[Page: S11133]
Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan], for himself, Mr. Boren, and Mr. Graham, proposes an amendment numbered 2502.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 142, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following new section:
Sec. . Of the funds made available by this Act for the National Reconnaissance Office under the classified Schedule of Appropriations accompanying this Act, funds allocated for construction of the headquarters buildings of the National Reconnaissance Office which were unobligated as of the date of enactment of this Act may not be obligated or expended until the Director of Central Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense have completed a review of that construction project and the results of such review have been disclosed to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, I will be brief because I know there are other amendments pending. I think most of my colleagues were as surprised as I was yesterday morning in reading the Washington Post story on page 1 entitled, `Spy Unit's Spending Stuns Hill.'
I have reference, Madam President, to the $310 million facility that is being used to house the National Reconnaissance Office. This is a project of incredible magnitude, a million square feet, which will cost us about $175 per square foot, well beyond what any comparable commercial building might require.
Let me just say, Madam President, that the genesis of this building dates back to the late 1980's when the Senate Intelligence Committee and its counterpart in the other body encouraged the National Reconnaissance Office to begin planning to colocate facilities that were scattered around the country. There is no objection in concept to that.
I was not on the committee until last year, so when I saw this in the paper yesterday, I asked for a briefing from the staff.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I am pleased to join Senator Byran as a cosponsor of his amendment concerning the NRO headquarters facility in northern Virginia. In my opinion, this amendment represents a reasonable check on this construction project.
Twenty-five years ago, as under Secretary of the Navy, I first started my public service responsibilities of overseeing Intelligence functions. Throughout my 5 years plus in DOD I was specifically tasked to operate the Department of the Navy's program which are now part of the NRO.
The NRO is essential to our Nation's security. To the extent that the United States is a superpower today, that status is dependent to a large part on the work of the NRO.
But the question before the Congress and the executive branch is whether the plans for consolidation and expansion of the NRO facility, as conceived in the cold war era, were properly reviewed in the aftermath of the demise of the Soviet Union.
Given that the DOD budget, which contains the overall Intelligence budget, has gone down from 15 to over 25 percent in various categories over the past 5 years, to what extent was the NRO facility scaled back?
Or, conversely, given that Intelligence is a force multiplier of our Defense forces, is there justification for level or increased NRO funding?
How did this controversy of today start?
On July 26, I chaired a Senate Intelligence Committee briefing on the NRO facility. Chairman DeConcini joined that briefing later and reviewed the same facts. We jointly agreed to send a letter to the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence demanding more information. That letter was sent on July 29.
Then, on August 4, the chairman and I decided to have a formal hearing and seed declassification of as much material as possible. We joined in a letter to that effect on August 4.
Next, we made a field trip to the NRO construction site this Monday. Later that day, you informed me that public disclosure of this project would be immediate because of White House, DOD, and CIA decisions. Only today did I learn that the President was involved in this decision. The administration issued press releases at 5:00 on Monday. Our press conference followed shortly thereafter.
It had been my intention that the Intelligence Committee would at least have an opportunity to gain a full understanding of the executive branch response to our inquiry of July 29 before public disclosure. That, in my judgment, would have lessened to some extent the public confusion that exists today.
The NRO facility which I toured on Monday morning is truly a massive installation--a series of four modern towers comprising 1 million square feet. By rough comparison, the Pentagon consists of 5 million square feet of usable space.
I am concerned that this facility, which was conceived during the cold war, is now disproportionate to the needs of the NRO. I have been unable to find any information which indicates that a scrub was done of this project following the collapse of the Soviet Union. At every step along the way, this project continued to expand. For example, in the summer of 1992, long after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the NRO decided to expand this project from three to four towers.
I am also concerned about the basic issue of fairness to other Government employees, intelligence as well as others, who are working in facilities which are not as comfortable. In the Pentagon, I know from personal association, most employees work in cramped, aged quarters. Some perform the same high-level intelligence work as to the NRO employees. Why should NRO personnel be treated differently?
These are some of the issues which we must explore in detail.
Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to correct a misperception which I have seen in press reporting on this issue. It has been reported that the Congress knew nothing about this construction project--that the CIA built this facility without informing the Congress. In fairness, that is simply not true. We knew that the NRO was building a new headquarters facility in northern Virginia. In fact, I played a role in bringing the NRO building to my State. Our complaint is that we were not adequately informed about the scope or the cost of the facility.
In fairness to the executive branch, this raises a legitimate question of whether the Intelligence Committee and perhaps other committees were forceful enough in their requests for more details. We, as the Congress, had the ultimate leverage to cut off funding until our informational needs were met. So we have a measure of self-examination to perform. I add that as a question to this debate.
Let us look at a specific example. The fiscal year 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act conference report stated that the NRO's `land and facility acquisition will remain subject to the prior approval of the appropriate congressional committees.' This
did not happen with regard to this facility. The NRO did not seek specific prior congressional approval for the Westfields project--instead, funding for the facility was buried in the base portion of the budget, an unspecified aggregate of various O&M costs.
This base funding for the Westfields project continued despite specific congressional direction to the NRO in the fiscal year 1994 intelligence authorization act conference report which stated, `The conferees also explicitly stipulate that each individual program must provide complete details for the entire request--not simply any changes from the base level provided in the prior fiscal year. Despite this requirement, the fiscal year 1995 budget request for the new NRO facility was once again buried in the base budget. Following this, the staff of the Intelligence Committee acted to initiate our audit and recommended a full briefing for committee members.
The NRO decided to bypass both GSA regulations and military construction procedures for the construction of the headquarters facility, opting instead to operate under the DCI's `special authorities.' Did the Intelligence Committee sanction this approach? If so, under what conditions? Were those conditions followed? We need answers to these questions.
Madam President, does the Congress share a measure of responsibility for this problem? Could we have been more diligent in following up on our demands for more detailed and complete information at an earlier stage? Perhaps, but we should not have to be investigators. It is incumbent on the executive branch to be forthcoming in providing budget details to the congress. We do not have the resources to conduct in-depth investigations on every item in the budget, nor should we have to. Detailed information on this project should have been provided to the Intelligence Committee and the Appropriations Committee.
In my opinion, this project should and will go forward. The facility is nearing structural completion. It will be an asset to the Intelligence Community, and indeed to the Nation, upon completion. Our task now is to ensure that the remaining construction on this facility is conducted in the most cost effective manner for the American taxpayer.
Fortunately, this project is at a stage where decisions can be made to invoke savings, achieve greater efficiency, and maximize utilization of this prime space by additional defense or Intelligence-related activities. During a hearing on this issue earlier today, the Intelligence Committee received assurances from top NRO officials that the NRO will allow maximum utilization of this facility by other elements of the Defense and Intelligence communities. Indeed, the NRO has already begun work on such options. It is now our responsibility to monitor the completion of this project and ensure that cost-saving options are pursued.
[Page: S11134]
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Bryan amendment to withhold funds for the construction of a National Reconnaissance Office [NRO] headquarters.
Frankly, I was extremely troubled to learn that more than $300 million is being spent to secretly construct an NRO facility in northern Virginia to consolidate personnel located in California and throughout the country.
Apparently, construction of the NRO facility was begun in 1990 and undertaken without the full knowledge and approval of Congress. This raises serious concerns about congressional oversight of this project and the entire NRO organization. In my opinion, the credibility of the NRO has been damaged, and Congress will be forced to more closely scrutinize its budget and activities.
Last week, my staff contacted Pentagon offices to inquire about speculation that NRO personnel were moving from offices at Los Angeles Air Force Base [AFB] in California to a new NRO headquarters building near Dulles International Airport. The Air Force denied all knowledge of such a proposed consolidation, and inquiries to the NRO went unanswered. The way these inquiries were handled leads me to believe that the intelligence community was trying to deceive Congress or, at a minimum, me. This is simply unacceptable.
Still today, after Pentagon officials testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee, the NRO has not provided me or my office any information, except a joint statement that was released to the press.
Apparently, construction of the NRO facility was originally planned for a partial consolidation of NRO headquarters personnel that are scattered throughout the Washington area. This would have allowed for construction of a building with two office towers at substantially less cost than current estimates.
However, sometime in 1992, after the fall of the Soviet Union--the primary target of NRO activities--the intelligence community decided to proceed with a full consolidation of NRO personnel nationwide. This decision caused the estimated cost for the new facility to near $350 million as two additional office towers were added, for a total of four huge towers. I am unclear why additional funds were allocated for this new structure at a time when defense and intelligence budgets were declining.
My staff still has not been able to determine exactly what type of consolidation
is being proposed or the details of the approval process. Specifically:
When and how was the decision made to shift from only partial Consolidation to full consolidation?
How many military, civilian and contractor personnel are being affected?
Where are these personnel currently located?
When is the proposed consolidation occurring?
What implications does the proposed consolidation have on the base realignment and closure [BRAC] process?
Because NRO is partly a Defense Department agency, is it subject to the BRAC process?
Was a true cost-benefit analysis completed to determine whether the associated costs of the NRO facility and full consolidation justified any national security or fiscal gain?
I have already written to Defense Secretary Perry expressing my concern over this matter and submitted some of these questions to him. I expect answers to these questions as soon as possible. I also expect the review currently being undertaken by the Director of the CIA and Deputy Secretary of Defense to address these and other issues.
In addition to my concerns regarding general congressional oversight of the project, I am particularly troubled that, though the consolidation was approved years ago and the Intelligence Committee was notified, I was never made aware that jobs would be moved out of California. Also, I am concerned that the consolidation of personnel from Los Angeles AFB may have an adverse impact--direct or indirect--on the upcoming 1995 base closure process, especially considering that this is just one of a number of planned consolidations out of Los Angeles AFB.
Mr. President, this matter needs to be thoroughly looked into and I hope that much of the information surrounding the project can be declassified so the public and taxpayers will have full knowledge of what is being built near Dulles International Airport.
I fully support this amendment which withholds unobligated funds for the NRO headquarters building until a full review has been completed and questions have been answered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would state to the Senator that under a previous order, in 30 seconds, the floor will return to the Senator from Alaska, who will be able to offer amendments for the Republicans for 5 minutes, and then it will go to the Senator from Hawaii.
So the Senator from Nevada has 30 seconds remaining to present the case for his amendment.
[Page: S11135]
Mr. BRYAN. May I make a parliamentary inquiry?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. BRYAN. Am I protected under the previous unanimous-consent agreement by having offered my amendment in a timely fashion? If so, I would be happy to yield the floor and simply ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alaska is recognized under a previous order for 5 minutes in which to present the Republican amendments.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, could I ask the Senator from Alaska to yield for a request?
Mr. STEVENS. I only have 5 minutes. I am happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. McCAIN. Would it be in order to go ahead and dispose of my previous amendment that I understand is agreed to?
Mr. STEVENS. It would be contrary to the time agreement. We must get these done by 7 o'clock.
Madam President, I have a series of amendments. Let me just read them by name of the sponsor. If there are any further ones to come, we will put them in.
I have an amendment by Senator Specter; another amendment by Senator Specter; a third amendment by Senator Specter; an amendment by Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman; another by Senator Domenici; an amendment proposed by Senator Helms; an amendment proposed by Senator Chafee; another amendment by Senator Grassley; an amendment by Senator Murkowski for himself and Senator Dole; an amendment by Senator Hatch; an amendment by Senator McConnell; an amendment proposed by Senator Dole; another by Senator Dole for himself and Senator McCain; an amendment by Senator Cohen; a second amendment by Senator Cohen; an amendment by Senator Dole for himself, Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain and others; an amendment by Senator Cohen; an amendment by Senator Thurmond and Senator DeConcini; an amendment by Senator Roth; and an amendment for myself.
That is the extent of the amendments that have been presented.
I also have an amendment by Senator McConnell.
I ask that all those amendments be submitted in accordance with the time agreement. I have 2 minutes remaining. I would like to reserve those.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The time remaining will be reserved for the Senator from Alaska.
Under the previous order, the Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I have a series of amendments that I would like to submit in behalf of my Democratic colleagues. First, by Senators Nunn and Mitchell on Bosnia and Herzegovina; second, by Senator Harkin; third, by Senator Lieberman; fourth, by Senator Shelby; fifth, by Senator Boren; sixth, by Senator Simon; seventh, by Senator Bingaman; eighth, by Senator Levin; ninth, by Senator Wellstone; and another Bingaman amendment. Senator Bingaman has two amendments. I have another amendment by Senator Feinstein; two by Senator Inouye; and one proposed by Senator Dodd.
Mr. STEVENS. May I have time back?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will send those amendments to the desk. Without objection, they will remain in order. Does the Senator from Hawaii reserve the remainder of his time.
Mr. INOUYE. If I may.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I have an amendment by Senator Kempthorne and two separate amendments by Senator Helms. I send those to the desk and add those to the ones I previously submitted.
I, too, would like to reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, those amendments will be added to the list of amendments to be considered.
The Senator reserves the remainder of his time.
The Chair informs the Senators that Senator Inouye has 3 1/2 minutes remaining and Senator Stevens has 2 minutes 20 seconds remaining.
[Page: S11136]
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk for Senator Dole.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it will remain in order.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment proposed by Senator Mitchell and Senator Cohen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is in order. That will be added to the list of amendments.
Mr. INOUYE. I have an amendment proposed by Senator Johnston.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is in order.
Mr. INOUYE. I have an amendment by Senator Bumpers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is in order.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk in behalf of Senator Wallop.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it will be in order.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I send an amendment by Senator DeConcini to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it will be in order.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk in behalf of Senator Cohen and state that it may be duplicative of the one I previously submitted, and I ask the clerk to eliminate it if it is a duplicate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I have an amendment by Senator Breaux.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, Senator Breaux's amendment will be added to the list of amendments to be considered by the Senate.
Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry. It is my understanding that there will be a period after we have offered the amendments for review of the amendments. Will the Chair have these amendments indicated so that each of us may have the others' amendments as quickly as possible?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will be the normal course that will be followed.
Mr. STEVENS. I would state, Madam President, that to the best of our knowledge those are the submissions for this side of the aisle.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I believe they are complete here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state that the hour of 7 p.m. having arrived, there will be no further amendments allowed under the unanimous-consent agreement.
Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry: Those amendments will be called up by the individual Senators under the time agreement. That is the understanding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has no agreement on how the amendments will be disposed of. But the Chair assumes they will be disposed of in due course.
Mr. STEVENS. It is this Senator's understanding that those are the only amendments that may be considered now under the bill as pending business, is that correct--subject to the leaders having the right to offer amendments if they desire to do so?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). The Senator from Alaska is entirely correct in his understanding.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair. If I might address, through the Chair, the Senator from Arizona; the majority manager and myself will be considering the amendment of the Senator from Arizona concerning the disability for retired members of the armed services.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending McCain amendment concerning the Olympics and return to the previous amendment on concurrent receipts, and I ask unanimous consent that Senator Domenici be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The question before the Senate is amendment No. 2500.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the managers of the bill have had the opportunity to study the amendment of the Senator from Arizona, and we find it to be acceptable. It will not be subject to a point of order.
So accordingly, may we have a vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Mr. NUNN. What amendment is this? I did not hear the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2500.
Mr. STEVENS. It deals with the retirement.
Mr. NUNN. Is this a new retirement program? I would like to ask a couple of questions. Is this a new entitlement program? And if it is, how much does it cost? I just heard about the amendment.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has the floor. Is he yielding the floor or asking a question?
Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I would like to ask the Senator from Arizona if this is a new entitlement program.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, as the Senator from Georgia knows, current law requires a career military service member who retires after a length of service and is disabled to offset his or her retirement pay with any VA disability compensation that the member receives. I do not believe you would call this a new entitlement program. What it does is provides for concurrent payment of disability pay and retired pay if the following criteria are met: A veteran has completed 20 years of military service; the disability was incurred or was aggravated in performance of duty in the military service; the disability is rated 100 percent at the time of retirement or within 4 years of veteran's retirement date.
And in response to another question the Senator asked, the costs are approximately $55 million to $60 million in additional costs incurred with this change in the law. This is $55 million to $60 million additional.
Mr. NUNN. Is that per year?
Mr. McCAIN. That is correct.
Mr. NUNN. If the Senator will yield, I think I will ask a further question. Is this a 1-year program, or is this a program that is intended to continue?
Mr. McCAIN. It would be intended to continue right now. It affects approximately 7,000 military retirees who are rated 100 percent disabled and have completed 20 years of service. I would estimate that obviously there would be very few additional people, enrollees, in this program, since one of the criteria is that the disability was incurred or aggravated in the performance of duty. That, obviously, is a very small number of people.
Mr. NUNN. I understand. The way it is worded, it is only for 12 months, but it is the Senator's intent to continue it year after year?
Mr. McCAIN. At this time, it is a temporary waiver. It is 12 months.
Mr. NUNN. So it is a 12-month period, but it is the intent to start this as a continuing program?
Mr. McCAIN. That would be my intent.
Mr. NUNN. Where does the money come from--out of the Department of Defense? Is it Department of Defense money that would pay for this?
Mr. McCAIN. I say to the Senator from Georgia, yes, it comes from travel pay of senior level officers, and civilian executive travel of Pentagon staff, estimated to be approximately $370 million a year at this time.
Mr. NUNN. I have not had a chance to study this amendment. I do not want to interfere with whatever the managers of the bill may decide on the amendment, but I hope they will take a very careful look at it now in the conference. I think we have to be extremely careful about starting programs which, though they are intended for even the most deserving possible beneficiaries, become entitlement programs.
We all know that the entitlement programs are eating us alive, eating the budget apart. We are really not going to have any discretionary money at all from year to year. We are going to have it all wrapped up in entitlement programs. I am not sure exactly what this one is and how it is going to be structured, where the money will come from. And what are the implications for people less than 100 percent disabled, say, 85 percent disabled or 90 percent? Do we exclude them? If they are 50 percent disabled, are they not counted? I do not know where this leads or how much money is involved.
I hope my friends from Alaska, Hawaii, and Arizona will look very carefully at this amendment--even if it is accepted here on the floor--in conference, because the cost implications could be rather serious, particularly when these programs have a tendency to grow and grow and grow and open up eligibility beyond original intent. Before you know it, you have a first-class, sure-enough entitlement program that costs millions each year, hundreds of millions, and it goes into billions, and then we wonder why we cannot get them under control.
I know the Senator from Arizona has looked at this, but I hope everybody will do so in terms of the fiscal consequences of it, and also what it does.
[Page: S11137]
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the amendment being offered today seeks to provide a temporary waiver of the prohibition on the concurrent payment of both disability compensation and retired pay for fiscal year 1995. The amendment would pay for these additional entitlement costs out of the discretionary funds appropriated in this bill. This amendment appears to address an inequity that is worthy of redress. However, this is an issue for the authorizing committee to decide, and to pay for, out of spending in its jurisdiction.
Last year, we had before the Congress a budget resolution and a reconciliation bill. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against the resolution and the reconciliation bill. They argued that those measures cut defense too much, and other spending too little. Many came to the floor during that debate to decry that entitlement spending was out of control and that the President and Congress were not doing enough to control these mandatory programs.
The amendment, in effect, cuts other programs in the bill to pay for the increased benefit costs. So, let us be clear about this point, the effect of this amendment to cut available discretionary defense funds to pay for an increase in an entitlement. It is hard for me to believe that this can be right. How many times have we been told that we cannot cut defense any further? How many times have our colleagues decried the growth in entitlement spending and chastised the majority for failing to control mandatory increases?
Madam President, the amendment by the Senator from Arizona is a well-meaning amendment. It promises only fairness to our well-deserving disabled, military retirees, by eliminating a disparity between military retirement other federal retirement programs. Who can fault the logic? Are not our disabled, military retirees worthy of the best benefits we can afford to provide? Of course they are.
I feel that if we establish a pattern of using discretionary funds to correct problems in mandatory programs, however, we will find ourselves entering a thicket that will impose increasing problems for us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2500) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I think there is further debate on the amendment that was previously set aside on the Olympics. The Senator from Pennsylvania has three short amendments. I do not know if the Senator from Georgia wants to continue debate on that amendment. I would just as soon yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I would like to be able to make a statement on the amendment of the Senator from Arizona that relates not just to the Olympics, but other international athletic events that are in the United States. I will do it whenever it is appropriate. I do not know when that one is going to be voted on.
Is there any order decided by the managers of the bill on this amendment?
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, will the vote on the amendment of the Senator from Arizona come up at 9 o'clock tonight?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the agreement, no votes are in order until 9 o'clock.
Mr. NUNN. Madam President, what would be the order of debate then? I would like to be recognized to make about a 5-minute statement if I could. I know the Senator from Pennsylvania may want to present other amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all the Pastore time has expired, the debate need not be germane to the pending question.
Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I would like to make a statement on the Olympic amendment if I could be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the floor.
The Chair would like to add one thing. On amendment 2500, the motion to reconsider the motion to lay on the table is agreed to.
The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. NUNN. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, I oppose the amendment of the Senator from Arizona relating to international games and reimbursement.
The Armed Services Committee has been working very closely with the Defense Department for a number of years on the conditions and procedures under which the Department of Defense provides unique security support to major international athletic events held in the United States. These procedures have been refined over the years through DOD support for major international athletic competition in the United States going back to the Lake Placid Olympics in 1980.
The procedures are working well. They recognize a legitimate and very important, indeed, a unique Federal responsibility that cannot be carried out in any other level, and they should not be changed on the spur of the moment, as this amendment would do.
Ever since we had the attack on the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, which was a terrible tragedy, it has been recognized that our large international athletic events pose unique and major security problems. Very few communities in the United States maintain the security and public safety resources to provide security for a major international athletic event.
DOD has unique resources and expertise that can be used to assist planners in staging international events in order to protect the U.S. national security interests and avoid incidents like the terrible and tragic 1972 terrorist attack in Munich.
DOD support consists primarily of security and public safety-oriented support that is not available from any other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency. This support is provided only under conditions that do not affect the Department of Defense's ability to carry out its military mission particularly for National Guardsmen and reservists, such as military police and a communications unit. DOD support for these events is often carried out as a part of a unit's normal training cycle. And what we try to do is encourage the Department of Defense and the National Guard units to get out in front with their planning so that the Olympic event itself can be part of the annual training of the National Guard people, which does not add budgetary cost and which give themselves good training.
Examples of this support include communications, explosive ordnance details, aviation support, for security and emergency response, as well as training.
The Department of Defense does not provide direct funding to these events. What the Department does provide is in-kind support for DOD stocks of equipment that is returned to DOD after the event is completed.
The amendment mistakenly assumed that the Department of Defense provides security support for the organization or entity staging the event, such as Atlanta's Committee for the Olympic Games, called ACOG.
What DOD actually provides is security support directly to the State and local law enforcement agencies that are responsible for providing the security for the event. The support does not go through the organizing committee. In the case of the Olympics, DOD provides security support through the Olympic security support group. Any support provided by the Department of Defense to an organizing committee is generally provided on a different basis, a noncost or reimbursable basis.
If the intent of the McCain amendment is that any of the law enforcement agencies to which DOD provides security support must reimburse the Department of Defense, I think that would be a serious mistake. The unacceptable outcome would be that these agencies would only request the assistance from the Department of Defense that they were able to afford, that they were able to budget, instead of asking for what they need to provide a safe and security environment for the games.
If the intent of the McCain amendment is somehow to require the organizing entity of an event like the Olympics to reimburse the Department for security support, I think that would also be a serious mistake. If we require the organizing entity to reimburse DOD for security support that goes to local and State law enforcement agencies, it would mean the ultimate decision for what security measures are needed would leave. That would put those decisions in the hands of the organizing committee rather than local law enforcement agencies. This could lead to a situation where the organizing committee makes a decision for security support based on what they can afford rather than what law enforcement agencies feel is needed to provide for a safe and security environment for these events.
Madam President, the international climate has a huge effect on what kind of security we need, for instance, in the 1996 Olympics, but this amendment would apply to all international games. It would apply to games like the Goodwill Games that will be held in, I believe, New York in 2, 3, or 4 years. It will apply to events that have taken place in places like California. It would apply to any international event.
And I will assure anyone whoever aspires to have an international event will have a very hard time complying with the amendment here and still staging that event in a security environment.
We should understand events like the 1996 Olympics are truly a national event involving the entire Nation. If we have a terrible tragedy of the kind of terrorist attack in 1996 or any other international games held in the United States, the damage is going to be done to the entire Nation, not simply to one State or one city.
The United States is the host for all of the countries of the Olympic movement. If security for the Olympics is not adequate, it reflects poorly on the U.S. ability to host international events in an environment where security is a concern.
If DOD support is provided on a reimbursable basis, it will, I think, leave some State and local governments in a position where they simply are not able to afford the security arrangement and the precautions that are truly needed based on terrorist threats and other threats.
This is not the time to send a message to the world the U.S. Government is going to pinch pennies when it comes to providing essential security support for a major international event like the 1996 Summer Olympics. The Federal Government and all in this country have a major stake in and responsibility for the security of international athletic events held in the United States. The modest support the DOD provides to these events is a recognition of this Federal responsibility.
Madam President, the Defense Department supports the current process and opposes this amendment.
I urge our colleagues to vote against this amendment because it could be very destructive not only to the Olympics but to other international events.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
[Page: S11138]
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on or in relation to the McCain amendment No. 2501 occur at 9 p.m. this evening.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I think there may be debate on it yet. I have no objection if all debate is over by that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I will just take a moment more. I will just give examples of the games that we have had help with from the Department of Defense in the past.
We had help in the Lake Placid Olympics in 1980. We had help from DOD for the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984. We had help from DOD for the Pan Am games in 1987. We had help for the Goodwill Games in 1990. We had help for the World University Games in 1993. We had help for the 1994 World Cup. We will have DOD help for the Special Olympics in 1995, and also we plan help for the Summer Olympics in 1996.
These are matters of I think great importance. I do not think the amendment really is an amendment that is appropriate under any conditions, but certainly we should put any effective date of this amendment way out in the future, because these events are already underway and are being planned.
I can assure anyone that this would have a disruptive effect not only on the Olympics in the State of Georgia that I represent but also on the forthcoming events like the Special Olympics in 1995 and other events that may be coming to this country.
I believe the Senators from Idaho will also have an interest on this based on their own aspirations for international events.
So, Madam President, I yield the floor. But I would ask clarification if the Senator from Alaska can tell me when this will be voted on and if the yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, it is my understanding the yeas and nays have been ordered, and we will vote at 9 o'clock under the agreement just entered into.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Domenici be added as an original cosponsor of the amendment previously adopted offered by the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, with regard to the pending amendment that has been offered by the Senator from Arizona dealing with the Olympics, I have had the honor to be associated with the Olympic movement for many years and have made many trips to the sites where we have provided some military assistance to the Olympic movement that really is in the form of security of some type.
Much of that in the past has been done by National Guard units. Others have been done by arrangements with the basic sponsoring entity. I remember the Lake Placid games, for instance.
But, I must tell my friend from Arizona, I must oppose his amendment, because I believe that, as stated by the Senator from Georgia, one of our basic responsibilities as the host country is to assure the safety of the athletes who come to our country. And we have done this. We did it in the Indiana games. We have done it in the Los Angeles games. We have done it almost in every one of the international games I know of. And the reason is that in this country of ours, where there is great freedom and opportunity and openness, there is more of an opportunity for people to endanger the lives of some of these athletes or to disrupt the games in their own personal pursuits.
I do not believe we should have an amendment like this on this bill. We do have money in this bill. I would point out to the Senator, there is an appropriation of $10 million to cover the costs of providing logistical and other support for the 1996 Summer Olympics to be held in Atlanta. We also have funds in here for the Special Olympics, which have a different type of problem as far as the ability of the Department of Defense to assure the logistic support for those games in New Haven, CT.
This has been an ongoing arrangement. It does maintain the relationship of the Department of Defense to these Olympic sports and to our international games. I think it is absolutely essential that we maintain that relationship and that we have people involved in the planning process from the very beginning to assure that we do meet our national responsibility for assuring the safety of the people involved in the games and maintaining the peace of this country.
It is, in my opinion, one of the best functions the Department of Defense has, in terms of its relationship to international sports.
It is not, I must say, something that could be reimbursed. I remember one time when there was a force of the Department of Defense standing by in case something went wrong. Nothing went wrong. Who is going to pay for that? That is part of our national responsibility. I think it must be maintained. The moneys provided in this bill are to assure those responsibilities will be met in Atlanta. I support that wholeheartedly and hope that the Senate will take that into account when we vote at 9 o'clock.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
[Page: S11139]
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I had sought recognition and have been here for a little more than an hour to take a few minutes on three accepted amendments. I wonder if my colleague from Arizona would yield for that purpose.
Mr. McCAIN. I will not. I have to respond to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I have just recognized the Senator from Pennsylvania. If you wish to yield, that is up to you.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that, at the conclusion of Senator McCain's comments, I be recognized for a few moments to offer three amendments, setting the present amendment aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Very briefly, Madam President, I say to the Senator from Alaska, I do not disagree with anything that he said. I urge him to read the amendment. The amendment says that if the games make a profit, 25 percent of that profit would go to reimbursing the Department of Defense. Only if they made a profit.
In Los Angeles, they made a profit of $122 million; $50 million went for security. I am all for that security. The Special Olympics will not make a profit, the Senior Olympics will not make a profit, and they are saying that the Atlanta Olympics will not make a profit. So I do not see where they have a problem. It is only if they make a profit, then 25 percent of that.
None of us want any derogation of security. None of us want anything but the strongest possible security which only the Department of Defense can provide.
I am just saying, if they make a profit, 25 percent of that profit would go back to the main mission of the military, which is defending the national security interest, where we do not have enough ships. We have people on food stamps, we do not have enough ships, airplanes, and guns and we are spending this money on things like Olympics, which make $122 million in profit and do not reimburse the Government for it at all.
Let us be clear on what this amendment is Madam President. It is if they make a profit, which they say they are not going to do, and it is 25 percent of the profit, not the entire profit of these Olympic games, in order to reimburse the taxpayers of America for the Department of Defense money and equipment and manpower that was expended.
I want to apologize to my friend from Pennsylvania who has been very patient throughout this debate.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, consistent with the unanimous-consent agreement just entered into, having set aside the pending agreement under that agreement, I call up amendment No. 2503.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an amendment numbered 2503.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 142, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
SEC. . IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREEMENT ON THE RESTRUCTURING OF THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD AND THE ARMY RESERVE.
(a) Finding.--Congress finds that the implementation of the off-site agreement may result in the loss to the Armed Forces of military personnel who have significant military experience and expertise.
(b) Reassignment of Members.--(1) To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary of the Army shall ensure that members of the Armed Forces who would otherwise be separated from service as a result of the deactivation of military units of the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve under the off-site agreement be reasigned instead to units that are not being deactivated.
(2) The reassignment of a member under paragraph (1) shall not affect the grade or rank in grade of the member.
(c) Reports.--Not later than 15 days after the end of each calendar quarter while the off-site agreement is in effect, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the number of members of the Armed Forces who were reassigned under subsection (b)(1) during the preceding calendar quarter.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term `congressional defense committees' means the Committees on Armed Services and the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
(2) The term `off-site agreement' means the agreement on the restructuring of the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, this is an amendment which seeks to preserve military skills which might otherwise be lost under extensive arrangements which have been made by the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard.
The issue came to my attention as a result of the threatened loss of expertise and experience of some 4,000 dedicated troops who are members of the 157th Separate Infantry Brigade, which is an Army Reserve unit headquartered in Horsham, PA. Under the arrangement between the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, this unit would be deactivated and these 4,000 troops, who have considerable expertise, would be lost for our national defense.
After looking into the issue, it had been proposed that the deactivation be delayed until there had been a GAO study, but the Department of the Army had a considerable problem with awaiting that GAO study to carry out this agreement, the agreement being necessary because of the reduction in the Department of Defense appropriations, something that I think is necessary and in the national interest. These arrangements between the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard are entirely understandable.
So this amendment would accomplish retaining the expertise to the maximum extent possible by calling upon the Department of the Army to see to it that there be a reassignment of those who would be deactivated, either from the Army National Guard or the Army Reserve. This would save the expertise and would accommodate the many people, not only among the 4,000 in Horsham, PA, but across the country. It would have applicability beyond my State and I think it would be very good for the national defense and accommodate the interests of many thousands of Army National Guard men and women, National Guard personnel, and Army Reserve personnel.
As I understand it, this amendment has been cleared by both managers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2503) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Clerk read as follows:
[Page: S11140]
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an amendment numbered 2504.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
`No funds appropriated under this Act may be obligated or expended for the purpose of establishing the Antler Military Operations Area, Pennsylvania, for the purpose of conducting aerial combat training operations until:
`(1) Region III of the Environmental Protection Agency has completed its currently ongoing Environmental Impact Review.'
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, this is an amendment which would delay the implementation of low-altitude flights in a training corridor over central Pennsylvania until the regional office of the Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the environmental impact of these flights.
This proposed flight pattern has caused enormous distress over some 1,200 square miles in central Pennsylvania where these low-level flights would have an enormous impact on the quality of life of the people who live there.
Central Pennsylvania is a beautiful place. It is essentially rural, although there are some cities in the Harrisburg, PA area. There has been an enormous public concern about how such flights would impact on the quality of life there.
And there is a study, which is being undertaken in region III of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the implementation of these low-level flights would be delayed until region III has an opportunity to review the environmental impact.
Again, it is my understanding that this amendment is acceptable to both of the managers.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2504) was agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Another one-vote victory.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an amendment numbered 2505.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
In title IV of the bill, under the heading `Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy', strike out the period at the end and insert in lieu thereof `: Provided further, That of the amount of funds appropriated under this paragraph to be allocated to the aircraft technology program element, $5,000,000 of this amount may only be obligated for the completion of Phase I of the Vectored Thrust Combat Agility Demonstrator'.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, this amendment calls for the allocation of some $5 million, which is now appropriated under this bill from the aircraft technology development funds within the Department of the Navy, to be used to complete phase I of the advanced rotorcraft vectored thrust combat agility demonstrator. This is a program which was established in 1991 to assess the capability of the Piasecki ringtail to improve helicopter speed, range and survivability and reduce operations and support costs.
This technology has already been subjected to very considerable expenditures, some $11.76 million of public funds and approximately $15 million by the private contractor.
This is a very highly sophisticated technology which has been developed by Mr. Frank Piasecki, whose company is conducting the research and development on this technology. Mr. Piasecki is a world-renowned developer of the helicopter. Indeed, the first helicopter a visitor encounters in the helicopter section of the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum is a Piasecki machine. He is world renowned and has done an enormous amount of work, and this technology, if it proves effective and reliable--and that is the purpose of these tests--would be crucial to protect troops transported by the new V-22's. It would turn more tightly, thereby enabling it to survive potential enemy attack and be operated at lower cost than existing helicopters and at a considerably greater speed.
This is an issue which I think would be very, very important for combat operations, as I say, especially in support of the new V-22's. And the $5 million will enable this technology to go forward. It does not call for the appropriation of any new funds, but will come out of appropriations already in existence from the aircraft technology development funds within the Department of the Navy.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent my colleague Senator Wofford be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Arizona for yielding time for these brief amendments.
Madam President, I am advised the managers find this amendment acceptable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2505) was agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I note another one-vote victory. I thank my colleagues for that, and I move to reconsider.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. BOREN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment originally sent to the desk by the Senator from Hawaii, amendment No. 2528, be modified under the terms of the modification I will send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified.
Mr. BOREN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment as modified be considered under the previous request and the pending amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOREN. Madam President, I ask the clerk read the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
On page 142, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following new section:
Sec. . (a) No project for the construction of any facility, or improvement to any facility, having an estimated Federal cost in excess of $300,000, may be undertaken in any fiscal year unless specifically identified as a separate item in the President's annual fiscal year budget request, if such facility or improvement would be used primarily by personnel of the intelligence community.
(b) As used in this section, the term `intelligence community' has the same meaning given that term in section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. BOREN. Madam President, this amendment, which is offered on behalf of myself and the distinguished chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator DeConcini, is aimed at preventing the situation which has recently developed and which is well known to all of us now because of media coverage of these events. I refer to the project, the headquarters project under construction for the National Reconnaissance Office, which has now run to approximately $300 million, in excess of $300 million, in projected costs.
I have endeavored to go back over the record on this matter, some of which is still classified, as to how this project could have grown to such proportions. I must say it alarms me, and I was appalled to find that the project had grown to these proportions. In reviewing the record, I am convinced that the reason for this project becoming this large without sufficient congressional control is that in every year, starting in 1990 until the present time, no itemized request was made for this construction project. Instead, the costs of this construction project were buried in the budget of the agency in question under more generalized functional groupings.
Madam President, this has never been the case with other intelligence agencies. We always had separate items. We looked at those items. We considered the request for construction and for land acquisition. We had task forces within the Intelligence Committee, and I know the Appropriations Committee as well carefully reviewed all of these projects. That process was, in my opinion, subverted in a way by not having specific itemized requests for these construction projects presented by the NRO. The CIA, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency--all other intelligence agencies in the past have gone through the normal procedures of requesting items of appropriations for construction projects and have in essence gone through the same procedures required by military construction projects.
This amendment which I have just offered, which I have discussed with the ranking member and the chairman and staffs of both, would in no way want to cause these projects to be considered in a way that would not protect classified information. I think it is just essential, whether we are dealing with a classified project which cannot be openly discussed on the Senate or House floor or whether we are dealing with a project that can be openly discussed, that the taxpayers' interests must be protected. I think, for us to be able to protect the taxpayers' interests, we have to make sure separate itemized requests are made.
So, that is the reason for this amendment. I have discussed it with the current chairman of the Intelligence Subcommittee. It is based on my own experience of 6 years with that committee trying to make sure funds were appropriately appropriated and we kept tight control over any unnecessary spending. I think this is simply legislation that is needed to prevent in the future what has happened over the past 4 years because of the failure of this agency to make an itemized request, which actually did not come to the attention of the Senate Intelligence Committee fully until the independent audit unit which we established some 3 years ago began its own inquiry into the matter.
Madam President, I think this is a matter that has been cleared in terms of general agreement by both sides. I urge its adoption.
[Page: S11141]
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I suggested an addition to the Senator's amendment if he would consider it. I do believe there is another area that should be mentioned in this amendment and there are buildings that are specifically authorized and for which money has been appropriated that could be commenced. Would the Senator consider my suggested modification to his amendment?
Mr. BOREN. I will be happy to consider that modification. Could the Senator tell me what the language would be? I see, `unless specifically identified as a separate item in the President's annual fiscal year appropriation budget request or otherwise specifically authorized and appropriated.'
Mr. STEVENS. Right.
Mr. BOREN. I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment further by adding after the word `request,' the words, `or otherwise specifically authorized and appropriated.'
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Will the Senator please send a copy of that to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator please send a copy of that to the desk?
Mr. BOREN. I send a copy to the desk.
The amendment, with its modification, is as follows:
On page 142, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following new section:
Sec. . (a) No project for the construction of any facility, or improvement to any facility, having an estimated Federal cost in excess of $300,000, may be undertaken in any fiscal year unless specifically identified as a separate item in the President's annual fiscal year budget request or otherwise specifically authorized and appropriated, if such facility or improvement would be used primarily by personnel of the intelligence community.
(b) As used in this section, the term `intelligence community' has the same meaning given that term in section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).
Mr. BOREN. Madam President, I now urge the adoption of the amendment, as further modified.
Mr. WALLOP addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I have no intention of mounting a ferocious opposition to this. But I will say to my friend who was the chairman and to the existing chairman and to the committee that this is as much the committee's fault as it is the fault of the National Reconnaissance Organization.
To begin with, it was the committee that told the National Reconnaissance Organization to consolidate its budget. But most important, Madam President, there was a time on those committees when subcommittees were responsible for the oversight of specific elements. That now no longer exists. The chairman and vice chairman have held unto themselves the whole budget process, and now we go in and listen to budget presentations and none of us have the information--none of us have the information--upon which to make a judgment.
So the change in the committee from the time when all of us had a little area of responsibility and, in fact, could have been asked why we allowed this to take place--this no longer exists.
I have tried this year on the Intelligence Committee to get them to understand--our leadership on both sides; it is not a partisan issue--that it is really important that we reestablish some element of accountability amongst the members of that committee. As it has evolved, it is a catastrophe, one of which has resulted in the way we now do it.
In the old days, in the original time of the Intelligence Committee, we sat and we had areas of specific responsibility through subcommittees, and we had staff that could oversee and overlook these things.
What has happened now is a harvest that was planted and sown when out of whatever reason, the past committee chairman--and I do not even know when it started, subsequent to the time I left there. And I am not blaming anybody. I am just telling the Senate that until we go back to the time when the rest of the committee is involved in the decisions of the Intelligence Oversight Committee, we are going to have more of these, not fewer.
Mr. BOREN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. BOREN. Madam President, I cannot comment on what the practice was of the past or the practice is now on the Intelligence Committee. I do not believe the Senator from Wyoming was serving on the Intelligence Committee during that period of time that I was chairman.
But I say to my good friend from Wyoming, during the time that I was chairman, I felt there had been very insufficient budgetary oversight and, therefore, the full committee met en banc hour after hour. Let me say, we had extraordinary attendance in which we started looking at the budgets of all the various elements of the intelligence community. That was the number one item on our agenda for the full committee. We went over every one of them. We did not just look at the baseline from prior years. We made them start with their justifications from the beginning. And we divided up our staffs into separate sections that would look at the budgets for particular agencies.
We then went further on construction projects, and I suppose the Senator from Wyoming might call this a subcommittee, but we set up a special task force of members at that time--I do not know if that practice is continuing--to particularly oversee construction projects and facilities decisions.
Every single facilities decision, except this one, and the progress on those construction projects, except this one, as far as I know, was brought before that task force which was composed of some of the members of the Intelligence Committee. They looked at cost by square footage; they looked at the prevailing commercial costs of similar facilities. And in all of these cases--and I can remember CIA facilities; I can remember DIA facilities, NSA facilities--the agencies in question, Madam President, submitted specific requests for these facilities, accompanied by specific budgets, and year by year, asked by item for an amount of money to be appropriated for that project.
We then, in addition, established during the time that I was chairman an independent audit unit for the first time so that we were simply not at the mercy of the Central Intelligence Agency or of the intelligence community to know if the money was being spent for the purpose for which we appropriated it.
That special audit unit that was approved in legislation and signed into law by then President Bush was given the authority to move anywhere in the world to examine intelligence accounts and to oversee the spending of those funds.
I might say, it was that independent audit unit that finally uncovered the full scope of what appeared to me to be significant cost overruns in this particular construction project. That was discovered only this year.
But I say to my friend from Wyoming, I feel that the National Reconnaissance office, in this case, bears a very heavy responsibility for what has happened because, unlike all of the others--and I must say that I as chairman assumed that if they were expending significant sums, they would request line items of appropriations for these sums. They did not do so.
I believe and, in fact, the very first briefing of any scale to the committee staff, interestingly, occurred in the period of time after the November 1992 elections when I was leaving the chairmanship, our staff members were leaving, our staff director, in fact, was working on a transition team, and the new staff of the new chairman was just not yet in place.
So we have a very significant project in which year by year the agency in question did not identify any line item in its budget and the amount of money it was requesting for this construction project.
So I think there was a significant lapse. That is the reason I am saying this, and I am not entering into what should now be the structure of the Intelligence Committee. I think that is appropriate for the current members.
[Page: S11142]
Mr. WALLOP. If the Senator will yield, I am not, either. But I am here to say that this is not entirely and exclusively the fault of the National Reconnaissance Organization. There is at least some level of blame to be placed within the committee and its lack of oversight.
I say to the Senator, and I am not going to go on and debate the structure of it, but those budget hearings in which I participated this year were designed more to titillate than to inform, to show us the most amazing of the most amazing, and they were too short and they simply did not inform us.
I am just saying that the Senate should, as it goes into its next year's oversight responsibility, take a look at what it was that was its part of the fault that allowed this to happen. There is no exclusive blame, and I am certainly not trying to assign any to any one person, the chairman or anyone else. But the structure now does not lend itself to finding out items of this kind.
Mr. BOREN. Madam President, I will simply say to my good friend, at least during the period of time I was chairman, I would say the most significant part of my time, which averaged 4 to 5 hours a day, was spent trying to oversee the budget of the intelligence community and to make sure all the members of the committee had that information.
I also have to tell the Senator that I feel, in this case, I was misled, and I think artfully misled, by the National Reconnaissance agency, and I think the members of the committee at that time were misled, because we were given only a very generalized idea, in spite of specific report language by our committee stating that that agency should come to the relevant committees and seek prior specific approval for their construction programs. They never came, and I think we had the right to assume they would come.
Mr. WALLOP. I am not arguing the amendment, and I am certainly not trying to assign or lay blame. But this is not an exclusive problem.
Mr. BOREN. I say to my good friend, I believe it is an exclusive problem in this particular individual case because I think when an agency does not come forward and specify where it is spending its money in construction programs, that that is a responsibility that they have. Now, it is certainly the responsibility of the committee then--and as I say, we had a task force that looked at construction of capital projects. I think it is appropriate. I think there should be a task force to look at it, composed of members, as well as having staff look at it.
But I do think the National Reconnaissance office, just as the CIA, just as the NSA, just as the DIA, just as every other single intelligence organization itemizes construction requests down to the level of $300,000 or greater, the same standard followed in military construction projects. They should not be exempted from that requirement.
Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, if the Senator will yield one more time, I am not quarreling with the conclusion or the solution that he presents. I just do believe that we in the Senate, if we seek only to assign blame and never to accept, will probably not get to the point where all things are fixed.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, will the Senator yield to the Senator from Virginia?
Mr. BOREN. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. WARNER. The committee today held a hearing, somewhat in excess of 3 hours, on this precise issue. As the Senator from Wyoming stated--and I think quite correctly--I acknowledged in my opening statement and in the course of my questioning that there were options that our committee, possibly under the Senator's jurisdiction as chairman, possibly under the period that I have shared the responsibility with Senator DeConcini, could have taken to force the National Reconnaissance Office to be more forthcoming. An example was the specific language contained in the intelligence authorization bill in 1992. When the answers were not forthcoming, we could have simply said, `Not one dollar more until you do this.' But for certain reasons, we did not do that.
So I think the Senator from Wyoming is correct in his observation. However, in the course of the hearing, I think in a spirit of fairness, both the Department of Defense through the Deputy Secretary, Mr. Deutch, and to some degree the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and later the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Mr. Harris, and others, acknowledged that perhaps there was not that degree of communication that is essential to enable the legislative branch, which has a small staff, to evaluate this project. Madam President, in this instance we had one staff person, Art Grant, a very fine individual, versus, as elicited from the NRO, 25 persons they have dealing with the budget.
So there is some limitation imposed by virtue of the size of the staff of the Senate Committee on Intelligence as to its ability to get into the details if the information is not forthcoming on a voluntary basis from the NRO.
So somewhere between these two poles lies the true story, and as yet, we are still trying to ascertain the full range of facts. And I would hope that all interested would reserve final judgment until such time as all those facts are before this body.
Madam President, if I might just say, I will have further comment--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.
Mr. BOREN. I will yield further to the Senator.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I was simply going to add I will ask unanimous consent to include a statement, and that I should like to have my statement appear with that given by the Senator from Nevada as it relates to his amendment, which I support as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. BOREN. Madam President, again I do not want to quarrel or prolong this discussion, but let me say the Senator from Virginia has just made the point, that the staff, even though we established a new independent audit unit during the time the Senator from Virginia was a member of the committee, a very important addition, because it left us some device of our own to be able to check to see how the agencies were spending the funds that were appropriated, an ability we never had before, we had a limited staff.
That independent audit unit has two people to try to go out and spot-check the entire intelligence budget to see if there was compliance on an independent basis on the part of the committee. In this case, one person on the staff was trying to oversee a functional area that included the National Reconnaissance Office. Let me say that we had 2 years in a row--and I quote this language--2 years in a row at least during the time I was there, and I do not know if this language was repeated later after I left the chairmanship, but the last 2 years I was chairman and this matter began to move, we had the language:
Facility acquisition will remain subject to the prior approval of the appropriate Congressional committees.
Now, there was never a line item or a specific request made by this organization for facility acquisition or improvement and therefore none was ever submitted to us to give prior approval.
Now, we worked very hard during the time that I was chairman, and other members worked very diligently with me, to establish a bipartisan atmosphere in that committee, and an atmosphere of mutual trust between the intelligence community and the committee which was charged with oversight so that we would never be in a position again in which we had to ask exactly the right question and we had to know a lot of information in advance, some information we could not possibly have known, to have asked exactly the right question to have found out the information.
I think in this case this is clearly an example in which the community put us in the position of having to know a lot of information to ask exactly the right question in order to elicit the required information, and when we had report language directing them to come back to us and make specific requests for facilities improvements and acquisitions, I think that clearly the NRO was derelict in not meeting those requests of the committee.
And as one who has tried year in and year out to support the legitimate requests of the intelligence community, let me say that I think this was a total lapse on their part, and I do not think it was a course of action aimed at allowing the Congress to play its appropriate role in the oversight or in the appropriation of funds.
So, Madam President, I would urge the adoption of the amendment. We can argue about the past. We can argue about affixing blame in the past. I think the important thing is that we assure that the NRO, like every other intelligence agency, will have to submit requests on construction projects in the future whenever they are undertaking projects in excess of $300,000, a standard now being followed by all of the other intelligence agencies which worked very well. We were able to give complete oversight over the others because they made such requests.
I think it needs to be put in place as a matter to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further discussion?
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2528), as further modified, was agreed to.
[Page: S11143]
Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. WALLOP addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I call up my amendment numbered 2545.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] proposes an amendment numbered 2545.
Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 39, line 2, strike out the period at the end and insert in lieu thereof `: Provided further, That not less than $120,000,000 shall be available for Sea-Based Wide Area Defense System (Navy Upper Tier): Provided further, That not more than $522,725,000 shall be available for Defense Reinvestment Programs.'.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, will the Senator from Wyoming yield?
Mr. WALLOP. I would be happy to yield to the chairman.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 40 minutes on the amendment, 20 minutes to each side, 20 minutes to be under the control of the Senator from Wyoming, and 20 minutes under the control of the Senator from Hawaii or his designee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I yield myself 12 minutes of the time allotted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized for 12 minutes.
Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I offer an amendment to increase funding for a critical theater missile defense program: the Sea-Based Wide Area Defense Program, also known as Navy upper tier. The budget request for this program is $17.7 million. At that level of funding this highly promising program is essentially standing still. This was not a serious budget request, and if we fund the program at this level we will send the message that we too are not serious about this program.
My amendment would increase funding for Navy upper tier by $102 million, for a total of $120 million in fiscal year 1995. This is the exact level provided by the House Appropriations Committee--and it is the amount needed if this program is to become a coherent and high-priority part of our theater missile defense efforts.
To offset this funding increase, my amendment would reduce by the same amount funds available for defense reinvestment programs--the so-called Defense Conversion Program. Even after this cut, this appropriations bill would still provide over $520 million for defense conversion. By any honest measure, this is plenty, even excessive, given the likely benefits of the conversion program and the many other defense requirements that remain underfunded.
Let me briefly describe why the Navy Upper Tier Program needs more money and why it makes sense to take these funds from the Defense Conversion Program.
First of all, let us be clear that the administration's budget request for Navy Upper Tier in no way represents a serious effort to proceed with the program. At this level of funding, the most we can accomplish is a series of modest tests and studies. Recognizing this, and wanting Navy Upper Tier to become a genuine Theater Missile Defense Development and Acquisition Program, three of the four committees with oversight responsibility made additional funds available for this program.
The Senate Appropriations Committee did not provide additional funds for this program largely due to a concern that such a plus-up was premature. I have examined one program closely and consulted with the Navy, and I am here to tell the Senate that additional funds are not premature; in fact they are badly needed if we want to get moving any time soon.
The Navy, the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and several major aerospace contractors have already produced detailed studies of what it would take to modify the existing Aegis Air Defense System into a wide-area theater missile defense system. It is important to emphasize that we are not talking about reinventing the wheel. One of the great advantages of a sea-based theater missile defense is that it relies on an existing system and infrastructure. The Navy's Aegis Air Defense System is already developed, deployed and proven. With minor modification--mostly in software--this system can become a highly effective wide-area theater missile defense system.
The Navy Upper Tier Program also builds on progress already made in the Navy's lower tier effort and BMDO's Lightweight Exoatmospheric Projectile [LEAP] Program. Later this year, the Navy will conduct two LEAP tests using a terrier missile booster. None of these efforts are fundamentally new--all are well underway and well understood.
If we keep Navy upper tier funding at $17.7 million, as requested, the Navy will be able to do little more than concept exploration. With $120 million, on the other hand, the Navy could take the following important steps during fiscal year 1995:
Conduct one additional Terrier/LEAP test--which would reduce the technical risk of developing a tactically capable LEAP kill vehicle and would improve lethality and guidance accuracy.
Initiate aegis combat system engineering development for theaterwide capability.
Initiate integration of the standard missile-2--(SM-2)--block IV and LEAP to allow earlier fielding of capability.
Provide an option for a deployable prototype system--known as UOES--by 1998.
Provide an option to deploy an operational system by the year 2000.
Provide an integrated, two-tier sea-based theater missile defense system by the turn of the century.
As you can see, Madam President, we can get a tremendous theater missile defense capability with a relatively modest investment, and we can have it relatively soon if only we start now. This is not to say that the Navy Upper Tier Program faces no challenges or that we will be able to have a deployed system overnight. It is to say, however, that we are in no way prevented by technology from moving forward now, only by money and level of commitment.
Why do we need such a capability? The answer should be obvious to anyone who takes a serious look at the expanding threat posed by theater ballistic missiles. The trend is toward longer range missiles with more and more countries in possession of such a capability. We now know that North Korea is developing three new ballistic missiles--the No Dong, which can reach much of Japan, and two longer range systems that may cover much of the Pacific--potentially even threatening United States territory there. Many other potentially hostile countries are also developing or otherwise acquiring such ballistic missiles.
Madam President, the Navy Upper Tier Program promises to be both a highly affordable and capable theater missile defense system that could be developed before the turn of the century. Operating in conjunction with the Army's THAAD and advanced Patriot systems, the Navy upper tier system would give the United States a genuinely effective capability to defend against ballistic missiles.
A Navy missile defense system could be forward deployed and would not depend on any special basing rights. Moreover, it would not occupy scarce air- and sea-lift resources that would be much in demand at the beginning of any future conflict. For these and many other operational reasons--to say nothing of the modest cost--we would be irresponsible for not aggressively pursuing this option.
But of course funds are limited, as the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee has reminded us. My amendment, however, offers a means for paying for this important program. I propose to reduce funds for the Defense Conversion Program from $625 to $522 million in order to offset the increase in Navy upper tier.
My personal belief is that the Defense Conversion Program is an unaffordable luxury that could be cut back even further. Although there may be some useful research conducted under this program, it is pretty clear that it benefits defense capability only marginally. I have been told by numerous people in industry--including some who have directly benefited by defense conversion contracts--that this money would be better spent on real defense development and acquisition programs.
The Defense Conversion Program is intended in large part to be a means of preserving the defense industrial base. Instead, it has become a drain on limited resources. The Senator from Hawaii has correctly pointed out the inadequacy of the funds now available for defense procurement. I join him in expressing alarm over the erosion of the defense industrial base. Quite simply, we are eating our seed corn and hoping that we will not face another major threat in the future.
At the same time, however, this bill proposes to spend $625 million on a whole range of interesting, but not particularly useful, hobby horses in the name of defense conversion. We simply cannot afford to spend this kind of money on projects that have little or no direct benefit to the national security of the United States. Projects that are truly meritorious should rise to the top and be selected for funding based on the normal DOD process. By making available a huge pot of money and simply saying come and get it, we are sure to waste much of it.
Virtually every expert that I have consulted with regarding the defense industrial base has confirmed that the best way to preserve that base is to keep it busy working on real defense research, development; and acquisition efforts. To the extent that the Defense Conversion Program takes away money from these activities, it actually is detrimental to the defense industrial base and national security.
My amendment proposes to take just over $100 million away from this fund and use it for something that will not only contribute to the defense industrial base but also will beef-up our inadequate efforts in the area of theater missile defense. To illustrate this point, let me just list the contractors that are already working on the Navy Upper Tier Program:
Hughes Missile Systems Co: Canoga Park, CA.
Boeing Aircraft Co: Seattle, WA.
Rockwell International--Canoga Park, CA.
Thiokol Corp: Elkton, MD.
Raytheon Corp: Bedford, MA.
Aerojet Corp: Sacramento, CA.
If the Navy upper tier program gets off the ground, this list is sure to grow, as contractors, subcontractors and vendors realize that this is a dedicated effort.
I would be willing to bet that any one of these companies would rather be working on a contract to build real defenses against ballistic missiles than taking defense conversion contracts that don't create any defense capability at all. And I would also be willing to bet that each of these companies would confirm that money spent on a program such as Navy upper tier is more likely to preserve key elements of their productive base than anything that they could get from a defense conversion contract.
In sum, Madam President, this amendment would transfer $102 million from a wasteful and overfunded program to one that is highly meritorious and woefully underfunded. The choice is clear: Dedicate these funds to a program that will defend Americans against a dangerous and growing threat--and at the same time help preserve the defense industrial base--or spend it on an ill-defined and bloated barrel of pork.
(Mr. ROBB assumed the chair.)
[Page: S11144]
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, interesting to note and very probably hard to see. But here is a map of what would take place if we had such a program. Here is what we can potentially do now. This is the Sea of Japan and the aegis cruiser, and we can barely touch a piece of the Japanese mainland against the North Korean threat. Were we to do this upper tier program, we would take all of the Japanese islands. Mr. President, the only way we can defend Hawaii, the only way we can defend Alaska, the only way we can defend either of our coasts, and many of our allies, is through this program.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WARNER. I would like to ask for a minute or 2 in support of the Senator's amendment.
[Page: S11145]
Mr. WALLOP. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Wyoming. Perhaps no one in recent history of the Senate Armed Services Committee, to my knowledge, has had a better grasp of the whole concept of strategic defenses, and particularly those involving theater nuclear defenses, than the distinguished Senator from Wyoming. As he departs the Senate this year, he will be sorely missed. Many of us are doing our very best to fill the void that he will leave.
This is an amendment that the two of us have discussed. I strongly support it. I asked that I be made a cosponsor because it would be unconscionable for our Nation, given the experience we had in the gulf with those short-range Scud missiles, to ever again forward deploy men and women in the Armed Forces without adequate protection from theater ballistic systems. And this is precisely what this amendment does. It begins to bring back up that measure of funding that is essential to keep this program alive and at a level that will properly provide this Nation with that deterrent at sea that is needed.
Mr. WALLOP. The Senator will agree with me that when three of the four committees of jurisdiction have said, A, that the request is underfunded and that, B, this is the only means by which we hope to achieve the goal and the deterrent that we have; this is the only way we are ever going to get it done.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I concur in that observation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on or in relation to the Wallop amendment No. 2535 occur without any intervening action or debate immediately following the disposition of the McCain amendment No. 2501.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Wallop amendment be temporarily set aside for no more than 2 minutes to take up consideration of the Breaux amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment by the Senator from Wyoming is temporarily laid aside.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Breaux.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I first of all thank the distinguished chairman of the appropriations subcommittee for his consideration and also the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk numbered 2547 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux] proposes an amendment numbered 2547.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert:
Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Navy shall obligate, within thirty days of this Act becoming law, not less than $29,750,000 from the funds appropriated in this Act or previous Acts under the heading `Aircraft Procurement, Navy', solely to procure, on an urgent basis, AN/USH-42 mission recorders modified for use in S-3B aircraft.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues briefly in fiscal year 1992 and fiscal year 1993 the Congress in the defense appropriations bill appropriated funds for the AN/USH-42 mission recorder program to be used within the A-6 aircraft program.
In the 1994 appropriations bill, the Congress ordered the Navy to verify that that mission recorder is required in the future for Navy aircraft for peacetime training involving damage assessment in combat.
The assessment by the Navy is completed, and the Navy said there is no particular requirement for the mission recorder based primarily on the decision to retire the A-6 aircraft. However, Mr. President, the Navy has conducted in their own words an independent review to examine other platforms for possible use of the AN/USH-42 and have determined that a modified AN/USH-42 could beat the S-3 attack aviation mission recorder requirements. In other words, the Navy is saying it cannot use it on the A-6 that is being phased out, but they can use it for their S-3 attack aviation operations.
Mr. President, my amendment simply directs the Navy to, in fact, use these mission recorders on S-3B aircraft, as I have explained, and I will ask for approval of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Mr. INOUYE. We have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not the question occurs on the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana.
The amendment (No. 2547) was agreed to.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WALLOP addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, the time situation being the Senator from Wyoming has used up something in the neighborhood of 12 or 13 minutes of his time, I would ask he be allowed to reserve his time if you want to go to another amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will remind the Senator he has 8 minutes and 35 seconds under his control remaining.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, in view of the fact there no opposition time has been utilized, I would not like to share it equally. I do not think that is quite appropriate.
I ask unanimous consent that until such time as someone is prepared to oppose it, unless the two leaders would like to drop the time agreement and vitiate the yeas and nays and they would accept it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent request propounded by the Senator from Wyoming to allocate time equally?
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico should be coming shortly to discuss this matter in opposition. But in the meantime, I ask unanimous consent that the Wallop amendment be temporarily set aside to accommodate the Senator from Nevada for no more than 5 minutes.
Mr. BRYAN. Six minutes at the outset.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I want the Chair to make clear my request was not to divide the time equally.
Mr. INOUYE. Without the time running on either side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent request propounded by the Senator from Hawaii?
If not, it is so ordered, and the Senator from Nevada, Senator Bryan, is recognized.
Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair and I thank the floor manager.
I might inquire of the Presiding Officer the amendment number of the Bryan amendment which was offered earlier this evening.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will inform the Senator that the number is 2502.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator DeConcini and Senator Warner be added as original cosponsors to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona and Virginia are added as original cosponsors.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I earlier commented before the time pursuant to the unanimous consent had expired on another matter to begin explaining the nature of this amendment. It deals with the National Reconnaissance Office, which most of us were startled to learn yesterday morning, is now estimated to cost between $310 million and $350 million.
The genesis of this building dates back to the early 1990's and late 1980's in which the intelligence committees of the respective bodies were encouraging the colocation of some facilities that were scattered all over the country into a single facility.
I was not a member of the committee at that time, having just joined last year.
But earlier this afternoon, as part of a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, I had occasion to review the record as I did yesterday with staff. Suffice it to say that the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, who was a member of the committee during all of the times that are relevant to the construction of this National Reconnaissance Office made the assertion that at no time did the National Reconnaissance Office indicate to the Senate Intelligence Committee that it was preparing to build a building of a magnitude of a million square feet, the cost of which is about $175 per square foot, and that what really occurred is it was incrementally included in the baseline but never specifically authorized prior to its commencement.
Mr. President, I say that my reading of the Record reaches the same conclusion as the distinguished Senator from Virginia.
Now, in the hearing this afternoon we learned that the head of the CIA and the Under Secretary for the Department of Defense are conducting a review.
The purpose of the amendment which I have offered is to seek to withhold any unobligated funds to be committed to the further expenditures in this building until such time as that review is completed and a report made back to the Intelligence Committees of the Senate and of the other body.
Let me emphasize it is not my purpose to in any way interfere with any contractural relationship that currently exists, but we know that at least $50 million is unobligated for such items prospectively, furnishings and fixtures of these elaborate facilities.
It is absolutely shocking, Mr. President, because four towers are under construction. The fourth tower, the most elaborate, the fanciest, which has huge office space and has very, very extravagant provisions in it, was authorized in 1992 by the National Reconnaissance Office. That is after the implosion of the former Soviet Union, after the Berlin Wall came down, after the Warsaw Pact had disintegrated.
This is highly irresponsible conduct and, in my judgment, is an absolute outrage to the taxpayers.
One of my colleagues during the course of this afternoon's hearing referred to it as a goldplated palace, and it is that.
So the purpose of this amendment is simply to say that before you spend any more unallocated moneys for any aspect of this project, since it has never been before the Senate Intelligence Committee, for a preauthorization from start to finish, that the committee have an opportunity to look into it. We have an opportunity, Mr. President, to save tens of millions of taxpayers' dollars if we act promptly, and I am hoping that the distinguished floor managers can support this amendment.
I emphasize we do not in any way impinge upon existing contractual rights, and this money would be subject to review after this executive agency review which I have described.
I yield the floor and thank the floor managers for accommodating me and thank my colleagues who joined as sponsors.
[Page: S11146]
Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield?
Mr. BRYAN. The Senator from Nevada would be happy to do so.
Mr. INOUYE. May I suggest that the amendment be modified so that on page 2, on the last line, line 6, we add a comma after `Representatives' and add the following: `and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.'
Mr. BRYAN. I am agreeable with such an amendment.
Mr. INOUYE. With that modification, the managers will accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification.
If not, the amendment is modified accordingly.
The amendment (No. 2502), as modified, is as follows:
On page 142, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following new section:
Sec. . Of the funds made available by this Act for the National Reconnaissance Office under the classified Schedule of Appropriations accompanying this Act, funds allocated for construction of the headquarters buildings of the National Reconnaissance Office which were unobligated as of the date of enactment of this Act may not be obligated or expended until the Director of Central Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense have completed a review of that construction project and the results of such review have been disclosed to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I simply want to express my appreciation to the distinguished Senators from Hawaii and Alaska for accepting the amendment. I do think we have an opportunity to correct what is clearly an excessive expenditure.
I thank them both for their responsible action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2502, as modified, offered by the Senator from Nevada.
The amendment (No. 2502), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I believe I should respond to the Senator from Wyoming to explain to the Senate the reasons for the action taken by the committee.
The committee, in studying the request by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, provided the full budget request amount that the BMDO had suggested, $18 million, and we could not go beyond that.
It is true that the House has added funds for this program and we felt that it could be considered in conference. It may interest my colleagues to know that in a memo dated July 11 of this year, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Boorda, stated that the lower tier system was the Navy's first priority. The Department is just now beginning a cost and operational effectiveness analysis of this upper tier program.
Therefore, adding funds or accelerating this program before this cost and operational effectiveness analysis is complete would be premature and prejudges the outcome of the DOD analysis, which itself will cost about $5 million to complete.
So, all in all, because of the technical concerns and the ongoing analysis, the committee felt that any acceleration in the Navy upper tier missile program would be premature.
Mr. WALLOP addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized accordingly.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I feel as though I am being done in; that the opposition to this amendment is reserving all of its time and sort of calling on me to waste mine.
But let me just say, I realize the Navy requested only the $17.6 million. But the problem is that the Navy was instructed to request--and this would not be the first time in the experience of the Senator from Wyoming--that the Appropriations Committee, specifically the subcommittee headed by the distinguished chairman, ignore what the Navy requested or the Army and Air Force requested, and ignore, in fact, what the Senate Armed Services Committee did.
We once had a rather gruesome little fight on the floor, which I will admit that I lost. One of the reasons I lost was because they appropriated things for which we had no authorizations. They appropriated things for which there were higher authorizations.
The purpose of the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming is to do one thing: To take the money, the $100 million, out of defense conversion, which is nothing but a corporate entitlement program, and put it into something that buys some defense for Americans. And three of the four committees of oversight have recommended this.
Mr. President, it is a question, when the administration and everybody says the only thing really threatening Americans and their allies now is missile proliferation, that we say we are going to spend a piddly little $17.6 million, which even the Navy now says is a waste of money and will get us nowhere nearer our goal. We will have some reports made and some lovely bound books printed, and other kinds of things, but we will not be able to defend ourselves from anything.
What the Senator from Wyoming is trying to do is to take the money that has been said to be useful and to provide a defense. And, keep in mind, Mr. President, that the Army THAAD and other kinds of things have to be moved overseas or through the air; the Air Force's programs are not yet available to us; the Navy's can be deployed with all the kinds of confrontation that took us how many months to make a piddly decision to move an inadequate system to Korea called the Patriot.
The Navy--again, let me show the map of what it can do. Here is what Aegis can now do. This is Korea and all of this under here is Japan. Look at what would happen if we had the Navy upper tier, the kidney-shaped thing. You can take care of all of Japan, and most of the western Alaskan islands down through Korea and Taiwan. We will either be able to do something useful about defending Americans and American allies from missiles or we will waste money spending $17.6 million and $100 million buying no defense.
Mr. President, almost two-thirds of $1 billion has gone into this corporate thing called defense conversion, which buys Americans nothing. And it is supposed to sustain the defense industrial base. How can you defend the defense industrial base by wasting money on things that do not result in weapons or security?
This is a small little thing. In case the Senator from Wyoming is wrong, $100 million out of two-thirds of $1 billion going into something that all of us know is of use, can produce, and has the technology. We merely need to know how to integrate it.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
[Page: S11147]
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to yield a minute to the Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Maine is recognized for up to 1 minute.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, yesterday I advised Senator Inouye that I intended to offer an amendment to this appropriations bill dealing with the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.
My understanding is that my staff submitted the language itself about a few minutes after 7 o'clock, and so it would not qualify under the unanimous consent agreement. So I now ask unanimous consent that this amendment be allowed to be considered during the debate before the conclusion of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent request propounded by the Senator from Maine to consider the amendment?
If not, the amendment is in order.
Mr. COHEN. I thank my friend from Hawaii.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time.
Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator have any time left?
Mr. WALLOP. Would the Chair state the time circumstance?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time remaining chargeable to the Senator from Wyoming is 4 minutes and 20 seconds. The time remaining to the Senator from Hawaii is 17 minutes and 4 seconds.
Who yields time?
Mr. INOUYE. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, is recognized for up to 5 minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the chairman of the subcommittee is generous, because I rise to support the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming, which I know that the Senator from Hawaii does not support.
I believe that Senator Wallop has correctly noted the emergency situation in the ballistic missile threats that face us in the northern Asia area. I do believe that we have reviewed these intensively in the Intelligence and Appropriations Committees. The flexibility that would be afforded by a sea base system is essential. In my judgment, we should proceed now.
While I have joined the chairman in supporting the defense reinvestment budget, I do believe that Senator Wallop's amendment addresses a much greater need. He addresses the acute shortfall in our missile defense effort.
He addresses the acute shortfall in our missile defense effort. Development of Patriot, ERINT and THAD meet the land-based requirements. The Senator correctly noted there is this emergency in the Asian area, and I believe his amendment should be adopted.
I yield the remainder of the time that was yielded me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator McCain be listed as a cosponsor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator withhold that? Would it be in order to set aside this amendment and turn to the amendment of the Senator from Idaho? Could we set aside the Wallop amendment? We are still waiting for one person to speak on that. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The time allotted under the previous order is set aside, and the Senator from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne, is recognized for up to 5 minutes.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne], for himself, Mr. Warner and Mr. Craig, proposes an amendment numbered 2538.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used for the continuous presence in Somalia of United States military personnel after September 30, 1994.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Warner and Senator Craig be added as original cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, in January of this year I visited Mogadishu. I was astounded at what I saw there in Somalia. An effort that had begun for relief purposes, for humanitarian purposes, to feed starving people at that point in time had become a situation where you were stepping into a war zone. It was absolutely apparent that it was a dangerous place to be.
Of course, it is there we lost 18 very brave Rangers.
Last year the Senator from West Virginia offered an amendment that was adopted by Congress. It said we prohibit the deployment of U.S. combat troops in Somalia after March 31, 1994. That was accomplished. But it did allow for a small contingent of U.S. military to remain there in order to provide protection for U.S. diplomats who would also remain there. We have 58 marines who are members of the fleet antiterrorist security team who are in place, and 20 diplomats. I have to say with regard to these Americans--the marines, the diplomats--it takes guts to be there. They have it. I also should note offshore we have an amphibious ready group, a Marine expeditionary unit. So we have about 4,000 U.S. military personnel off the coast of Somalia who are there in the event we need to go in for rapid extraction of U.S. personnel.
We were assured that after June 30 of this year, all of the military personnel would be out of Somalia. It was by happenstance I learned that June 30 came and went and our military personnel were not out of Somalia. I discussed this with the Armed Services chairman, Senator Nunn, and with the ranking member, Senator Thurmond. We held a hearing on July 21, 1994. As a result of that hearing, where we were briefed by the Department of Defense and by the State Department, 16 of the 22 members of the Armed Services Committee sent a letter immediately to the President of the United States urging him to withdraw all U.S. military personnel from Somalia by August 14.
We can see that date is not going to be met. But let me just read the names of those Senators who signed this letter urging that withdrawal: Senators Nunn, Thurmond, Byrd, Warner, Shelby, Coats, Levin, Smith, Graham, Cohen, McCain, Lott, Lieberman, Faircloth, Hutchison and myself.
So why do I raise this issue? When you have an embassy in a country, are you not normally going to have a Marine detachment that is there to protect your diplomats? The problem is there is no embassy. There is no embassy and there is no one to protect that because there is no government in Somalia.
Normally, a host government provides protection in the streets surrounding the area where your personnel are located. This is what is in the streets of Somalia. This is a picture of one of the technicals. These are the vehicles that are roaming throughout Somalia with a concentration in Mogadishu. You can see here a 50-caliber machinegun. You can see this individual is holding a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. This is the same sort of equipment that was used to down the aircraft when the firefight erupted that caused the death of the Rangers. That is what is roaming the streets of Mogadishu.
Is it just one faction? Absolutely not. You have Aideed and you have Ali Mhadi--two factions. And it is very clear that they are back at war. It is very clear, according to the State Department, that their attitude is winner take all, no reconciliation in sight.
Where are our marines staying? Where are the diplomats? Here is a photograph of Mogadishu. The compound where they are located. This fence is what separates them. Repeatedly--repeatedly the U.S. Government has complained to the United Nations of the lack of security of the perimeter of this facility. It is not being addressed. So what is the assessment?
The Honorable Chas Freeman, who is the Assistant Secretary of Defense, has stated with regard to Somalia: `The situation has continued to deteriorate. Prospects for national reconciliation are bleak. And U.S., UNISOM, and relief organization personnel are increasingly in danger.'
Let me remind this body of what President Clinton stated with regard to our goals in Somalia. He said, `It is not our job to rebuild Somalia's society or even to create a political process that can allow Somalia's clans to live and work in peace. The Somalis must do that for themselves.'
So what is the assessment, then, of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Services of the United States? They say that there is: A high threat of attacks, banditry, looting for all unsecured movements and facilities; No political settlement in sight; Large scale inter-clan fighting expected; High threat of spillover violence against U.S./U.N. personnel; The United Nation's are selectively targeted. The United States is also now being selectively targeted. Chance will attack when they perceive U.S. and U.N. interference.
Mr. President, 58 marines are in that situation. They are the best fighting individuals of any armed service in the world. But 58 marines in that situation are a token force. And one of the lessons that we have learned is, you go in with an overwhelming force or you simply get yourself in a real dilemma; 58 marines in that environment is just enough to get in trouble.
The amendment I offer would cut off funds for the continuous deployment of U.S. military personnel in Somalia after September 30, 1994. The amendment would result in the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel from Somalia by October 1, 1994. But after consultation with various experts, it would not tie the President's hands regarding any future military deployments to Somalia.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I remember the hearing we held where we listened to the fathers of the Rangers who were killed in Somalia. I remember every one of us was deeply moved by that. And I remember they raised the question as to whether or not their sons had died in vain. But they said they hoped we have learned something from that and, if we had learned something from that that might protect other personnel in Somalia, it would not be in vain.
Mr. President, every assessment that you will look to from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, from the Department of Defense, from the State Department say that there is no reconciliation in sight in Somalia. Why then are we continually leaving at risk U.S. personnel?
It is absolutely time for them to be withdrawn from Somalia and for us to move that 4,000 amphibious-ready group from the coast of Somalia. That is what this amendment will accomplish, Mr. President.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Who yields time?
[Page: S11148]
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I yield whatever time is necessary to the Senator from New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for up to 15 minutes and 42 seconds.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the time. I will not use the full 15 minutes, but I would like to make a few statements, at least, in opposition to the amendment that the Senator from Wyoming has offered.
As I understand his amendment, he is proposing to take, I believe it is, $102 million out of the technology reinvestment project and transfer that money to an activity designated the Navy Upper-Tier Ballistic Missile Defense Program.
Let me start by giving some background about the technology reinvestment project. This is a subject that many of us in the Senate worked very hard on in the last few years. I think it has been a successful program.
The TRP, or technology reinvestment project, is a program that was established to accomplish some of the defense conversion activity which we felt was important at this time after the end of the cold war. A specific amount of research and development funding has been set aside in the Department of Defense budget for initiatives that industry comes forward with that are defense related but that have a dual-use purpose.
The idea was that industry would know better than the Government where the opportunities were to use defense-related technology in a dual-use capacity. So the technology reinvestment project was designed with that in mind, and it is important to note that the project is one that requires a cost share, a 50-percent cost share, by industry, and it also requires the industry initiative in order for a program to be funded under this TRP.
It is administered by the Advance Research Projects Agency, ARPA, in the Department of Defense but in cooperation with the Department of Energy, with NASA, with the Department of Commerce, the Advance Technology Program people at NIST in the Department of Commerce. They all work together to administer this program, and it is a very successful program, Mr. President.
This last year, the amount available was somewhere in the range of $500 million. There were 2,800 proposals last year from industry for that funding. When the analysis had been done of the various proposals, right at 5 percent of the proposals were actually able to be funded.
So this is a program which is substantially oversubscribed by industry. There is a tremendous pent-up demand by industry that has been involved in the defense effort to pursue activities that can be funded through the technology reinvestment project--half funded through the technology reinvestment project, half funded by those industrial partners themselves.
This technology reinvestment effort has the strong support of Secretary Perry and Deputy Secretary Deutch. It has the strong support of the President and the Vice President. It has continued to have overwhelming demand in various of the focus competition areas. There is clearly a need here, and that need is one that this committee is trying to meet in the bill that it has presented to the Senate for consideration.
I commend the Senator from Hawaii and the Senator from Alaska for the funding that they have proposed for the technology reinvestment project. I think it is very consistent with what we have tried to do in the authorization bill. It is certainly consistent with the desires of the Department of Defense, and it is something we should not be reducing in order to fund the program which is specified by the Senator from Wyoming.
Just to say a few words about the alternative use of this money that the Senator from Wyoming has come up with, my information on this is that the committee has provided the exact amount of funds that the Navy and the Department of Defense requested for this activity, this Navy upper-tier program. The House added funds for it, and clearly the matter will be open for consideration in conference. But our own committee in the Senate, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, has funded it at the level that the administration asks.
Clearly, the first priority, as I understand it, of the Navy in this area is the lower-tier system, not the upper-tier system. They have made that clear. Admiral Boorda, the Chief of Naval Operations, signed a memo on July 11 stating that the lower-tier system was the Navy's first priority.
The Department of Defense is just now beginning a cost and operations effectiveness analysis on this Navy upper-tier program. And, accordingly, they did not think this kind of high-level funding that is being requested by the Senator from Wyoming was appropriate at this time.
Adding funds or accelerating this program before this analysis is complete is premature and prejudges the outcome of the Department of Defense analysis which itself will cost about $5 million to complete. It is not a cursory analysis.
The Department of Defense study may well recommend a naval version of the theater high-altitude area defense, or THAAD Interceptor. Thus, no well-defined program exists which would support the addition of these funds at the expense of other valid Department of Defense programs.
I also point out that we watched the administration negotiate for months with Russia on changes in the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and we know that the Russians oppose the Navy upper-tier system as it is presently proposed.
The recent U.S. offer to the Russians under the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty negotiations could preclude deployment of this Navy upper-tier system for which the Senator from Wyoming wants to increase funding. These funds could be wasted if the United States negotiates ABM Treaty restrictions which prohibit this Navy upper-tier system from being deployed.
The Navy upper-tier program is a very risky program relying on technologies which have not been proven or demonstrated. Significant questions exist about the lethality of the lightweight exo-atmospheric projectile and its ability to precisely impact a reentry vehicle.
Nora Slatkin, who is the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, testified that the Navy upper-tier technology is not mature enough to be demonstrated for at least another 5 years. Technical concerns and the ongoing analysis I earlier referred to and the U.S. stance in the ABM Treaty negotiations--all of those factors argue strongly against any acceleration of this Navy upper-tier missile defense program.
Mr. President, to summarize, the technology reinvestment project is an extremely important initiative that was started under the Bush administration.
It is being carried on by the Clinton administration. It needs to be continued. It needs to be supported. We have a long way to go to make the conversion for our defense sector from the cold war era to the post-cold-war era. They are working hard at it. These funds, through the technology reinvestment project, are an extremely important part of them making that transition. We need to support that program. We should not be taking funds away from it and earmarking it for other activities. Particularly, we should not be earmarking these funds for this particular program that the Senator from Wyoming is championing here tonight.
For the reasons I have stated, that program is not mature enough to justify the kind of funding he is requesting. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to resist his amendment.
I appreciate the time that has been granted to me by the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
[Page: S11149]
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield time to the Republican leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Republican leader, Senator Dole.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I did not have any comment on the amendment. Is the amendment going to be accepted? Why not go ahead and do that and then maybe I can be recognized.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wofford be named as a cosponsor of amendment No. 2505.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Dole be permitted to submit an amendment at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection----
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall not object----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WALLOP. I would like to have 2 minutes before the hour of 9 o'clock comes along to answer some of the points that were raised by the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, pursuant to the time agreements previously entered into, I send an amendment to the desk for the minority leader, Mr. Dole.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the amendment submitted by the Senator from Wyoming. There is 4 minutes and 20 seconds remaining. The Chair also observes that there are about 3 minutes remaining until 9 o'clock, and under the previous order, all the time on that amendment would expire at that time.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I ask that I might regain the floor in behalf of my amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, would it not be better order for us to let the Senator from Wyoming complete his time before we start the time at 9 o'clock?
I ask unanimous consent we just extend this so he can finish his 4 minutes, and then we have the votes.
Mr. WALLOP. I am perfectly willing to complete at 9 o'clock, if I can just get on with it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for up to 3 minutes.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico was describing a pet project of his, TRP, or defense conversion. Let me just explain to Senators that it buys no defense. It really buys no technology. And it buys no hardware. It does buy some stockholder good will, and it does buy some corporate souls. It is, in effect, nothing more than a defense industry entitlement.
Mr. President, the amendment that I have submitted takes $100 million out of a program that has two-thirds of $1 billion in it. It has more money than the entire money for the Marine Corps. It has as much money in it as all of the combat aircraft procurement. It has $200 million plus more than the entire national missile defense budget, and $150 million more than THAAD.
The argument is that we ought to go on something on which we are spending money that buys us nothing because the Russians oppose it.
Now, Mr. President, the administration has said if we are serious about defense--and they say they are--the one thing that is threatening to America and her allies is missiles and missile proliferation.
The Navy has said that we can have a prototype by the year 1998 and an operational system by 2000 if we fund it at this level. At least, for heaven's sake, Senators, if we are going to spend any money on defense and out of the defense budget, let us spend it on something that achieves a level of defense that Americans can have.
The Senator from New Mexico said there are significant questions about the capability. Of course, there are. That is the purpose of my amendment, to resolve those questions and buy American defense.
Mr. President, time is up. I yield back the remainder of whatever it may.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2501, offered by the Senator from Arizona.
[Page: S11150]
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, the managers have suggested that the Senate now complete debate on the Kempthorne amendment, and then have three votes in succession. I believe their suggestion is appropriate. It has been cleared on both sides.
So I now ask unanimous consent that there be 10 minutes of debate on the Kempthorne amendment No. 2538, 5 minutes under the control of Senator Simon, 5 minutes under the control of Senator Kempthorne, and that the vote on the Kempthorne amendment occur following the two votes previously scheduled; and that for the three votes that would then be scheduled the first be for the regular time, 15 minutes, and the second and third votes be for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, the vote on the Kempthorne amendment will be the last vote today. So there will be three votes beginning in approximately 10 minutes, the first 15 minutes, the second and third 10 minutes, and those will be the only votes remaining this evening.
I thank my colleagues. I thank the managers for their suggestion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Kempthorne amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Kempthorne amendment. It is well-intentioned. But I think it is unwise.
We have roughly--I am not sure of the amount exactly--but roughly 300 American personnel in Somalia. This amendment would say we have to pull all of these people out. The people who are there are protecting our liaison office, and some are providing some technical assistance on such things as pure water and that sort of thing. We have asked other nations to have troops there. And we have pulled out almost all of our troops.
I was asked by a representative of the administration to talk to one of leaders of Africa who has troops there urging that he keep his troops there pointing out that we would keep a residue of troops there.
I do not think we ought to be sending a signal to terrorists that, if you cause some problems, American troops will pull out. There are problems in Somalia. But let us leave it up to the administration, up to the Defense Department, when to pull those troops out.
I would add we have to be willing to take some risks. I wish we lived in a risk-free society. But when people enlist in the Armed Forces, there are risks that have to be taken just as people who enlist in the Chicago police department know that there are certain risks that have to be taken.
Somalia was not a disaster from the viewpoint of the United States. We saved who knows how many lives. Well over a million lives I believe were saved by our action there. It has not turned out the end product politically as well as we had hoped. But frankly, it was one of George Bush's finest hours when we used the U.S. military to see that desperate people in a land that was ungoverned got the food that was needed. Senator Metzenbaum and I were in Somalia. Before we entered we saw the devastation like devastation I have never seen before.
Finally, I would add. Yes. There were casualties in Somalia. But there were fewer people, American service personnel, killed in Somalia than cab drivers killed in New York City last year. I do not want one additional person to be killed unnecessarily. But I think we have to recognize that when you enlist in the Armed Forces there are risks, and we should be a force for stability in that area of the world.
I do not think we should micromanage this from the U.S. Senate. We ought to leave it up to the administration, up to the Defense Department, to make this decision.
I hope the Kempthorne amendment will be defeated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Who yields time?
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I withhold my request. The Senator from Idaho I understand is now here and prepared to debate. I withhold my request.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, thank you very much.
I would like to acknowledge the comments made by the senior Senator from Illinois. Much of what I was able to hear I have to say I fully respect, and acknowledge that when you deploy military personnel you know that there may be in fact casualties. When you do that, though, Mr. President, you need to know what the mission is. The mission in Somalia changed on us. It went from humanitarian relief to trying to apprehend Aideed. Then there is the statement that I read by the President of the United States who said that our goal is not to establish a new society in Somalia. We must leave that to the Somalis. Our job is done in Somalia.
It has been stated, Mr. President, by the Department of Defense, by the State Department--if I had my papers here I would read to you--that the prospect of a peaceful settlement is zero, and that they are moving at a glacial pace to achieve this.
Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield for a question?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I am happy to.
Mr. SIMON. My understanding is that we only have about 300 personnel there. They are there primarily to protect our diplomatic mission and to serve as technicians. Is that correct, first?
Then my second question is: Does the Senator not think that we would be wise to leave this decision up to the administration and the Defense Department rather than making this decision on the floor of the U.S. Senate?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, in response to that, there are currently 58 members of what is called the fleet antiterrorist security team, FAST marines. Normally, we have Marine detachments with embassies. There is no government to have an embassy for. I showed, moments ago, what is parading around through the streets of Mogadishu, the technicals with .50 caliber machine guns. They are beginning to target our U.S. military personnel. They are targets. For what? What are we trying to accomplish?
There is no mission. There is no stated mission today of anything further that the United States can accomplish.
Therefore, why do we not pull them out?
I also acknowledge that these diplomats--I think they are just as brave as the marines, but I am not dictating that those people must be pulled out. They have said they would go to a contract security system if that was necessary. But this is a very different situation. Mission accomplished.
If there is a lesson learned that we were supposed to learn from Vietnam, it was how do you exit. We do not know how to exit from Somalia. I also say to the distinguished Senator from Illinois that just offshore are 4,000 other U.S. military in an amphibious ready group, ready to go in and extract U.S. personnel if they get into a real problem. We are tying up a lot of assets, and there is no mission in Somalia.
[Page: S11151]
Mr. SIMON. If my colleague will yield again, I believe in every diplomatic situation I know of there are a few marines. They have used military personnel to protect diplomatic personnel. I do not know why Somalia should be an exception to that general rule.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I say there is no government to provide further protection for the installation and for the diplomats. I would like to see all Americans out of Somalia.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. We are now proceeding with the McCain amendment; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. STEVENS. This is an amendment to refund the costs in connection with Olympic games to DOD, which I oppose.
Atlanta is not the only one who could potentially make a profit from the games. But does this amendment ask anyone else to pay back the DOD for services which we should be glad to contribute?
Should NBC, the network which won the bid to cover the 1996 Olympics, have to pay 25 percent of its profits back to DOD to pay for the benefits it receives from DOD? Should United Parcel Service have to pay back DOD for the profit it makes from being the `official' express-delivery company of the games? Should the many other sponsors have to pay 25 percent of their profits back to DOD for the services DOD provides?
It is an honor to win the privilege of hosting the games, and takes a lot of hard work by a city. The Federal Government should continue to fully support our cities when they are able to get these games. Atlanta already has committed much of the profits it receives--if there are any--in accordance with its host city contract.
According to the host city contract, Atlanta already has to pay the International Olympic Committee [IOC] and United States Olympic Committee [USOC] 10 percent each of any surplus after the games. According to the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games will have to split any remaining money with the IOC as well. So Atlanta already will only keep a small portion of the profits if there are any.
The 1984 Los Angeles Games were a huge success story in terms of making profit; Los Angeles took that profit and created the $100 million Amateur Athletic Foundation [AAF], a nonprofit organization which has already provided more than $50 million to create, sustain, and encourage sports programs in California. This program has already taught more than 100,000 children how to swim, and introduced thousands more inner-city kids to sports like cycling, volleyball, and other sports.
Atlanta should have the same opportunity to create a legacy from any profits it makes for its children to remember the 1996 games by, and to be introduced to sports.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 21, nays 77, as follows:
So the amendment (No. 2501) was rejected.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.
Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2545 of the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop].
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 60, as follows:
So the amendment (No. 2545) was rejected.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
[Page: S11152]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. President, the question now occurs on agreeing to the Kempthorne amendment No. 2538.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] and the Senator from Arizona [Mr. Pryor] are necessary absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Levin). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:
So the amendment (No. 2538) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. I as unanimous consent that amendment No. 2500 previously adopted today be modified, and I send to the desk a modification.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Chafee be added as an original cosponsor of this amendment.
The effect of this amendment that I am sending to the desk will make that amendment which was previously adopted subject to modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The modification is as follows:
On page 142, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
Sec. . (a) The prohibition on concurrent award of compensation and retirement pay (including naval pension) set forth in section 5304(a)(1) of title 38, United States Code, does not apply to a person who has a service-connected disability if--
(1) the person has completed at least 20 years of service in the uniformed services that is creditable for purposes of computing the amount of retirement pay to which the member is entitled;
(2) the disability was incurred or aggravated in the performance of duty as a member of a uniformed service, as determined by the Secretary concerned; and
(3) the disability is a disability rated as total--
(A) by the Secretary concerned as of the date on which the person is retired from the uniformed services; or
(B) by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs within four years following the date on which the person is retired from the uniformed services.
(b) Notwithstanding section 1463(a) of title 10, United States Code, the amount of retirement pay paid in accordance with subsection (a) concurrently with the payment of disability compensation to the recipients of such retirement pay shall be paid out of funds appropriated by this Act.
(c) Subsection (a) is not applicable to a person for any period for which the disability of such person is not a disability rated as total as described in paragraph (3) of such subsection.
(d) In this section:
(1) The terms `compensation', `service-connected', and `Secretary concerned' have the meanings given such terms in section 101 of title 38, United States Code.
(2) The term `disability rated as total'--
(A) means a disability that is rated as total under the standard schedule of rating disabilities in use by the Department of Veterans Affairs; and
(B) does not include a disability for which the schedular rating is less than total but for which a rating of total is assigned by reason of inability of the disabled person concerned to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities or by reason of any other factor.
(3) The term `uniformed services' has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(5) of title 10, United States Code.
(e) This section shall take effect on October 1, 1994, and shall apply to months that begin on or after that date and before October 1, 1995, upon authorization in an Act other than this Act.
Mr. McCain. Mr. President, with reference to amendment No. 2500, which was adopted a short time ago in the Senate, I want to bring to the attention of the Senate a correction to that amendment.
The amendment I offered, and which was accepted, sought to appropriate funds for a program which is not authorized. As soon as I realized that the program was not authorized, I sought the assistance of the managers of the bill in correcting the amendment. I thank the managers for promptly offering a technical amendment to amendment No. 2500 to make this program subject to authorization.
As my colleagues know, I do not support the appropriation of funds for any unauthorized program, project, or activity. I apologize to my colleagues for my inadvertent violation of this important principle.
I intend to ask the conferees on this bill to retain the language in amendment No. 2500, as corrected by the managers. In no case will I support expenditure of funds for this program in the absence of a specific authorization.
I also intend to work in the Armed Services Committee and appropriate authorizing committees to seek authorization for this program, as is required under the Senate's procedures.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Joe Sanchez be allowed access to the Senate floor during the remainder of the debate on this appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be adopted en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. STEVENS. I reserve the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, may I take the opportunity to check that?
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I withdraw my request.
I ask unanimous consent to consider and adopt en bloc amendments numbered 2535, 2536, and 2542.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we add to that No. 2513 by Senator McConnell.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. INOUYE. And that upon the adoption of these amendments, amendment 2517 be withdrawn.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the Mitchell amendment 2542 be cosponsored by Senator Cohen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Hawaii accept the modification as proposed by the Senator from Alaska?
Mr. INOUYE. I do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
So the amendments (No. 2513, 2535, 2536, and 2542) were agreed to, as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following
Sec. . (a.) Within 60 days of enactment of this Act, the President, in consultation with NATO, shall submit a report to the Committee on Appropriations defining specific military, economic, and political standards required to gain admission to NATO: Provided further, that such report shall not be limited to the principles enunciated in the Partnership for Peace; Provided further, such report shall include an assessment of measures which would be necessary to guarantee the armed services of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are capable of military cooperation and interoperability with NATO and fulfilling other member responsibilities.
[Page: S11153]
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, In 1949 a remarkable treaty was signed by 12 nations. The North Atlantic Treaty was a document of vision and flexibility--a collective covenant to safeguard freedom, democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law--a pact to `promote stability and well being in the North Atlantic area.'
NATO joined in common cause nations of disparate economic resources and strength, differing governing institutions, diverse ideologies and dissimilar military capabilities. Yet, differences have not divided the organization nor compromised the unambiguous and united determination to defend against any attack.
NATO has worked. It has been remarkably successful for more than four decades in preserving peace, security and stability.
Given the track record, it is completely understandable that nations so recently liberated from Soviet aggression now seek the security of participating in NATO. I can think of no more clear or compelling U.S. interest than the expansion of NATO's stabilizing influence.
Unfortunately, no nation seems to be able to crack the NATO admission code. They have been told that participation in the Partnership for Peace pact may lead to NATO admission, but there are no guarantees. They have been offered the cold comfort that if attacked, they have an `opportunity to consult with NATO' with no follow on commitments.
Why? because according to the administration these nations do not meet NATO's admission standards. When I pursued the question of just what the standards of eligibility were with Secretary Christopher in a hearing before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, he told me they had to meet the standards in the NATO charter. Well, the only standard spelled out in the charter is a commitment to the alliance and collective defense.
Mr. President, during consideration of the Foreign Operations bill I offered an amendment to clarify
NATO eligibility standards. The amendment lost narrowly. During the debate there appeared to be two principal concerns which I believe I have addressed in this revised revision.
This amendment will require a report from the President in 60 days defining specific military, political or economic standards required to gain admission to NATO. During the last debate Senator Levin pointed out since NATO was a collective body, decisions regarding admission standards should be collective--the President does not have the unilateral authority to grant admission. I agree and presumed such consultation would occur, but to satisfy Senator Levin and others I added language to the amendment clarifying the President should prepare the report `in consultation with NATO leaders.'
The amendment also requires an assessment of the capabilities of the Visegrad and Baltic nations to meet those admission standards and provides the President permissive authority to offer excess defense articles to assist these nations in achieving military cooperation and interoperability with NATO.
My earlier amendment required the transfer of excess defense articles to these seven nations. I decided to delete this provision in response to some of my colleagues who argued the President could not unilaterally mandate NATO EDA recipients and, more importantly, such a directive many undermine the security requirements of other current beneficiaries.
Mr. President, I believe the amendment before the Senate responds to the concerns raised by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and others with a strong interest in NATO and European security policy. No doubt, Deputy Secretary Talbott will continue to object to the provision because it singles out several nations, thus `drawing lines' in Europe. Frankly, by default the administration has already drawn lines--NATO is on one side, Russia the other, and Central and Eastern Europe have been relegated to the gray ambiguous, no-man's land of Partnership of Peace.
Unfortunately, the victims of the administration's ambiguity consider their circumstances as an open invitation to Russia. In 1823, the U.S. established the imperatives of the Monroe Doctrine, Now, the perception from Warsaw to Kiev, is the U.S. supports a new, variation on their historical theme--the Moscow mandate. Leaders throughout Central Europe have publicly and privately criticized the administrations's willingness to cede their economic sovereignty and political independence to the sphere of Russian influence.
A July 24 column in the Washington Post by Lally Weymouth drew our attention to the profound concerns shared across Europe. Ms. Wymouth writes, `Recently, the Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Yuli Vorontsov, asked the world to bless the Russian deployment of peacekeepers to Georgia. Vorontsov said without some sort of U.N. endorsement of Russian peacekeepers in Georgia, Moscow would veto a resolution authorizing the dispatch of troops to Haiti * * * as a consequence, the Clinton Administration entered into a cynical deal with Russia which at least one U.N. diplomat compares with the controversial 1945 `spheres of influence Yalta pact * * *. What this means is that the United States has given Russia the right to reoccupy the Caucasus and other former Soviet Republics in return for Russian acquiescence in the U.N. Security Council Resolutions on Haiti.'
Senior State Department officials have expressed concern about drawing lines dividing Europe--I think this is an artful dodge. In fact, avoiding drawing lines is avoiding making important decisions, avoiding the responsibilities of leadership, and avoiding the definition of American policy and interests in Europe. In effect, we concede to the Moscow mandate.
During his recent visit to Poland, President Clinton addressed the Parliament. In discussing NATO membership, he said there is `no longer a question of whether, but when and how.'
This was a very encouraging statement which I hope to build on with the amendment I am offering today. The amendment before the Senate begins the process of defining `when and how' nations can join. It is a small first step in the direction of expanding stability and security in Europe, a goal so clearly and unambiguously in American interests.
On page 9, on line 13 of the Committee-reported bill, insert before the period the following: `: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less than $39,674,000 shall be made available only for the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Hawaii'.
On page 29, on line 15 of the Committee-reported bill, insert before the period the following: `: Provided, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less than $30,100,000 shall be made available only for the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Hawaii'.
On page 53, line 13, after the period insert: `Funds appropriated in Title III of this Act may be used for multiyear procurement contracts as follows: MK19-3 grenade machine guns; M16A2 rifles; M249 squad automatic weapons; and M4 carbine rifles for the Army.'
So the amendment (No. 2517) was withdrawn.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the managers of the bill are ready to go to bed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this important amendment that will provided $5 million in fiscal year 1995 for the completion of phase I of the vectored thrust combat agility demonstrator [VTCAD].
The VTCAD program is designed to assess the benefits of the ring tail vectored thrust dected propeller [VTDP] for existing and future combat helicopters. This research has the potential of increasing the speed, range, and endurance of conventional helicopters for more effective combat productivity.
I appreciate the efforts of Senator Inouye and the members of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for their acceptance of this amendment. As a strong supporter of the VTCAD research, I am very glad that my colleagues have agreed with my request to provide $5 million in funding for the completion of phase I of this important effort in fiscal year 1995.
[Page: S11154]
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment by the Senator from Iowa. This amendment, while only a sense of the Senate amendment, takes an irresponsible position in relation to our nuclear weapons stockpile, and our future need to maintain nuclear weapons that are safe and reliable.
We cannot turn a blind eye to the reality that we have a nuclear stockpile of thousands of weapons. As the cold war has come to a close, we have made substantial progress in reducing the number of nuclear weapons. I support these efforts.
What concerns me about the approach of this amendment and the ongoing Comprehensive Test Ban negotiations, is the lack of focus on the long-term needs of our nuclear weapons scientists to monitor our stockpile. It is hard to imagine why we would want to maintain thousands of the most dangerous weapons known to mankind, but eliminate the ability to test them. In the past, we have been able to replace old nuclear warheads with newer and safer designs. We now have no new nuclear warheads under development, and so the task of our nuclear scientists is to ensure the stockpile remains safe and reliable as the various components age and deteriorate.
Nuclear weapons are complex devices. The interaction that occurs in a warhead between the highly energetic explosive and the nuclear material will never be completely mimicked by testing simulation. As these devices age, we must have a complete understanding of their deterioration, and how this affects their safety and reliability.
In fact, as our stockpile of nuclear weapons is reduced, the reliability of each nuclear weapon becomes even more critical to an effective deterrence. Only through testing at the Nevada test site can we have adequate assurance that our nuclear weapons will function as expected in a time of crisis. Stockpile surveillance, above ground experiments, and modeling often uncover flaws that cannot be resolved without the use of a nuclear test.
The Washington Post ran a story in May 1990, which explained a disturbing incident occurring in 1988, only 6 years ago. The Department of Defense unexpectedly discovered a defect in a type of nuclear weapon after it had been deployed throughout Europe. Urgent orders were issued not to move the warheads, and repair teams had to hurry to the nuclear ammunition depots to disable the weapons so they could not accidently be detonated. Computer calculations and underground tests before the start of production had indicated no safety problems. Yet, a new safety analysis in 1988 raised concerns that were confirmed by actual underground nuclear tests.
Again, it is plain reckless for our Nation to hold thousands of the most powerful and dangerous weapons known to mankind, and destroy the ability to monitor and test them.
Mr. President, no one in this body can state with certainty that the nuclear weapons created by the United States have, suddenly, become completely safe and reliable for the foreseeable future. No one in this body can say with certainty that we will never again discover a dangerous flaw in a nuclear weapon, like that found less than 6 years ago.
Without a doubt, the goal of nonproliferation is vitally important, particularly maintaining controls on nuclear materials. However, I have yet to see a compelling argument that the United
States nuclear testing moratorium has furthered that goal. China continues to test and modernize its nuclear weapons at will. Renegade nations, such as Libya and N. Korea, could continue to develop nuclear weapons even if they signed and abided by the provisions of a comprehensive test ban.
I also want to address the issue of the Comprehensive Test Ban and how it would affect the Nevada Test Site. The Nevada testing facility is a unique resource, and the Nation's investment in it must be protected.
Some of America's greatest technological resources have been devoted to design, production, and testing of our nuclear weapons. Personnel at the Nevada test site are a small community of highly specialized workers, with expertise found nowhere else in the world.
Mr. President, 2 years ago, a one kiloton conventional explosion occurred in the tunnels at the Nevada test site. The nonproliferation experiment was conducted in the general vicinity of previous low-yield nuclear tests, and provided vital data on the different seismic signals between a conventional explosion and a nuclear explosion. By furthering our ability to distinguish between conventional explosions and low-yield nuclear explosions, we greatly expanded our ability to monitor the proliferation of nuclear weapons. This test has had far reaching consequences in the ability of the United States to prevent renegade nations from disguising low-yield nuclear tests.
No other facility in the world has recorded data from low-yield nuclear explosions that made this test possible. No other facility in the world has the unique tunneling capability that enabled this conventional test to occur efficiently and without undue expense.
Most Members recognize the unique assets and expertise of the personnel at the Nevada test site. What my colleagues may not realize is that a wide variety of activities, such as the nonproliferation experiment, are now occurring at the test site, and many more activities are being planned for the future.
One of the most promising future uses for the Nevada test site is in the production of solar energy. Because of its size and location, the test site is ideally suited for research in solar energy development, which I believe should have a very high priority in supplying our future energy needs. Even a small portion of the test site, devoted to solar electric generation, could supply substantial energy resource.
Mr. President, as long as dictatorships are striving to acquire weapons of mass destruction, we must be vigilant. Our nuclear deterrence, tested time and again in the Nevada desert, helped prevent the tensions between the Soviet Union and the West from ever resulting in a nuclear conflict. Testing was part of that success, and we must not lightly discard such a proven capability.
Again, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the amendment at the desk is on behalf of myself, Senator Jeffords, Senator DeConcini and Senator Daschle. This is a sense of the Congress resolution, basically praising the President for extending the nuclear testing moratorium until September, 1995, and calling on the President and the other nuclear powers to complete negotiations for a comprehensive nuclear testing ban treaty before the extension conference for the Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] begins in April 1995.
Some may say `Why the rush?'
Why not wait until 1996, which China and France seem to prefer?
I would list two primary reasons for President Clinton to take a strong leadership position now to assure completion of the CTBT by 1995: to complete the CTBT before the NPT extension conference begins in April, 1995 and to complete a CTBT before new presidents are elected in Russia, France and the United States.
First, the Non-Proliferation Treaty is up for renewal in 1995. The conference to strengthen, expand and extend the NPT begins in April 1995.
Mr. President, the NPT is becoming ever more important in the post cold war era. In the past, our focus has been on the former Soviet Union, with their enormous nuclear arsenal of over 20,000 nuclear weapons, and their plans and missiles to deliver many of those weapons of mass destruction to the United States homeland with less than half an hour warning.
But now we may have more to fear from one or two crude nuclear weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein or Kim II Sung's son in North Korea than 20,000 much larger nuclear weapons in the Soviet arsenal.
Paranoid leaders from rogue nations may be much more inclined to use nuclear weapons in a crisis. And paranoid leaders are not deterred by the massive U.S. nuclear arsenal.
Hence the Non-Proliferation Treaty takes on much greater significance. Our national security interests are severely undermined by the proliferation of nuclear weapons. So much so that at least one active-duty military officer, General Horner, has even suggested that we seriously consider the eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons.
He reasoned that nuclear weapons are the ideal `equalizers' for weak third world nations. Only nuclear weapons could severely damage U.S. interests, given our current and projected overwhelming conventional military superiority.
Under these circumstances, the extension and strengthening of the NAT should be a primary priority of U.S. defense policy.
For better or worse, the comprehensive test ban has become almost a prerequisite for extension of the NPT in the eyes of most of the nuclear weapons have-not nations.
They reason that stopping all nuclear testing is the least the nuclear weapons states can do to demonstrate our resolve not to continue the qualitative nuclear arms race. They reason that only if we agree to stop all testing will they, the nuclear have-nots, agree to forego development or acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Hence, to maximize our chances of strengthening and extending the NPT, we should make every possible effort to complete the CTBT by 1995. It will take a major, concerted effort by the United States to achieve this objective. This amendment encourages the President to undertake such a dedicated effort to complete the CTBT before April, 1995.
Second, the political landscape in several key nations may
change significantly after 1995. Francois Mitterrand will be stepping down in May, 1995, and new presidential elections will be held in Russia and the United States in 1996.
While President Mitterrand's successor may eventually support a CTBT, I fear that France may want to conduct a flurry of nuclear tests before agreeing to sign the CTBT. The two current French candidates are vying with each other to see who can be the most supportive of the French nuclear arsenal. So we cannot be assured that the next French Government will support the CTBT at all.
In other words, we have three of the five nuclear powers supporting the completion of the CTBT now, but no assurance that any of the three will be as enthusiastic by 1996 or later. The CTBT now, but no assurance that any of the three will be as enthusiastic by 1996 or later. The CTBT and the NPT are too important to the national security of the United States to let this current opportunity pass by.
While we would certainly like France and China to join the CTBT initially, this is not necessary. After all, both France and China were not party to the NPT initially, but are now supportive.
At this moment, negotiations are continuing in Geneva on the CTBT. The current session began on July 25, and is scheduled to end on September 7. This is the last scheduled negotiating session. But a draft treaty has not even been tabled in Geneva.
I therefore urge the President to encourage the session chairman to at least lay down a draft treaty, so that the negotiators can begin narrowing down differences. I urge the President to avoid last minute complications, such as submitting endless verification or other technical suggestions which slow down the process without yielding significant increased security assurances.
I was pleased to learn that John Holum, the director of ACDA, stated on August 4 in Geneva at the U.N. Conference on Disarmament that the U.S. delegation will be willing to work after September 7, `continuously' if necessary.
This is a hopeful sign that the Clinton administration is willing to work with all diligence to complete the negotiations by April 1995.
This resolution merely signifies to the administration that we in Congress consider rapid progress essential to our national security.
I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution, urging the President and other nuclear powers to complete negotiations on the nuclear testing moratorium before the Non-Proliferation Treaty extension conference begins in April 1995.
[Page: S11155]
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin.
Once again, I see an effort to continue to undermine our nuclear deterrent and our nuclear stockpile while ignoring the real danger that faces our world today. That danger is the danger of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and, in particular, the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons technology.
Our national security will be served by negotiating an extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but the amendment offered by my friend from Iowa focuses on the negotiation of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which may or may not play a roll in gaining the extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
A Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty carries with it several clear risks to national security and worldwide security that have been recognized by the Senate, President Clinton, and past Presidents.
The Senate in passing the Hatfield-Exon-Mitchell amendment recognized that the safety and security of our nuclear weapons and, presumably those of other countries, could be improved by a limited continuation of nuclear testing. The Hatfield-Exon-Mitchell amendment permitted continued testing for safety and reliability until 1996 and longer if other nations continued to conduct nuclear tests.
President Bush's national security advisors recommended a veto of the legislation containing the testing restrictions because of its serious consequences to national security. If the amendment had not been tied to a larger bill, it most likely would have been vetoed.
President Clinton, in extending the moratorium, expressed his concerns about the risk that a moratorium posed to our stockpile, but accepted the risk as the apparent cost of establishing the right atmosphere to promote the extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The Chinese and the French have both stated the importance of a limited number of additional nuclear tests before a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty would be in their national interests. A premature effort to push a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty before next April may cause the Chinese and the French to withhold their support.
Do we want a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that the Chinese will not sign?
I do not support a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty because I do not believe that it really contributes to making the world safer.
If there is to be an amendment, it should encourage the President to continue his efforts to get an indefinite extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. A Non-Proliferation Treaty without a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is a significant step to a safer world. A comprehensive Test Ban Treaty without an extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a failure.
The Chinese will likely continue testing beyond April 1995, the time when the Non-Proliferation Treaty Extension Conference will be held. I suspect that the United States will, and should, push for an extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty whether or not China or anyone else is testing.
Testing is not the issue. Limiting, or stopping proliferation of nuclear weapons is the issue.
The extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty is in the interests of every nation, be they a nuclear power or a nonnuclear state. Most nations know this. No nation will gain from the termination of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, although many may threaten not to sign to advance some separate agenda.
I believe that the sense of the Senate resolution offered by my friend from Iowa is in fact an attempt to advance a separate agenda.
That agenda is the delegimitization of nuclear weapons and, in particular, the U.S. nuclear arsenal as fast as possible.
As the chairman of the Defense Appropriation Committee said so eloquently on the floor earlier in this debate, this is not time to let the euphoria of the end of the cold war lead us into thinking that we can abandon our Armed Forces, and in this case our nuclear forces.
The world is still a dangerous place. The nuclear threat has changed, but it has not disappeared. We must maintain our nuclear stockpile, our nuclear deterrent capability, and our nuclear expertise. The capacity to resume testing is a critical element of that capability.
I am very concerned about efforts like this amendment that undermine the support for our own national security without securing assurances that the external nuclear threats are being reduced.
Look at Korea. The Non-Proliferation Treaty did not guarantee that they could not develop nuclear weapons. Our moratorium did not stop them from continuing their program. Our continuing efforts to promote a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and a the extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty have not convinced them to reject a nuclear program.
For another example of the continuing external threat, look at the recent discovery of weapons-grade plutonium being diverted from the former Soviet Union and offered for sale in Germany. The news media reports that the buyer for this material was to be Iraq. Does anyone here think that the extension of any treaty will end the threat from Iraq?
An extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will help address these threats. A Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will not.
Let us not forget the arguments that have been used to advance the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty argument. Originally, we needed to stop testing to stop the arms race. In fact, the arms race ended while we were testing. The end came because the Soviet Union collapsed.
Another argument was that we need to stop testing to promote disarmament. The United States and Russia are both in the process of drastically reducing our nuclear arsenals. A testing program for reliability and safety does not preclude a weapons reduction.
Now they are saying that we need to end testing to get an extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This is highly unlikely. The vast majority of responsible nations realize the great progress that has been made by the United States and the former Soviet Union to reduce the nuclear tension and the nuclear stockpiles.
These same nations realize that giving up the Non-Proliferation Treaty solely because there is no Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is not in their national security interests.
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is, at best, a debatable element of the Non-Proliferation Treaty extension.
If we want to send our President a sense of the Senate, let's tell him that we support his efforts to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Let's not divert his attention to secondary issues that may or may not contribute to the ultimate goal.
I ask my colleagues to oppose the Harkin amendment.
[Page: S11156]
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, at a time of heightened concerns about terrorist attacks such as the World Trade Center bombing and recent incidents in Argentina and London, the Senate has an important opportunity to increase efforts of the United States Government and our allies to help counter these threats.
Several years ago, in response to the bombing of Pan Am 103, the Department of State and the Department of Defense established the Technical Support Working Group [TSWG], an interagency body that coordinates counterterrorism research and development efforts. Since its creation, the TSWG has made valuable contributions to enhancing the security of persons and property both inside the United States as well as beyond our borders by orchestrating and funding the development of innovative technology. For example, the TSWG has already improved the security of people flying on the world's airways by developing advanced methods for postblast detection and postblast containment of chemical explosives.
In the aftermath of the attacks in Argentina and London, it is clear that the world continues to be a dangerous place where terrorism will be used to strike at the heart of civilized peoples everywhere. We should do more to bolster the promising start of the technologies and techniques already developed by the TSWG. As President Clinton recently stated, `I think everyone in the United States would want us to do more against terrorism.'
President Clinton requested $6.321 million as the Defense Department's contribution to the TSWG. This amount has been authorized by the Senate and House, appropriated by the House, and is in the Senate Defense appropriations bill we are currently discussing. Virtually all of this is required to continue projects identified in fiscal year 1993 and fiscal year 1994 and already underway. Thus, only about $2 million--the amount provided by the State Department in its funding share--is available for new projects, of which there are many which appear quite promising. Moreover, the $6.321 will limit the TSWG's ability to follow up the excellent start permitted by the fiscal year 1993 congressional initiative for an international program.
In the Defense authorization bill passed by the Senate, an additional $3 million was authorized for TSWG to enable it to continue and expand its promising international cooperative efforts. The additional funding which we seek today in this Defense appropriations will go along with the additional amount authorized and will go a considerable distance in funding important new counterterrorist technologies. Three areas are particularly promising and important: nonlethal technologies; border security; and strategies against advanced shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles, radio-controlled explosive devices, and weapons of mass destruction. We will not solve the problems posed by these terrorist strategies with the funds we are adding today, but it is vital to keep up the momentum which has developed.
All of us recognize the constrained resources era in which we are currently operating. The distinguished chairman and his staff have worked with us on this amendment and have agreed to accept an additional $2 million for this program. I appreciate the chairman's cooperation and believe that this $2 million investment is both worthwhile and timely. We cannot wait until the next terrorist strike takes innocent lives here or abroad. We should move forward now with efforts which will enable us to prevent these kinds of attacks in the future. We have a responsibility to do all we can. This $2 million is an excellent beginning.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of this amendment because of the importance in providing funds to fight terrorism. This earmark would further enable the Pentagon to contribute funds for the valuable work of the Technical Support Working Groups [TSWG], an interagency group that helps cover collaborative research projects designed to counter terrorist activity.
Mr. President, we have signed a series of Memorandums of Understanding [MOU] with three countries for 15 different counter terrorism programs. These programs cover a range of projects, including improved explosive detection and better perimeter security at a variety of facilities. Unfortunately, the MOU's were signed after budget was submitted, and subsequently the costs of these international R&D programs are not covered in the current budget. While the DOD bill authorized $3 million for the international programs, there is the need for a specific appropriation to cover these international projects.
There is not a single Member of this Chamber prepared to suggest that terrorism is not a serious challenge or threat to American interests or security. The recent bombing attacks in Buenos Aires, Panama, and two incidents in London only underscore the importance of developing the tools and resources to counter terrorism, and I am pleased to see that the TSWG is taking an important role in this process.
If we believe that we need to confront the threat posed by terrorism, then we need to will the means to fight it. I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senators Heflin and Glenn in offering an amendment to H.R. 4650, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1995, that would provide $3 million in much needed additional funding to modernize Air Force management/maintenance information systems. As our forces decline in numbers, it is incumbent on the Department of Defense to ensure that our Armed Forces are in a high state of readiness. In today's military, this often falls to the automated programs which keep maintenance information at technicians' fingertips.
The CAMS/REMIS system is the major Air Force system which provides technicians with up-to-date information about the maintenance and supply status of missiles, aircraft, and other equipment. It is in use at virtually every Air Force base throughout the United States and abroad.
The CAMS/REMIS system was created under a contract awarded in 1986. While funding has been available to create and operate CAMS/REMIS, and to consolidate other systems into this comprehensive system, funding constraints unfortunately have precluded upgrading the system to keep up with developments in this fast-growing field. I believe it is critically important to our readiness, and to the safety of our air men and women, that the Air Force provide a modern, fully capable maintenance management information system. A total of $8 million for these programs would permit the Air Force to upgrade the system adequately.
Mr. President, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
[Page: S11157]
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Domenici I rise to offer an amendment which will ensure adequate funding for a critical safety modification of the F-111 aircraft. The amendment adds $1.296 million, for a total of $2.8 million, to the F-111 squadrons program element in the Air Force RDT&E budget.
As the Senator from Hawaii and the Senator from Alaska know, these aircraft are stationed at Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico and provide a critical capability to deliver precision munitions deep within an adversary's territory, a capability that was demonstrated repeatedly and was vitally needed during the Persian Gulf war. The amendment I am proposing is consistent with action taken in the conference committee on the defense authorization bill.
During the authorization conference the Air Force told us that additional funds were needed in this program element to correct deficiencies found in operational testing of a modification to the digital flight control system of the F-111 and EF-111 aircraft. These problems include nuisance warnings, warning light anomalies, autopilot release level faults, and a terrain following radar/central air data computer interface fault. The program office at McClellan Air Force Base proposes to fix these problems through an engineering change proposal, the total cost of which is estimated to be $4.3 million. The Air Force informed us they had a requirement for $2.8 million in fiscal year 1995 for the overall program element, $2.5 million of which they intend to use for the digital flight control system upgrade. The remaining $1.8 million for the digital flight control system upgrade will be incorporated in the fiscal year 1996 request.
In light of this information, I hope our amendment is acceptable to the managers and I urge its adoption. I would note before closing that the House version of the fiscal year 1995 Defense Appropriations' Act provides $11.019 million for the F-111 squadrons program element, $9.5 million of which is to be used for safety modifications of the F-111 and EF-111 aircraft if the Secretary of the Air Force submits a report that such modifications are needed. I am not aware of other modifications needed at this time, but if further requirements for modifications in the F-111 fleet are identified by the Air Force, I would urge my colleague from Hawaii and my colleague from Alaska to move toward the higher level in the conference.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I appreciate the information provided by the Senator from New Mexico. I support the amendment he is offering to insure the digital flight control system is fully funded in this bill. I know the Senator from New Mexico is a very vigorous proponent of the F-111 aircraft and the capabilities it brings to our forces and I know that he takes a personal interest in insuring that upgrades needed by the aircraft, such as the digital flight control system modification, stay on track and get deployed on the aircraft.
With regard to the conference, I will be happy to consult with the Air Force to ascertain the actual funding needs with respect to maintaining the important capabilities of the F-111 fleet. As the Senator points out, there will be ample opportunity for us to bring this matter to the attention of the House conferees with the objective of satisfying the highest priority operational needs of the F-111. It is difficult at this time to predict what will be the amount acceptable to the House conferees for F-111 modifications, but we will do our utmost.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Hawaii for his support of my amendment and his promise to look into this matter further in the upcoming conference. I thank him also for his strong support for New Mexico's military installations and laboratories, ad the people who serve in them, support which is reflected in numerous provisions in this bill.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment that would require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on a very important issue that involves not only congressional oversight of a defense program, but also proliferation concerns and stability in the Middle East: A Department of Defense proposal to codevelop the Advanced Threat Radar Jammer [ATRJ] with the United Arab Emirates [UAE].
I understand that the U.S. Army and Defense Security Assistance Agency [DSAA] are prepared to offer the UAE a proposal to codevelop the ATRJ--the Army's net generation radar receiver and jamming system. Under this proposal, the UAE would provide funding for research and development of the ATRJ and then be allowed to purchase the sophisticated systems for installation on recently acquired AH-64 Apache helicopters.
I and many of my colleagues are concerned about this proposal for several reasons. First, this agreement would establish an arrangement wherein a foreign nation would fund a U.S. defense program in an apparent circumvention of the normal authorization and appropriations process, and beyond the effective oversight of Congress. The Congress has repeatedly voiced its objections to executive branch efforts to solicit funds in support of U.S. foreign policy or defense initiatives that were not first made subject to the scrutiny of the legislative branch.
Second, I believe this agreement would undermine the President's own efforts to constrain weapons proliferation. It provides the UAE with a quantum improvement in its war fighting capability which could provoke other hostile nations to seek advanced systems to counter the new perceived UAE threat.
Third, this arrangement would violate a departmental policy, recently reaffirmed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense on March 15, 1994, which states that `the Department of Defense remains committed to the policy of no foreign military sales or commitments for foreign sales of defense systems prior to the successful completion of OT&E [operational test and evaluation], and the specific approval of the Under Secretary of Defense. This policy remains in effect today.'
Finally, I am deeply concerned that if this new weapons system were introduced into a volatile region and ever fell into the hands of a U.S. adversary, its state-of-the-art jamming capability could pose a serious threat to U.S. forces. When fully operational, this system will be capable of friend or foe identification, pulsed radar jamming, extreme radio frequency sensitivity and processing capability, as well as multi-band situational awareness.
I see little justification for proceeding with an arrangement that is fraught with so many questionable funding practices and policy implications. While I and many of my colleagues believe that the United States shares an interest in the security of the UAE, the ATRJ would provide a level of jamming capability significantly greater than that possessed by many of our close NATO and major non-NATO allies. The possible threats to the UAE are no greater than those faced by other nations in the region, none of which have been asked to participate in the ATRJ program.
I have already contacted the Defense Department on this issue, expressing my concern over the codevelopment of the ATRJ with the UAE. Unfortunately, I found the response to my concerns to be inadequate.
Therefore, I have offered this amendment that directs the Department of Defense not to proceed with the codevelopment of the ATRJ with any foreign entity until the Department has fully consulted with Congress, and evaluated both legal and policy implications. The amendment exempts our NATO and major non-NATO allies.
Specifically, the report to be submitted by the Secretary of Defense should include the following:
[Page: S11158]
(1) The legal basis for seeking for the program funds that are neither authorized to be appropriated nor appropriated.
(2) The consistency of the program with the Department of Defense policy that no foreign military sale of a defense system, and no commitment to foreign military sale of a defense system, be made before operational test and evaluation of the system is successfully completed and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition of Technology has specifically approved the system for sale to a foreign government.
(3) The mission requirement for an advanced threat radar jammer for combat helicopters.
(4) An assessment of each threat for which an advanced threat radar jammer would be developed, particularly with regard to each threat to a foreign country with which the United States would jointly develop an advanced threat radar jammer.
(5) The potential for sensitive electronic warfare technology to be made available to potential adversaries of the United States as a result of United States participation in the program.
(6) The availability of other nondevelopmental items and less sophisticated technologies for countering the emerging radar detection threats to United States combat helicopters and combat helicopters of United States allies.
(7) A capability assessment of similar technologies available from other foreign countries and the consequences of proliferation of such technology.
I urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment and I urge its adoption. I now ask unanimous consent that my previous correspondences with DOD be printed in the Record at this time.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, April 13, 1994.
Lt. Gen. Thomas Rhame,
Director, Security Assistance Agency,
Washington, DC.
Dear General Rhame: I am concerned that the Department of Defense is considering a co-development program with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for the Army's Advanced Threat Radar Jammer (ATRJ). This action follows the sale of AH-64 Apache helicopters to the UAE.
Apparently, the UAE would provide funding for research and development of the ATRJ and then be allowed to purchase the sophisticated systems for installation on the recently required Apache helicopters. Specifically, I am concerned that the proposed program could have serious implications for U.S. national security by providing the UAE with an ultra-sophisticated capability to detect enemy radar and equip UAE helicopters with an advanced, high-powered radar jamming system.
This precedent may represent a major departure from U.S. Middle East policy and our commitment to Israel's qualitative edge in its national defense. To my knowledge, ATRJ technology has not been offered to other U.S. allies and would likely surpass similar technologies currently employed by other countries. By allowing the UAE to assist with research and development costs, the Defense Department may be granting a foreign country access to the most advanced version of a weapon system used by U.S. forces. In addition, the ATRJ co-development program may cause a new round of high technology proliferation in a very volatile region of the world.
I urge you to fully investigate the ATRJ co-development program, and carefully consider the implications to U.S. national security and U.S. Middle East policy. Thank you for your attention to this matter and I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senator.
Assistance Agency,
Washington, DC, May 10, 1994.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: This responds to your April 13, 1994, letter concerning the electronic warfare (EW) suite for the United Arab Emirates' (UAE) AH-64 Apache helicopter program.
The UAE has for some time been considering several United States and foreign EW systems for its AH-64 Apache helicopters. The Department of Defense and the UAE are exploring a two-phased approach under which the UAE would purchase a standard U.S. Army EW suite for its short-term needs, with a possible cooperative development program providing hardware for its long-term requirements. These discussions are still at an early stage, and no final decisions have been reached.
It is premature to speculate about the configuration and capabilities of any hardware that may result from a cooperative program several years hence, though it assuredly would not exceed the capabilities of equipment in use with our own forces. Should the United States and the UAE agree on such a program, you can be assured that all sensitive technologies would be protected and precautions taken against unauthorized disclosures.
The central objectives of our security assistance programs throughout the region are to enhance the self-defense capabilities of our friends and allies and to build the interoperability that will enable us to fight together should it ever become necessary. If successfully implemented, this program will fulfill both these objectives by providing UAE aircrafts with a defensive system that will be interoperable with U.S. systems and supportable through the U.S. logistics system.
I can assure you that our commitment to Israel's security remains unshakable. We would not even be considering such a program with the UAE if we believed that it would affect Israel's qualitative edge, which we are committed to maintaining. Please contact me if I can provide any additional information.
Sincerely,
Thomas G. Rhame.
Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I am concerned that the Defense appropriations bill deletes funding for the National Center for Manufacturing Science [NCMS]. I would also not the committee report contains language questioning the appropriateness of continued DoD funding for NCMS. I recognize and support the need for close scrutiny of programs funded by the Department of Defense, especially in this time of constrained budgetary resources. However, this Senator believes that the best way to ensure effective use of DoD research and development funding is through the dual-use technology and manufacturing policy currently being followed by the Department. As Anita Jones, Director of DDR&E, stated in her testimony before the Senate Armed Service Committee, `our vision for the 21st century manufacturing is for an integrated civil/ military industrial base that can provide a flexible response to our needs for a variety of product demands at varying rates, and can reduce the cost of defense products by getting components and subsystems from dual-use production lines.' Mr. President, the NCMS is designed specifically to accomplish just such a dual-use objective, and therefore is highly appropriate for DoD funding.
As to the concerns that have been raised as to the defense benefits of NCMS, it is my understanding that the Department and NCMS signed an agreement that provided that all funded projects must have a defense application and that DoD would receive royalty-free licenses to all technologies developed. It is also my understanding that more than 20 weapon systems currently utilize NCMS developed technologies, including the V-22 Osprey and the C-17.
Given the benefits accruing to DoD through NCMS' research projects, I hope that the Chairman of the Defense Subcommittee will reconsider this issue during Conference with the House.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to engage the distinguished Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy to clarify Section 8096 of this bill regarding defense reinvestment programs. Is it the Chairman's intent that this section should in no way impact the small business defense conversion guaranteed loan program?
Mr. INOUYE. The senior Senator from California is correct. Service 8096 does not impact the small business defense conversion guaranteed loan program.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to express my deep concern for those suffering from injuries to the brain and spinal cord. I have spoken with my distinguished colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, who appreciates the seriousness of this medical problem. And I would like an opportunity to further express my thoughts on this issue.
There are approximately 180,000 individuals in the United States who suffer from chronic spinal cord injury, with between 10 and 12 thousand new cases added each year. A substantial number of these individuals, approximately 45,600, are veterans--men and women who have served our Nation with honor and distinction. Sixty percent of these veterans receive treatment for these injuries exclusively from VA facilities, while another 23 percent use a secondary medical provider in addition to the VA.
We know that combat service can be very hazardous, and that injuries to the brain and spinal cord can occur both during combat related operations and noncombat related activities. They can and do occur from shell blasts, armed combat, bullet wounds, and sometimes, common accidents. Very often such injuries are fatal. For those who survive, the injuries are usually seriously debilitating.
Currently, our Nation spends approximately $1.4 billion per year for initial spinal cord injury medical treatment. And an additional $4 billion is spent each year for subsequent spinal cord injury treatment.
Our moral obligation to help our veterans, the need to help prevent deaths and aggravated injuries among active duty military personnel, as well as the costs associated with such injuries and treatment, are compelling reasons for us to invest in research efforts to develop effective treatment for those afflicted with such injuries.
That is why I believe that it is important that the Departments of Defense and Veterans' Affairs work together on this medical problem to assist both members in uniform and our veterans in this regard.
I am pleased that the Senate Armed Services Committee, on which I serve, recommended $20 million for a collaborative Department of Defense and Department of Veterans' Affairs research initiative for brain and spinal cord injury, with cost sharing as a prerequisite. I am confident that the authorization conference committee will support the Senate-passed provision.
Knowing that we share a similar concern in this area, I would like to ask the chairman questions to clarify the intent of his subcommittee with respect to the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995.
[Page: S11159]
Mr. INOUYE. I would be happy to respond to the Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator. It is my understanding that the chairman shares a similar concern regarding brain and spinal cord injury, and believes that such research should be considered a high priority for the two departments. Is that understanding correct?
Mr. INOUYE. Yes it is. I am well aware of the problems the Senator spoke of, and would support the use of funds appropriated in the bill for this research.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator. Is the distinguished chairman aware of the cost-shared brain and spinal cord injury research program authorized in S. 2182, the Defense authorization bill; and if so, is this a program that the chairman would support?
Mr. INOUYE. Yes, I am aware of the action taken by the Senate Armed Services Committee, on which the Senator from Florida serves, and I fully support their recommendations with regard to this brain and spinal cord injury initiative.
Mr. GRAHAM. Again, I thank my colleague for those words of support. Given the clear intent of the authorizing committee in the Senate to provide full funding for this collaborative initiative between the Departments of Defense and Veterans' Affairs, is it the intent of the distinguished floor manager that full funding would be available in the defense appropriations bill to carry out this meritorious program?
Mr. INOUYE. Yes, it is our intent and desire to provide the full amount authorized for the brain and spinal cord injury research initiative.
Mr. GRAHAM. Finally, is it also the desire of the appropriators for the Departments of Defense and Veterans' Affairs to act promptly to ensure that authorized and appropriated monies are directed to brain and spinal cord injury research?
Mr. INOUYE. Yes, it is.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the distinguished Senator from Hawaii and look forward to working with him during further consideration of the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995.
Mr. BOND. I would like to address the provision in the bill regarding the Air Force's 60K aircraft loader program.
There has been a lot of talk in recent months about the concept of buying commercial-derivative aircraft either to replace or supplement military aircraft such as the C-17 and C-5B. Despite one's view's one that subject--and I am one who has strong views--it is clear that the Air Force needs a new aircraft loader to replace its current inventory of Vietnam-era loaders. This new loader--the 60K loader--will be used to load and unload all types of cargo aircraft, however, it will be absolutely essential for operating any commercial derivative aircraft we buy, as well as the Civil Reserve airfleet aircraft. The new system will allow the Air Force to load supplies rapidly on its aircraft for vital military missions and humanitarian relief missions. given the daily commitments we face in airlift needs, the 60K loader is a vital part of the airlift master plan.
In its report, the committee has exercised its oversight responsibility and raised several valid concerns regarding the Air Force's progress on the 60K loader program. My office has been in contact with the Air Force on this matter, and they have said that any decrement in fiscal year 1995 funding could result in higher costs and possible delay for the program. In the Air Force appeal of our mark, they say our bill `actually increases risk as well as cost' of this program which the Air Mobility Command ranks second only to the C-17 in terms of requirements. I believe it is essential that we work with the Air Force to find a solution that meets the committee's concerns without causing harm or delay to the program. I hope the chairman will work with me and the Air Force to craft an equitable solution.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank my colleague for his statement. I understand his concerns about this program. I too, believe the 60K loader is a vital part of this Nation's future airlift capability. The committee has, indeed, voiced concerns about the structuring of the program. However, I would be glad to work with my colleague from Missouri in the conference committee to ensure that this program stays on an appropriate track. I will also direct the committee staff to work with the Air Force to resolve committee concerns. I believe we can work together to help the Air Force make this vital program a success.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman and ranking member for including in the committee report accompanying this bill an important provision directing a study of the Air Force's strike airpower requirements. I have been concerned for some time about the Air Force's plans regarding the future of our interdiction aircraft force. These aircraft--the F-117, F-111 and F-15E--played a key role in the Gulf War, and would certainly play a similar role in any future conflict.
The aircraft that make up the long-range interdiction force are the primary ones that can deliver precision guided munitions. In the Gulf War, we used them for striking hardened targets, for Scud hunting, and other priority strikes. Unfortunately, the future of the interdiction force appears to be bleak.
The Air Force reportedly has considered plans to retire the entire F-111 strike force. Although there are currently two full wings of F-15E's, normal attrition will take us below that amount in the near future. And there are only 56 F-117's remaining in the inventory at this time.
The F-117 line has been shut down for years. The Air Force has no current plans to buy additional F-15E's. And, in a development that only increases my concern, the Air Force has said that they plan to fill the eventual gap left by the F-111 with the F-16--an aircraft that does not have the range required to perform the mission, the ability to carry a similar weapons load, nor the same ability to deliver precision guided munitions as the F-111. Moreover, the ability of long range bombers to deliver precision guided munitions will be limited until about the turn of the century when these weapons begin to become available in adequate numbers.
It seems clear to me, that we face a major shortfall in interdiction aircraft as we enter the next century. The study ordered by the committee report on this bill will help us to focus on what that shortfall is, and how best to address it.
In my view, I believe the study ought to focus in on several specific points including:
First, the impact of the eventual retirement of F-111 aircraft on the Air Force's ability to conduct interdiction missions; second, the outlook for the interdiction force, assuming an eventual F-111 retirement and the expected attrition of F-15E and F-117 aircraft, and the ability of that force to meet planned requirements; third, the ability of existing aircraft (F-117, F-15E, F-16) to perform the mission currently being performed by the F-111--that is, the delivery of precision-guided munitions in the long-range interdiction role; fourth, the costs and operational effectiveness of continuing to operate the F-111 aircraft for the long-range interdiction role through the end of their expected service life; and fifth, the possible need for additional aircraft to fulfill the interdiction role.
I believe that a review of these issues will help both the Air Force and Congress to understand the challenge we face and begin to address it.
[Page: S11160]
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator from Missouri for his comments. I believe he has focused on an important issue--one that we will have to face in future budgets. I agree that the specific questions he has outlined are ones that, among other important considerations, should be covered in the independent strike airpower study to be performed by the Institute for Defense Analysis. I will do my best in conference to see that these issues are to be addressed comprehensively in the required study. I also intend to seek approval by the conference committee of the requirement that the full results of this study shall be submitted, in both classified and unclassified versions, to the congressional defense committees no later than June 1, 1995.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, this amendment would provide up to $10.5 million in fiscal year 1995 for the Navy to begin procurement of equipment to outfit the new Joint Training, Analysis and Simulation Center for U.S. Atlantic Command. The amendment does not add funds to the bill--it simply provides the authority for the Navy to use funds within the Other Procurement, Navy account to initiate this exciting new simulation Center.
Earlier this year, the Subcommittee on Military Readiness and Defense Infrastructure which I chair visited the Norfolk Naval complex to discuss readiness concerns with front-line operating units. During our visit, we met with Adm. Paul David Miller, the Commander in Chief of U.S. Atlantic Command to discuss readiness within USACOM.
During that discussion, Admiral Miller briefed the Subcommittee on the Command's plans for a Joint Training, Analysis and Simulation Center. The purpose of this Center will be to provide cost-effective joint training to support U.S. Atlantic Command's program for training joint task forces through simulation.
Mr. President, in June the Defense Science Board Task Force on Readiness, chaired by former Army Chief of Staff General Shy Meyer, issued its final report on readiness in the Department of Defense. This Task Force found that the Defense Department did not have good systems for measuring joint readiness, and urged DOD to provide `increased emphasis on Joint and Combined readiness and requirements, including development of joint mission essential task lists.'
The Readiness Task Force also called for enhanced use of modeling and simulation. Their final report recommends that `Modeling and simulation technology should be exploited to enhance joint and combined training and doctrine. It offers tremendous opportunity to leverage our existing training at all levels through enhancement or even replacement where appropriate after thorough review.'
In my view, Mr. President, this new Joint Training, Analysis and Simulation Center is exactly the kind of effort that is called for by the Defense Science Board Task Force on Readiness. This Center will serve to improve and measure joint readiness, and provide a laboratory for the improvement of joint tactics, throughout U.S. Atlantic Command.
This new facility will be located in the building which was constructed for the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Suffolk, VA. This building is under long-term lease to the Navy. Since the Naval Undersea Warfare Center is leaving this building as a result of the Base Realignment and Closure process, the use of the facility as the site for the Joint Training, Analysis and Simulation Center will make cost-effective use of this facility.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Mr. Louis Finch, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Readiness), to Senator Nunn describing the Joint Training, Analysis and Simulation Center be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Without objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Pentagon,
Washington, DC, June 23, 1994.
Hon. Sam Nunn,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your recent inquiries regarding the Joint Training, Analysis and Simulation Center (JTASC). The purpose of this Center is to provide cost-effective joint training to support the United States Atlantic Command's (USACOM) program for training joint task forces via simulation. This program will serve to improve and measure joint readiness, provide a laboratory for the improvement of joint tactics, and establish a secure CONUS joint environment for the demonstration of new technologies. It will occupy and use as a hub for these efforts the facility in Suffolk, Virginia, that is being vacated by the Naval Undersea Warfare organization.
To ensure there is no duplication of efforts, the JTASC fully intends to coordinate its efforts with those of the Services and other joint training efforts including those of the Joint Warfighting Center and the Armed Forces Staff College in Tidewater, Virginia, and those of the United States Special Operations Command for Special Operations Forces. It is my understanding that $10.548 million is required to finance the initial phase of this effort which is to procure command, control, communications and computer equipment for the Center.
Thank you for inquiry on this cost-effective program to improve joint readiness and other defense matters.
Sincerely,
LOUIS C. FINCH,
Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense, (Readiness).
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, since we have finished our work for this evening, and we will be returning at or about 1:30 tomorrow afternoon, may I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. FORD. Will the Senator withhold.
Mr. INOUYE. Certainly.
END