J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, today the Senate begins consideration of S. 1026, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996. The bill we bring to the floor incorporates the Armed Services Committee's best judgments on the Nation's defense requirements. It is based on many long hours of testimony, analysis, debate, and consideration of opposing views. I would like to thank the distinguished ranking member of the committee, Senator Nunn, for his outstanding leadership, and for his open, fair, and bi-partisan manner. I would also like to thank the members of the committee and the professional staff for their dedication and hard work. It has been a privilege to work with Senator Nunn to bring this bill to the Senate. Although it is a good bill, not every Member, including me, is happy with every part of it. Throughout the past 6 months the committee worked in its traditional bipartisan manner because the security of the United States and the safety of our people are paramount. The bill reflects this cooperative effort, provides a clear direction for national security, and maintains a solid foundation for the defense of the Nation. The committee's overarching intent was to revitalize the Armed Forces and enhance or preserve our national security capabilities. That is essential in this post-cold-war world in order to provide the leadership and stability which are critical to the growth of democracy. Our military must be capable and ready in order to provide our men and women in uniform the best possible chance to succeed and survive in every demanding situation. We were reminded recently, with the dedication of the Korean War Memorial, that freedom is not free. We must always remember that courage and sacrifice are the price of freedom. This bill would fund defense at $264.7 billion in budget authority for fiscal year 1996. I have noted with interest some inaccurate reports in the press that the bill would increase defense spending, and I would like to set the record straight. The funding level in the bill we bring to the floor today is nearly $6.2 billion lower in real terms than last year's bill, and that represents a decline of 2 percent. Although it had been my hope to preserve funding at last year's level, this is the best the committee could do, given the budgetary pressures facing the Congress. I have stated repeatedly that the administration is cutting defense too far, too fast. Most credible analysts conclude there is a shortfall of at least $150 billion in defense budget authority over the future years defense plan. Although the proposal contained in this bill represents a decline in defense spending, I would note that the funding level is still $7 billion higher than the administration's budget request. The administration requested a defense budget 5 percent lower than the fiscal year 1995 level, and that is simply unwise. Despite a decline in defense spending, the bill provides the resources to maintain substantial U.S. military power and the ability to project that power wherever our vital interests are at stake. An implicit theme in our bill is that any aggressor or potential adversary should know that our military services will remain the most effective and combat ready in the world. National security is the most important responsibility of the Federal Government, and as we begin debate on this matter, I would like to explain the priorities which the committee kept in mind in crafting the bill, and highlight a few key decisions. The first objective was to ensure that forces remain viable, and manned at sufficient levels by people of the highest quality. Well-motivated, well-trained, and well- led soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are the bedrock of national security. Strong support for equitable pay and benefits, bachelor and family housing, and other quality of life measures are key elements in attracting and retaining high-quality people. Perhaps more importantly, this bill expresses the commitment of the Senate to our men and women in uniform and attempts to uphold our part of the implied contract. Our second objective was to ensure the military effectiveness and combat readiness of the Armed Forces. We believe the funding levels we have recommended will be barely adequate to take care of current readiness if the Department of Defense manages resources wisely and carefully. The quality of overall readiness essentially depends on adequate funding for both current and future readiness. Although this funding allocation is often described in shorthand as a balance, I would suggest it is a fundamental obligation of the Federal Government to provide adequate resources for both current and future readiness. However, the mix is important because a disproportionate allocation of scarce resources to operation and maintenance accounts would limit funds for the research, development, and procurement essential to modernization. We sought to achieve a reasonable balance. We also addressed multiyear procurement to avoid creating bow waves of funding requirements in subsequent years. Department of Defense decisions to cancel or delay modernization programs create unrealistic modernization requirements for the future. The committee has addressed critical modernization needs by adding $5.3 billion in procurement and $1.7 billion in research and development accounts to offset some of these problems. We believe the Department of Defense must continue to fund procurement, and research and development, at similar inflation-adjusted levels in future budget requests. Congress must also continue to provide sufficient funds for research and development to ensure the military's technological superiority in the future. If we do not, future readiness will be jeopardized. Unless the research and development, and procurement accounts are adequately funded from year to year, the services will not have the right weapons, in sufficient quantity, to be able to fight and win in the next decade. We must remember that the force we sent to war in Desert Storm was conceived in the 1970's and built in the 1980's. We must focus on the future. Third, we addressed the proliferation of missile technology and weapons of mass destruction. We cannot stand by, idly watching, as an increasing number of foreign states develop and acquire long-range ballistic and cruise missiles. Many people do not realize that we currently have no defense whatsoever against any missile launched against the United States. None. Such missiles are capable of carrying nuclear, biological, and chemical payloads to any point in our country. We, in the Congress, will richly deserve the harsh judgment of our citizens if we fail to prepare for this clear eventuality. It is our grave responsibility to ensure we develop the capability to defend both our deployed forces and our homeland. The committee provided direction and funds for both these requirements in the Missile Defense Act of 1995. This title of the bill initiates a new program for defense against cruise missiles, while funding robust theater missile defenses. It also mandates a national missile defense program which will lead to the limited defense of the United States by the year 2003. I remind my colleagues that the largest single loss of life in the Persian Gulf war was from one, crude, Iraqi Scud missile that was not even targeted for the building it struck. It is entirely reasonable to spend less than 1\1/2\ percent of the defense budget to meet this serious security threat. The bill's ballistic missile defense provisions also address the administration's attempts to limit theater missile defenses by an inaccurate interpretation of the ABM Treaty. That treaty was intended to limit only defenses against strategic ballistic missiles, not theater defenses. Unless this distinction is enforced, we will end up building less-than-optimally capable systems which may not be effective against the highly capable missile threats emerging in the world's most troubled regions. Fourth, the committee was deeply concerned about maintaining the viability of the Nation's offensive strategic forces. According to the Nuclear Posture Review, the United States will continue to depend on its nuclear forces for deterrence into the foreseeable future. Safe, reliable, and effective nuclear weapons are at the core of deterrence. In this bill the committee directs the Department of Energy to meet its primary responsibility of maintaining the Nation's nuclear capability. This means the Energy Department must focus on a stockpile management program geared to the near-term refabrication and certification requirements outlined in the NPR. If DOE cannot or will not shoulder this responsibility, then another agency must be assigned the task. Unless steps are taken now to maintain a nuclear weapons manufacturing infrastructure and a safe, reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, we face the very real prospect of not being a first-rate nuclear power in 10 to 15 years. The committee addressed the role of long-range, heavy bombers in projecting power. Although I regret the committee's vote not to fund the B-2 program, I understand the concerns of Members on both sides about the high cost of the program. The committee is also concerned that the administration's budget request did not include funding for numerous operations which the Armed Forces are currently conducting, even though the administration knew when it submitted its budget request that these operations would continue into fiscal year 1996. We authorized $125 million to pay for these ongoing operations in order to avoid the kind of problems with curtailed training which emerged last year. I caution the administration that one consequence of paying for these operations on an unprogrammed, ad hoc basis is ultimately to deny the funds necessary for readiness. Last year, the practice of paying for peacekeeping and other contingency operations without budgetary or supplemental funding was directly responsible for lower readiness ratings and curtailed training in some units. Unless the Department of Defense includes the funds for such operations in the budget request, it will be difficult if not impossible for Congress to assess the impact these operations will have on other accounts. The oversight responsibilities of Congress are hindered, if not usurped, when the Department does not budget for known requirements. While I remain confident that this is a good defense bill under the present circumstances, I remain troubled. The defense budget trend over the past 10 years has been in constant decline, principally in response to budget pressures. The administration's request for procurement this year is at the lowest level since 1950, declining more than 71 percent in real terms since 1985. The defense budget is at its lowest level as a percentage of gross domestic product since 1940, just before a grossly unprepared United States entered World War II. Each successive budget since 1993 has continued to push recapitalization farther into the future. As a result, the Services have been forced to delay the fielding of critical modern systems while maintaining aging equipment at ever-increasing operating and maintenance costs. The prospects of not having adequate defense funds in the coming years should alarm us all. Despite the recommended fiscal year 1996 funding increase of $7.1 billion above the administration request, proposed future year budgets do not adequately fund the administration's Bottom- Up Review Force, which is itself barely adequate. These funding levels cannot meet known modernization needs and they do not even cover inflation. Shortfalls of the magnitude projected by the GAO and others will seriously impair the ability of the Department of Defense to field the combat-ready, modern forces essential to our national security. The limited progress reflected in this bill cannot be maintained unless future funding is increased. As the Senate takes up this defense bill, some Members will no doubt argue that my concerns about steadily declining defense spending and emerging threats are misplaced. They will point out that the cold war is over and provide long lists of other programs that could absorb the money. Such criticisms always surface after a major victory, and just before the emergence of the next major threat. They are always shown in the long run to have been naive and shortsighted. They consistently fail to realize the usefulness of effective military power in shaping future events in ways that are favorable to us. They fail to recognize the instability and uncertainty of the times, and they fail to consider the future. We cannot predict what challenges and dangers we will face in the future. We do not know with any certainty who will be our next peer competitor. I assure you, however, that a peer competitor will emerge and if such competitor believes there is an advantage because our military has been weakened, he will become bold and our challenge will be more significant. I encourage every Senator to keep this in mind as we debate this bill over the next few days. I thank the Chair, and yield the floor. Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Arizona for a fine amendment. This provision makes it absolutely clear that the world is becoming increasingly dangerous with regard to missile proliferation and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. It also makes clear that the United States cannot wait around for a bunch of rogue states and possibly terrorists to acquire ballistic missiles capable of attacking American cities before we respond with a serious national missile defense system. Lest we want to invite another Oklahoma City bombing multiplied many times over, we must begin to take action to defend our country against this ever increasing threat. In my view, the Kyl amendment simply states the obvious: that the United States should be defended against accidental, unauthorized, and limited ballistic missile attacks, whatever their source. We have attempted to establish a path toward this end in the bill now pending before the Senate, so I am pleased to support this amendment. It has been argued that there is no threat to justify deployment of a national missile defense system to defend the United States. This view is strategically shortsighted and technically incorrect. Even if we get started today, by the time we develop and deploy an NMD system we will almost certainly face new ballistic missile threats to the United States. Unfortunately, it will take almost 10 years to develop and deploy even a limited system. As Senator Kyl's amendment so clearly establishes, the intelligence community has confirmed that there are numerous ways for hostile countries to acquire intercontinental ballistic missiles in much less than 10 years by means other than indigenous development. Basically any country that can deliver a payload into orbit can deliver the same payload at intercontinental distances. Space launch technology is fundamentally ballistic missile technology, and it is becoming more and more available on the open market. Russia has all but put the SS-25 ICBM on sale for purposes of space launch. China has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to market missile technology, even technology limited by the missile technology control regime. In his last appearance before Congress as Director of Central Intelligence, James Woolsey stated clearly that countries working on shorter range ballistic missiles could easily transition to developing longer range systems. Saddam Hussein demonstrated that even countries without a high technology base could get into the missile modification and nuclear weapons business. North Korea has also demonstrated to the world that an ICBM capability can be developed with relatively little notice. The Taepo- Dong II missile, which could become operational within 5 years, is an ICBM. Each new development on this missile seems to catch the intelligence community by surprise. It certainly undermines the argument of those who downplay the threat and the intelligence community's own 10-year estimate. Even if we knew with certainty that no new threat would materialize for 10 years there would still be a strong case for developing and deploying a national missile defense system. Deploying an NMD system would serve to deter countries that would otherwise seek to acquire an ICBM capability. A vulnerable United States merely invites proliferation, blackmail, and even aggression. For this reason, I strongly and enthusiastically support Senator Kyl's amendment. It is a reasonable statement for the Senate to make. Only those who believe that the American people should not be protected against the one military threat that holds at risk their homes and country should oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Matthes and Peter Simoncini, military fellows in Senator Warner's office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of Senate debate on S. 1026, the Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. THURMOND. Will the Senator yield a minute to get somebody on the floor?

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jack Kennedy and Floyd DesChamps, who are currently serving fellowship assignments on Senator McCain's staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during the Senate's consideration of S. 1026, the fiscal year 1996 national defense authorization bill.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for 10 seconds to get some people on the floor?

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes the DOD authorization bill at 9 a.m. on Thursday, Senator Dorgan be recognized to offer his amendment, and there be 90 minutes equally divided in the usual form, with no second-degree amendments in order, and following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the Dorgan amendment.

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

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we are ready to go forward with other votes. If Members have any amendments, we are glad for them to come forward. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Thompson, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for immediate consideration.

Mr. THURMOND. I move to table the motion. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2086 (Purpose: To authorize a land conveyance, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Memphis, TN)

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we have no objection to this amendment. It will make it possible for one qualified service military officer to be assigned to the CIA without counting against the limit on senior officers within the Department of Defense. I join the distinguished Senator from Georgia in supporting this amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will the manager of the bill, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, yield for a question?

Mr. THURMOND. Am I correct in my understanding that the energy and water development appropriations bill, as reported from the Appropriations Committee, includes an increase of over $140,000,000 for the Department of Energy's stockpile management program?

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably two nomination lists in the U.S. Marine Corps, which were printed in full in the Congressional Records of April 3 and May 11, 1995, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would provide for the conveyance of the Civil War submarine, the C.S.S. Hunley, to the State of South Carolina. On February 17, 1864, powered by a hand cranked propeller, the Hunley sank a frigate of the Union blockade, the U.S.S. Housatonic, by torpedoing a wooden spar loaded with 100 pounds of black powder into her side. This marked the first time in history that a warship had been destroyed by a submarine. The Hunley vanished following its victory, possibly from leaks created by the force of the blast. Over 131 years later, the Hunley has been found intact, lying on its side, and covered in silt off the coast of Charleston, S.C. There is no question that, when raised from its current resting place, this national treasure should be displayed in South Carolina. Not only should it be made available to the public as the earliest example of successful submarine warfare, but also because of its place in southern history. The Hunley serves as a memorial to the nine men who perished on board fighting passionately for what they believed. This legislation simply transfers the title of the Hunley from the Federal Government to the State of South Carolina. It is my understanding that the State will develop a program to ensure that research can be conducted on this historical military relic and that it will be properly preserved, stabilized, and displayed. Over 30 men died in service to the Hunley. With the exception of the nine crew members that went down on that fateful day, all are buried in Magnolia Cemetery in Charleston. The Palmetto State would also like the honor of burying these nine valiant men, with full distinction, next to their compatriots. Mr. President, the C.S.S. Hunley has spent the last 131 years off the coast of South Carolina. Passing this legislation will make this Civil War treasure a proud and permanent part of our State. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably the attached listing of nominations. Those identified with a single asterisk (*) are to be placed on the Executive Calendar. Those identified with a double asterisk (**) are to lie on the Secretary's desk for the information of any Senator since these names have already appeared in the Congressional Record of June 5, June 13, June 21, June 26, and July 12, 1995, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, over the past 40 years, South Carolina has enjoyed tremendous economic growth, and has emerged as one of the Nation's leading centers for commerce and industry. Many people have had a role in this success, and I rise today to pay tribute to one person who made many contributions to our State's prosperity, Mr. Francis Moffett Hipp, who passed away earlier this week at the age of 84. Mr. Hipp was recognized throughout South Carolina as both a community and a business leader. His father founded the Liberty Life Insurance Co., which Francis eventually took over and ran as its chairman. Under his direction, the company grew and diversified, even acquiring a chain of television stations, including one in Columbia, SC. The Liberty Corp., as it is now known, is one of our State's largest insurance companies, employing literally thousands of people and contributing an inestimable benefit to South Carolina and its economy. Because of his stature as a businessman, and his concern for the future of our State, Mr. Hipp also served as the chairman of both the South Carolina Development Board and the South Carolina Research Authority. Both these organizations have played important roles in expanding the Palmetto State business community, and during his tenure at those agencies, Mr. Hipp's dedication and vision helped greatly to develop industry in our State. Thanks to the concerted efforts of Francis Hipp, and those who worked with him, our State stands both financially stronger and better positioned to compete in the 21st century global marketplace. Mr. President, Francis Hipp led a full and productive life, and through his work, he left a tremendous mark on South Carolina. He was a gifted businessman, a committed citizen of our State, and a dedicated and loyal family man. I was proud to count this man among my friends and regret that the Senate schedule prevented me from attending his memorial service today. My sympathies and condolences go out to all who knew Francis Moffett Hipp, especially his sons; Hayne and John; and daughter, Mary Jane Hipp Brock. We will all miss this man of integrity, ability, and vision.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, last week I spoke on the floor about the situation in Bosnia--about the U.N. safe havens being overrun by the Bosnian Serbs and U.N. peacekeepers being taken hostage. Since my statement on the floor, the United States and its allies, primarily Britain and France, met to discuss options. The result of those meetings was a stern warning that aggressive airstrikes would be used against the Bosnian Serbs if they try to overrun anymore U.N. safe havens, like Gorazde. The Bosnian Serbs reaction to that ``stern warning'' was to fire a barrage of shells into Sarajevo killing and wounding civilians. Members opposing S. 21 are asking that time be allowed for the new directive to use aggressive airstrikes against the Bosnian Serbs to work. In the meantime, the U.N. General Secretary is sitting in New York determining exactly what the use of aggressive airstrikes will include. And according to the news accounts today, he will retain the authority to veto any NATO recommendation to use aggressive airstrikes. Meanwhile, Zepa fell yesterday to the Bosnian Serbs, and Sarajevo continues to be shelled. It is clear to me that the majority of Members in this body agree that the U.N. mission has failed--it is time for the U.N. protection forces to withdraw. Despite continued stern warnings and threats by the United Nations and NATO to use aggressive airstrikes, the Bosnian Serbs continue to defy the United Nations and NATO and continue to pose a danger to the civilians in the U.N. safe havens and the U.N. peacekeepers there to protect them. The time has come for the administration and our allies to quit wringing their hands about what to do in Bosnia and quit looking to the United Nations to make decisions on whether to use aggressive airstrikes to enforce peace in a country where there is no peace. Mr. President, as I stated last week, the United States has no national security interests in Bosnia. The only interests the United States has with regard to the situation in Bosnia is to provide leadership and act responsibly as a member of the United Nations Security Council and as a member of NATO. It is time for the United Nations to withdraw its forces from Bosnia and to seek agreement to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia. Failing an agreement by the U.N. Security Council to lift the embargo, the United States should unilaterally lift the arms embargo so that the Bosnians can defend themselves. It is time for the Congress to show its leadership to ensure that U.S. credibility as a treaty partner and NATO ally. We must assist, if requested, in a NATO withdrawal of the U.N. protection forces from Bosnia. I remain concerned that Members of this body did not actively engage in a discussion of U.S. support in a NATO withdrawal of UNPROFOR. The U.S. cannot stand by while our allies are in mortal danger during a withdrawal of UNPROFOR. As I stated last week, the damage to U.S. leadership, honor, prestige and credibility would be beyond calculation, if we do not send a clear signal now that the Congress will support the participation of U.S. troops in a withdrawal operation. It should be understood, however, that any U.S. participation in a U.N. withdrawal must be totally under NATO command and that there can be no dual key arrangement between the United Nations and NATO and there must be robust rules of engagement. The situation facing this body is not complicated, but the demand for us to take decisive action is clear and urgent. The Dole-Lieberman substitute to S. 21 allows us to take action which is well defined and in the best interest of our Nation. The Dole-Lieberman substitute also serves the best interests of our Allies, to whom we have pledged our support in leaving what has become an impossible mission. I urge the Senate to support the Dole-Lieberman substitute to S. 21 and hope that our Allies join in this positive course of action.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I believe the Nunn amendment is sufficient to allow consideration of a multilateral lift of the arms embargo by our allies. The Nunn amendment provides the United States ample opportunity to consult to the greatest reasonable extent with our allies. As I said in my statement earlier, the time to act is now--not later. However, so that it can never be said that the United States did not allow every opportunity for the international community to support a multilateral lift of the arms embargo, I will support the Cohen second-degree amendment.

Mr. THURMOND. Can the Senator extend it to give me 7 minutes?

Mr. THURMOND. I will try.