J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we have no opposition to this amendment and are willing to accept it. As I understand, the amendment is offered not only by the distinguished Senator who is speaking, Senator Bingaman, but also Senator Domenici. They are both in favor of the amendment, and we are willing to accept it.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to advise all Senators that the Senate is on the Defense authorization bill, and the unanimous-consent agreement we propounded before adjourning on August 11 requires us to remain on this bill until all debate is completed and we have a final vote. This bill is essential to our national security and must be passed today. Let me start the discussion by alerting everyone of today's plans. First, from now until 5 p.m. we plan to debate those amendments that are in order under the unanimous-consent agreement of August 11. Second, we plan to stack the votes on those amendments and dispose of them immediately after the vote on the Defense appropriations bill scheduled for 5 p.m. today. Third, after the stacked votes, we plan to proceed to consideration of the bipartisan missile defense amendments. This debate is scheduled for 3 hours. When that debate concludes, we plan to vote on the amendment and then vote on the bill itself. This means all amendments that are in order under the unanimous- consent agreement should be raised and debated prior to 5 p.m. today to ensure [[Page S 12528]] they are given appropriate consideration. If amendments are not offered early, they may have to wait until after 9 p.m. this evening. Keep in mind that the unanimous-consent agreement we are operating under states that we will not adjourn or recess until final vote is taken on the authorization bill. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to come forward with their amendments, limit debate, and work toward a timely vote on this bill. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we would like more time to look into this amendment. We cannot go undermining what the Base Closure Commission has done, but we would like to study this amendment further. I ask unanimous consent that it be set aside and let us consider it further during the day.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I will yield such time as the Senator requires.

Mr. THURMOND

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Brown, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2125, relating to Pakistan, be withdrawn.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, of those that have been cleared, it is agreeable for us to take those up at this time. I would like for us to get the staff here to see about that.

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we have already made the request.

Mr. THURMOND. The same here.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we are agreeable to that.

Mr. THURMOND. We are supposed to vote at 9:30. I am prepared to yield back my time, Mr. President.

Mr. THURMOND. We will be coming in at 9:25 in the morning, and we will get on the bill by 9:30.

Mr. THURMOND. I yield such time as the able Senator from Virginia shall require.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. After the debate is concluded on this matter, then we will have a wrap- up tonight. I have asked Senator Warner if he would conduct the wrap-up on this side. He has agreed to do so.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to thank the able Senator from Georgia for his kind remarks. I now yield to the able Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, such time as she may require.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I would like to hear what the amendment is. I understand it is irrelevant and does not concern what we are doing here and is not germane and should not be considered on this bill. I would like to hear what the amendment is.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to Senator Warner for all he did in connection with this bill. He was one of the negotiators on the bill, along with the distinguished Senator from Maine, and who worked with Senator Nunn and Senator Levin on the Democratic side. I just want to thank Senator Warner.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to the able majority leader for all he did to reach this unanimous-consent agreement. It took a lot of work, a lot of coordinating, a lot of compromising, and I am very pleased we have been able to reach that. Now we can go forward with this Defense authorization bill and get it passed. If we cannot pass it in 1 day, we will get on it and stay on it that day and all night, if necessary. We have to get this Defense bill passed, and we want it to be passed before the Defense appropriations bill is passed. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND. I thank Senator McCain and all those who assisted in this matter. Mr. President, I rise to support the compromise that has been worked out regarding the missile defense portion of the Defense authorization bill. Although this compromise weakens the bill as reported out of committee, it does address all of the concerns that were raised on the floor last week. As [[Page S 12328]] such, this compromise should provide the basis for broad bipartisan support, as it did during a meeting I called with the Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Before I comment on the substance of the compromise, let me express my gratitude to Senators Warner, Cohen, Nunn, and Levin for their hard work and dedication. The task they undertook in working out this package was a very difficult one and they handled it well. While I do support the missile defense substitute as a means to advance the Defense authorization bill, I want to make clear my view that a compromise was not needed. The committee-reported bill was strong and worthy of the Senate's support. Senators had a full debate on the subject and several amendments were offered and voted on. It is a sad and unfortunate state of affairs when those on the losing side of an amendment are willing to kill a bill as important as the Defense authorization bill before it has even gotten to conference. During last week's debate on missile defense, many arguments were raised against the Missile Defense Act of 1995. In my view these were either incorrect or exaggerated. Nonetheless, we leaned over backward to accommodate the concerns that were raised. I believe that the outcome should be satisfactory to an overwhelming majority of Senators. While the missile defense compromise deals with virtually every aspect of the Missile Defense Act, I would like to address the two major issues that were focused on. On section 238, to so-called theater missile defense demarcation provision, the compromise makes clear that we are not attempting to constrain the President's ability to negotiate arms control agreements. It remains clear, however, that theater missile defense systems are not and should not be limited by the ABM Treaty. We retain a funding limitation, consistent with Congress' constitutional power of the purse. This provision would prevent the executive branch from implementing any agreement that would set a demarcation that is inconsistent with the standard originally contained in section 238. The new language also prohibits the use of funds to implement any restriction on U.S. theater missile defense systems unless the restriction is subsequently authorized by Congress, is consistent with the approved demarcation standard, or is part of an agreement submitted to the Senate for advice and consent. This means that the United States cannot implement a TMD agreement which includes performance limitations--such as interceptor velocity, deployment limitations--such as geographical constraints, or operational limitations--such as restrictions on the use of external sensors, without getting explicit congressional approval, either through a subsequent act or through advice and consent to a treaty. The second major area of concern in the compromise has to do with national missile defense and the ABM Treaty. The committee bill called for the deployment of a multiple-site NMD system by 2003, but did not specifically address the issue of amending the ABM Treaty. The compromise says that the United States will develop such a system for deployment, and that it is the policy of the United States to seek amendments to the ABM Treaty to accomplish this end. In the compromise, it is clear that the United States has not yet made a deployment decision, but that we are clearly on the path to deploying a multiple- site NMD system. Mr. President, I want to make it clear that Republicans have given up quite a bit in order to achieve this compromise. Amendments to weaken the Missile Defense Act were defeated in markup and on the floor. Our members feel that the bill reported by the committee was solid and did not need any change. Nonetheless, we have shown a good faith effort to listen and accommodate. I hope that our compromise will now clear the path for the Defense authorization bill to proceed through conference and to the President's desk for signature.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. I want to commend the able Senator from Vermont for bringing up this question. In some cases school districts are put at a great disadvantage where they have large numbers of schoolchildren and do not get impact aid. I think it is a matter we have got to consider in some way, somewhere, by somebody. I want to commend the Senator for bringing this question forward and commend him for withdrawing it so it can receive careful consideration by all the people considered.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to commend the able chairman of the committee for the fine job he has done and the able ranking member for the good job he has done. It is a very difficult situation to work these things out. I think they both have shown great wisdom and shown tremendous dedication in working this bill out. I am anxious to see the Senate pass it.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we did not object to going to Defense appropriations since it is understood that we can come back to the Defense authorization bill, which we really ought to pass before we pass Defense appropriations. As I understand it, we will come back to it just as soon as resolution is reached on the question of ABM. Senator Nunn of Georgia, the ranking member, I believe is working hard on that, and others are working from our side. We hope to be able to reach an agreement on that.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, in April of this year I sent a letter to the distinguished chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, in which I expressed my concerns about this year's defense budget and requested additional funding for a number of specific initiatives. Among other observations, I noted a continuing decline in procurement funding over the past 10 years and highlighted its current level, the lowest since 1950. I also commented on the unfortunate consequences. Critical new systems had been pushed into the future, while aging equipment imposed relentlessly increasing demands for maintenance support. The observations of this letter evolved into markup guidance for the subcommittee chairmen. Evaluating the markup results, I think that the Seapower Subcommittee followed this guidance with great care. Its recommendation to authorize the amphibious assault ship, LHD-7, is a case in point. There is clearly a commanding requirement for this ship, justified by a series of studies and testimony by a long list of senior defense officials and military commanders. Despite this compelling requirement and an opportunity to buy LHD-7 now at a good price or pay $700 million more under the future years defense plan, funding constraints have kept it in the out years. The superb capability that the [[Page S 12145]] LHD class can bring to bear was amply demonstrated by U.S.S. Kearsarge (LHD-4), whose embarked marines rescued Capt. Scott O'Grady after he was shot down in Bosnia. Conversely, because it has been unable to procure LHD-7, the Navy has been forced to keep an old ship, USS Guam, in service will beyond its scheduled retirement date at a great cost in terms of lost capability and maintenance. Guam and her sister ships were built in the mid- 1960's, are manpower intensive, have an inadequate command and control capability by today's standards, and for years have imposed an inordinate maintenance burden to keep them operational. While I do not deny that ongoing contingency operations with which Congress concurs should be funded, there are established procedures to obtain it that begin with submission of a supplemental request by the Department of Defense. No such request has been received. I acknowledge the letter that the Secretary of Defense sent immediately prior to our markup. However, it has no formal standing with our Senate Appropriations Committee, which, as you all know, is very sensitive that established procedures should be followed. It is a fact that the $125 million that we added for support of such contingency operations during our markup was not supported by the Appropriations Committee in its markup. Until the Department of Defense has been able to work out an agreement with Congress that revises existing procedures, there is no reason to believe that the diversion of funds proposed by this amendment would not meet a similar fate. Mr. President, on the one hand I have the committee markup, which matches available resources to an urgent requirement for procurement of LHD-7. On the other hand I have an amendment that would ship them off to an uncertain future, leave the requirement for an amphibious assault ship unsatisfied, and cost the taxpayer at least $700 million more in the long run. I have no difficulty with that choice. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield back any time.