J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I would just like to make some general comments about the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, otherwise known as Nunn-Lugar. To date, close to $1.6 billion has been authorized or appropriated for this program. Out of this amount, less than half of the funds have been obligated. Earlier this year, the Department of Defense told the committee that they expected to obligate around $860 million of the previous year's funding by the end of the fiscal year. The committee has been supportive of this effort to help the Republics of the former Soviet Union dismantle and destroy their chemical and nuclear weapons stockpile. For various reasons, however, the Department has run into problems in managing the program, either through administrative problems on the United States side, or, as a result of not being able to conclude implementing agreements with [[Page S 12653]] Russia and the other Republics. I believe the program has been a useful political tool. However, I don't believe that the program has accomplished as much as the Department of Defense would lead one to believe. The Department of Defense says that the large number of reductions in Russia and the Republics are as a result of the assistance received through this program. Mr. President, that can hardly be the case, when the majority of the funds for this program overall were not obligated until the latter part of 1994. I believe it is accurate to say that this program has been helpful in securing the reductions and return of the strategic nuclear weapons from the three Republics, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. Russia, however, achieved their reductions prior to entry into force of the START Treaty because it was in their economic interest to do so. By implementing the reductions prior to START entering into force, Russia was able to dismantle those items without having to declare them under the treaty and adhere to the dismantlement requirements of the treaty. A number of Members have been concerned with the slow rate of obligation of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. For that reason, the committee recommended a reduction from the President's budget request, and also agreed with the recommendation of the Senator from Arizona, to place limitations on the use of the funds, pending a Presidential certification regarding the progress of the chemical weapons dismantlement program. Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe conducted two hearings on nuclear terrorism and proliferation. The majority of witnesses recommended that funds for this program, as well as the Department of Energy's companion program be substantially increased. Mr. President, I believe that recommendation is premature, based on the track record of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. The committee will continue to pay close attention to the Department's management and obligation rate of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I urge passage of the bill and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I believe we will take up some uncontested matters at this time.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on this particular amendment, I want to say we are looking at the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that it be laid aside until we can go to other things and then reconsider it at a later time during the day. I am pleased to go the matters that have been agreed upon.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as stated by Senator Johnston, the proposed amendment was cleared by both sides. I would like to briefly comment on the amendment. First, I feel that the conflict of interest provisions are consistent with past Senate efforts to eliminate agency- specific requirements that are no longer necessary. Second, the Sense of the Senate related to environmental restoration addresses concerns related to civil and criminal liability of individual Federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. The sense of the Senate specifically provides that Federal employees shall not be held personally liable for a failure to fulfill an environmental cleanup requirement that is the result of insufficient congressional appropriations. I support the amendment, as offered by Senator Johnston.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on August 2, the Senate adopted an amendment authorizing $228.0 million for military constructions projects that were appropriated in the military construction appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. The amendment I am offering today identifies offsets that will be used to pay for these additional projects. Specific amounts are as follows: $30.0 million from a reduction to the foreign currency fluctuation account previously made by the Senate. $98.7 million from construction projects that are no longer required due to the recommended closures by the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. These reductions were taken from a list compiled by the Department of Defense. $49.0 million from prior year funds for projects that resulted in contract savings or were previously approved and now are no longer needed. This action mirrors the action taken by the Senate MILCON Appropriations Subcommittee. $53.0 million from the $161.0 million request for the Pentagon renovation. The fiscal year 1996 request included $53.0 million for construction of wedge 1 of the project, which has been delayed for 1 year pending a comprehensive review of the $1.2 billion renovation project. Mr. President, the reductions to the various programs will not impair the progress of these programs. On the other hand, the additional military construction projects funded by these offsets will enhance the readiness of our Armed Forces and provide for the [[Page S 12600]] welfare of the men and women who serve in the uniform of this Nation. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we have no objection to that. I hope we can wrap everything up tonight as much as possible and have as few things to do tomorrow before we vote.

Mr. THURMOND. That is correct.

Mr. THURMOND. I ask unanimous consent that--I understand I probably would make that after the bill passes, and so just as to say 2 minutes to each side before that.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have 5 minutes each in the morning. I have a closing statement I would like to make in the morning just before we vote on this bill.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator may require for further debate.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the able Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the able Senator from Virginia.

Mr. THURMOND. I yield 10 minutes to the able Senator from Maine.

Mr. THURMOND. In closing, Mr. President, let me once again urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan compromise on missile defense. It is a positive step that all Members should be able to endorse. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 A Timely Reminder From Iraq (By Robert Dole) When Saddam Hussein's son-in-law and former chief of mass destruction bolted, apparently threatening to tell all, the Iraqi director preempted and sent us the loudest wake-up call we are likely to get on the growing threat of weapons of mass destruction. As we finish up the Department of Defense Authorization Bill, it's time to heed that call. According to their belated admission, the Iraqis filled nearly 200 bombs and warheads for ballistic missiles with botulinum toxin, anthrax spores and aflatoxin. In addition to the shockingly advanced nuclear weapons program already revealed, Iraq now says it ran a second program to develop a nuclear weapon by April 1991 with material diverted from nuclear power reactors. [[Page S 12584]] The latest revelations from Baghdad underscore four points. First, arms control treaties and export controls did not prevent Iraq from pursuing its deadly aims. Don't get me wrong--diplomatic efforts increase the cost, time and technical challenge required to acquire weapons to mass destruction. We should press on with them. The point is simply that diplomacy does not prevent malevolent countries like Iraq from acquiring these weapons and there are a number of countries of Iraq's ilk out there. Second, Iraq managed to conceal a good part of its activities from the rest of the world, even after post-Gulf War U.N. sanctions made it the most inspected country on earth. Clearly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The lesson is that we no longer have the luxury of waiting for our intelligence bureaucracy to gather reams of evidence before ``validating'' a threat. Our own defense programs need to start anticipating emerging threats. Third, what makes these weapons truly menacing is the prospect of their delivery with ballistic missiles, which allow countries that never before wielded such power to vault themselves onto the world stage. Imagine trying to put together the coalition for Desert Storm if Cairo, Ankara, Rome or London had believed they were vulnerable to missiles loaded with anthrax. And let's not forget that the United States and its key allies may soon be a target. In just three to five years, the North Korean Taepo-Dong II intercontinental ballistic missile could reach American soil. Those lacking in imagination about what that implies should recall the words of Saddam Hussein: ``Our missiles cannot reach Washington. If they could reach Washington, we would strike it if the need rose.'' Fourth, the Clinton administration and its allies hobble America's missile defense efforts by clinging to the 1972 ABM Treaty with the now defunct Soviet Union. They have even tried to drag our theater missile defense programs, never covered by the ABM Treaty, under new limits that the administration has hatched from ever-burgeoning interpretations of that treaty. It's time to defend ourselves in the multipolar world of the 21st century. It's time to change the regime established by the 1972 ABM Treaty, which currently leaves the American people vulnerable to missile attack from any country capable of developing or buying a long-range missile, I think there are ways we can cooperate with Russia on missile defenses, but that is partly up to them. Our job on the defense bill is to lay out what is necessary for America's defense. We now have a defense bill which takes important steps in that direction. First, it establishes a Cruise Missile Defense Initiative, the need for which was just underscored by Iraq's admission that it was experimenting with unmanned aerial vehicles, cousins of the cruise missile, to deliver biological agents. Second, it establishes a theater missile defense ``core program'' to ensure that we stay focused and move toward deployment of those systems that are clearly needed as soon as possible, adding the crucial Navy Upper Tier system to the core. This system will allow our Navy to take missile defenses wherever in the world American interests are threatened. Third, it precludes arms control zealots from dragging theater missile defense systems which are not covered by the ABM Treaty into a web of new limitations. It calls for a year of careful consideration on how to proceed with the ABM Treaty in the longer term. During that time, the president should seek to negotiate with Russia a mutually beneficial agreement that will allow the United States to proceed with its multiple-site deployments. Most important, it establishes U.S. policy to develop for deployment by 2003 ground-based interceptors at multiple sites, fixed ground-based radars and space-based sensors for a defense of the United States of America. Mr. President, it's time to defend America.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to support the bipartisan missile defense amendment which was worked out prior to the August recess. While I continue to believe that the missile defense provisions in the bill reported to the Senate by the Armed Services Committee are sound and reasonable, I also agree that the compromise is a positive step away from the status quo. The compromise amendment does not include everything that I wanted, but it does not fundamentally undermine any of the policies or initiatives that I viewed as critical. In my view, it is an adequate position to take to conference. The House defense authorization bill differs in several ways from the Senate compromise missile defense amendment. Obviously, there will be considerable discussion before a consensus is reached between the two Chambers. Let me again thank all those who worked so hard prior to the August recess. And I especially wish to thank Senator Warner, Senator Cohen, Senator Nunn, and Senator Levin. Also, let me thank the leaders for their cooperation. Finally, I would like to draw to the attention of the Senate an article by the Republican leader, Senator Dole, in today's Washington Times which addresses the subject of missile defense. This is an excellent piece for which I commend the Republican leader. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the amendment has to be relevant. If it is on welfare, which I understand, it is not relevant.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we just heard the announcement by the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell], that he is not going to run again. Senator Pell is a man of integrity. He is a man of ability. He is a man of dedication. We have all enjoyed serving with him. He served ably as the Foreign Relations Committee chairman some years ago and did a good job. We are going to feel a void in the Senate when Senator Pell leaves. I wish to say to you that your colleagues here in the Senate feel most kindly toward you. They think highly of you. They wish you well. We hope you enjoy good health. Good luck. God bless you and God bless all you have stood for while you were here.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. The Senator from Maine is correct. I will be pleased to work to address this issue in an appropriate manner.

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

Mr. THURMOND. We yield our time.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we have no objections to this amendment. We believe the American people should have a full accounting of the property that our Armed Forces turn over to Germany and should receive a fair return on 50 years of improvements made to these properties. I congratulate Senator Levin on his amendment.