J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as may be necessary. The proposed amendment is the result of the diligent efforts of interested parties that have endeavored to resolve concerns raised by the original provisions of title XXXI. I would like to thank the distinguished Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. Without the efforts of Senator Domenici and his staff the agreement underlying this amendment could not have been reached. It has been a privilege to work with him and his staff, I say to Senator Domenici. I would also like to thank the other Senators that have cosponsored this amendment, and contributed to the substance of the amendment. I want to specifically recognize the superb efforts of Senator Lott, the Chairman of the Strategic Forces subcommittee in arriving at this agreement. Finally, I wish to thank Senator Kempthorne whose excellent work raised key issues in hearings on the Department of Energy. Through this amendment we have achieved what we and our cosponsors believe is a prudent balance between the need to focus the Department of Energy on the near-term manufacturing capabilities required for the nuclear weapons stockpile and the need to invest in long-term science- based stockpile stewardship. With this compromise we also restore the necessary resources to meet the Department of Energy's request for nonproliferation, verification, and arms control research and development. This bill sends the message that the Senate will support the necessary investment in this crucial element of strategic nuclear deterrence. Working together, we will continue to do what is necessary to maintain the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile. Maintaining the Nation's smaller nuclear stockpile in a safe and reliable condition to meet the requirements of the Department of Defense is the first priority mission of the national security programs of the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy and the administration must not lose sight of this fact as they work to fund a variety of other important programs, such as the Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Program, which this amendment also supports. I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I just want to say that every weapons system, indeed every machine in our technological society, requires testing. The hydronuclear testing is the only tool left to assess our confidence in the safety and reliability of the shrinking nuclear stockpile. Mr. President, we need to do this. We are living in a dangerous world. It is important that we be informed as to the reliability and safety of our weapons. They may have to be used. I do not need to cite the situations that could be dangerous in various parts of the world. We know about North Korea. We do not know what Russia is going to do, what China is going to do. We do not know what certain nations like Iran or Iraq and Libya will do, the terrorist nations. We must be prepared. And to be prepared we have to know what our weapons will do. We have to know they will be safe and reliable, and that is the purpose of this amendment.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered today by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin. Early today you heard my statement relating to defense spending levels. I have continually stated the need to ensure our national security and that defense was underfunded. The budget resolution recommends defense levels lower than I believe are necessary to maintain the readiness of our forces. The Department of Defense has done more than its share in the budget reduction efforts. The proposed amendment reduces defense spending below the levels necessary to maintain our forces. Defense spending as a percentage of GDP is at 1940 levels. Procurement accounts have been reduced 71 percent since 1985. Continually, the Joint Chiefs have testified that we are on the brink of returning to the readiness levels of the 1970's and early 1980's. Mr. President, our forces continue to have to deal with higher operating levels, while force structure continues to be reduced. The Armed Services Committee worked very hard this year, within the defense levels of the budget resolution, to reverse these negative trends. Mr. President, I just want to say that I was here when President Reagan was President. President Carter had let our defenses go down. He was a good man, but that is what happened. When President Reagan came in, he asked the Congress to increase defense. He said we needed it to protect this country. Congress responded favorably and increased defense. Then the Soviets felt they had to increase theirs to compete with us, and in doing so, though, they could not increase their defense and also take care of the local economy, and that is the reason the Soviet Union went down the drain. It was President Reagan's action to increase our defense which the Soviets could not meet, and the Soviet Union went down the drain. We must keep a strong defense. We are living in a dangerous age. We should not think about cutting this $7 billion. We need it. Our soldiers need this. They need better quarters. They need more training. We need more ships and more planes, and we need more tanks. How are we going to get those? How are we going to defend the American people? After all, the primary purpose of Government is to protect its citizens. How can we better protect our citizens and keep a strong defense? Under our Constitution, our people have more freedom, more justice, more opportunity and more hope than any people in all of history. How are we going to keep that if we go cutting defense down below what it ought to be? I say to the people who do not favor, who do not understand defense, you better study. You better study history. Why did we lose people in World War I, World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war? Simply because we were not prepared. If we had been prepared, we would not have lost so many thousands of people. We must keep this country prepared. I say to those in the Senate here today, the most important thing we can do is to keep this country prepared. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as may be required.

Mr. THURMOND. Our time is tight here. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I was under the impression the distinguished Senator from Colorado was on our side. I ask unanimous consent that what he said be charged to the other side.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the able Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. THURMOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. THURMOND. I yield such time as he may require to the distinguished Senator from Indiana.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered today by the distinguished Senator from Arkansas. I am concerned about defense spending levels. I have argued for years that defense was under funded. Even this year's budget resolution recommends defense budget levels lower than those I have advocated. As the search for precious dollars intensifies, I anticipate more and more attempts to divert defense funds to nondefense programs. We have seen attempt to fund nondefense programs in the last 2 days. The Department of Defense has done more than its share in the budget reduction efforts. Defense has contributed more to achieving the deficit reductions outlined in the 1990 budget agreement than any other executive branch agency. Establishing the caps will not prevent reductions in defense spending. It will, however, discourage raids on the defense budget by those seeking to fund domestic programs at the expense of our Nations' security. With the caps on defense and nondefense spending levels, any reductions in these categories would have to go directly to reduce the deficit. This was the case when the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 was passed. In fiscal year 1994, the cap on separate categories was eliminated allowing funds to be transferred between defense and domestic programs. As a result, we saw transfers out of defense to pay for some domestic programs from the Defense authorization and appropriations bill last year. Since 1990, the defense budget has been reduced more than any other. We have asked thousands of service men and women to end their careers earlier than they had planned. DOD drastically scaled back procurement as well as research and development. The Joint Chiefs have testified that we are on the brink of return to the hollow force of the 1970's and early 1980's. At the same time, we are increasing the number and type of missions assigned to our forces. The Armed Services Committee worked very hard this year, within the defense levels in the concurrent resolution on the budget, to reverse these trends. In order to maintain these initiatives, I support the efforts of Senator Domenici and the Budget Committee to establish firewalls or caps on domestic and defense discretionary spending. Mr. President, the Bumpers amendment would remove the protections we have worked hard to achieve. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as may be required.

Mr. THURMOND. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. THURMOND. We yield back all time. Vote on Amendment No. 2111

Mr. THURMOND. I ask for a voice vote on that amendment.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated on amendment No. 2111.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I agree to yield back the time.

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

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

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to make certain technical amendments to the Thurmond-Domenici amendment. These have been agreed to by both sides. I send them to the desk.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to take a minute or two more. I want to just recall that in 1946, when I was Governor of South Carolina, the project was announced to build this plant in Aiken, SC, on the Savannah River between Georgia and South Carolina. I moved to Aiken to practice law. I guess I represented over 90 percent of the landowners down there. They had the land condemned and taken away, whether they wanted to or not. The Government said, ``We need this land for this plant.'' The Government needed it. They sacrificed a lot. They underwent many hardships. The plant was built. Why now do we want to take away the opportunity for those people who sacrificed like they did to help the Government to build this plant for the good of our country? We are not asking that they use any particular kind of technology. They can use the accelerator or they can use the reactor, or whatever they want to. We are merely saying it should not be taken away from these people who [[Page S 11376]] sacrificed so much in their lifetime for this plant and for the Government. We feel it should not be moved, regardless of what the technology is. It ought to remain at this site. It has been there for 45 years. Why take it away? They have done a good job. They have the infrastructure. They have the workers. They have everything to make a success. I do hope that this amendment will be defeated.

Mr. THURMOND. I move to table the Reid amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, how much time is left on each side?

Mr. THURMOND. I will make it after the time expires. I rise to oppose the Reid amendment and point out to my colleagues that the Savannah River site has had the tritium production mission for over 40 years. Why change? The U.S. Government has invested heavily in a unique infrastructure at the site for handling that naturally decaying radioactive gas and for recycling tritium throughout the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. For this reason, it would not be cost effective for the new tritium source to be placed at any other location regardless of the technology used for production. The taxpayer, who is frequently mentioned here on the floor, would have to duplicate the recycling infrastructure required to handle the radioactive tritium and the gas bottles which contain it in our nuclear weapons. Additionally, transporting this radioactive gas across the land from separated production and recycling sites does not make sense either. The colocation of tritium recycling facilities and the new tritium production facility is the only solution that makes economic sense for the American taxpayer. I wish to point out to the Senate that the Savannah River site is located on the border between the States of Georgia and South Carolina. The people of both States have, after the land was condemned for this facility, supported this mission of the site for the past 45 years and cooperated fully with the Government in every way possible in its important mission to sustain the nuclear stockpile. Mr. President, I yield the floor.