference report is not adopted. Mr. President, I hope common sense will prevail in this matter and that the Senate will approve this conference report. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as we continue to debate the conference report on the Department of Defense authorization bill, I want to make just a few opening comments. As I indicated earlier, it has been long and arduous process, but we have a sound bill that supports our national security and the objectives we set early in the year. As in every conference there had to be some give and take. I have no doubt that there are provisions in this bill that may be objectionable to some. There are provisions that I would rather not have in a defense bill. However, we must judge this bill as a whole, not by individual provisions. If you make an objective evaluation of the bill, I am confident you will come to the conclusion that all our efforts paid off. We provided for the readiness of the force both for the near term and in the out years. We provided for the welfare of our soldiers and their families. We provided the Department of Defense with the tools to effectively manage and streamline the acquisition of weapons systems and equipment. Despite our efforts to reach accommodation on all issues with the administration, they have indicated they will oppose the bill. Throughout the day we will address many of the objections and I believe we have a strong case to refute these objections. I urge my colleagues to come to the floor and participate in this debate. The Senate and the Nation have a great stake in this bill, especially now that our forces are deploying to Bosnia. Mr. President, the House passed this conference report by an overwhelming vote of 269 to 149, I urge the Senate to do no less. 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. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Yes.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I think that is satisfactory to have a definite time to vote, and the distinguished Senator from Vermont will have 20 minutes before the vote and I will have 20 minutes before the vote to speak on the bill and have a definite time to vote. If we can agree on that time, I suggest maybe 12 o'clock tomorrow, if that suits the distinguished Senator from Vermont.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, that would give today for those who wish to speak on the bill, for or against it, to make their speeches, and then tomorrow we can have the vote. The leaders can agree on a time tomorrow. Senator Lott is now representing the leadership on the Republican side, and he can get in touch with the Democratic leadership and agree on a time for the vote. But as I understand it, it will definitely be tomorrow. I ask unanimous consent that it will be tomorrow.

Mr. THURMOND. If that is the desire of the Senator from Mississippi, I will do that.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, earlier in the debate, a question came up about the Naval petroleum reserves, and I would like to make a statement on that. The conference agreement on the sale of the 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 Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 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 is in the best interests of the United States. Mr. President, these two clauses essentially mean that Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 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's 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 by this 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. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THURMOND. If we can limit debate to 6 hours equally divided, I think that will give ample time to debate it tomorrow and Monday, and then have a final vote on Tuesday.

Mr. THURMOND. Would 8 hours suit the Senator all right?

Mr. THURMOND. What time would the distinguished Senator suggest?

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I would like to point out an inadvertent omission in the conference agreement statement of managers with respect to Air Force Program Element 602601F, Advanced Weapons. The conference agreement increased the authorization of the requested amount of $124.4 million by $11.0 million. Of that increase, $5.0 million was intended by the conferees to authorize the continuation of the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program. As pointed out in the statement of managers accompanying the conference report, the conferees intend the remaining $6 million of the increase to authorize the rocket propulsion technology program described in the House Report 104-131. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.