NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1997
(Senate - June 18, 1996)

Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] is recognized.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, the Senate begins consideration of S. 1745, the national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1997. In crafting this important legislation, the Committee on Armed Services placed the national security interests of the United States and the strength of our Armed Forces above other considerations. The national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1997 reflects the committee's bipartisan approach to these overarching priorities, and provides a clear basis and direction for U.S. national security policies and programs into the 21st century.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, Senator Nunn, for his outstanding leadership and cooperation in the formulation of this bill. It has been a singular privilege and honor for me to work with Senator Nunn over many years on the Armed Services Committee. I very much regret that this will be his last defense authorization bill, and hope that this bill will serve as a clear legacy to Senator Nunn's enduring contributions to the U.S. Armed Forces and this Nation's security.

I would also like to recognize the distinguished contributions to national security of Senator Cohen and Senator Exon. This bill is also the last defense authorization bill for these two outstanding Senators, and I would like to thank them for their dedication to and support of our Armed Forces.

Mr. President, the following priorities were our roadmap in formulating this authorization bill:

Ensuring national security and the status of the United States as the world's preeminent military power; protecting the readiness of our Armed Forces; enhancing the quality of life of military personnel and their families; ensuring U.S. military superiority by continuing to fund a more robust, progressive modernization program to provide required capabilities for the future; accelerating the development and deployment of missile defense systems; and preserving the shipbuilding and submarine industrial base.

I am satisfied that this bill does a good job in fulfilling these priorities. Let me mention some of its highlights:

The bill gives our service personnel a well-deserved 3-percent pay raise and 4-percent raise in quarters allowance, effective January 1, 1997.

It authorizes the award of the Congressional Medal of Honor to seven African-Americans who served during World War II.

The bill contains provisions to enhance our ability to protect our military forces from ballistic missile attacks.

It adds essential funding for the modernization of our Armed Forces, including: $40 million for the Marine Corps to develop revolutionary operational concepts and technologies through a warfighting laboratory known as Sea Dragon; a funding program for the Army's Force 21 initiatives to expedite the acquisition and evaluation of new

equipment and associated technology for the future force; and $997 million for advance procurement and construction of the next two nuclear attack submarines.

The bill also adds $1.2 billion to increase the readiness funding for otherwise unfunded priorities of the service chiefs, and it adds $150 million in funding for the Department of Defense's activities to combat the flow of illegal drugs into the United States.

Mr. President, I wish I could say that the national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1997 is a major step in the road to recovery for our Armed Forces. It is not. However, this bill does a much better job than the President's budget request in funding our Armed Forces. By offsetting the President's requested decreases in certain key programs, this bill enhances our national security, while still authorizing $7.4 billion less in real defense spending than last year's bill.

The main shortcoming in the President's budget request is its wholly inadequate funding for procurement. Our service chiefs, whose primary responsibility is to ensure that our forces are prepared and equipped to defeat any adversary, have repeatedly warned about increasing risks due to the low level of procurement. Our combatant commanders, who rely on adequately prepared and equipped forces to conduct military operations, have said the same. Further, General Shalikashvili, who as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is specifically directed to serve `as the spokesman for the combatant commanders, especially on the operational requirements of their commands,' has this to say about procurement: `We must commit ourselves to a sufficient procurement goal, a goal I judge to be approximately $60 billion annually.' Yet, despite the advice of his principal military adviser, the President requested only $39 billion for procurement. The Committee on Armed Services added $7.7 billion to this requested amount for procurement. To do any less would be to ignore the very advice we have charged our military leaders to provide.

As for the administration's repeated promises to compensate by increasing procurement in future years, the testimony of Admiral Owens, then-Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, is revealing:

[The administration said that in 1994] procurement would be at 64 billion. Of course, what really happened was that it went to 48 billion . . . and in 1995, [the administration] said [procurement] was going to 55 billion. But, in fact, what really happened was 46 billion. [The administration] promised [again] it would go up. [But] in 1996, we're . . . down to 39 billion and [the administration is] promising . . . it will go up.

As the saying goes, You don't learn much from the second kick of a mule. Or maybe I should say `donkey.' This administration's record is so bad, the Congress simply has no reason to believe that if we lower defense spending, the President will make up for it in future years.

Mr. President, some of my colleagues may feel that this is a time when we can afford to cut defense spending. In fact, history teaches us the opposite. We have always enjoyed a period of relative calm before the winds of war.

With the lethal technologies, emergence of fanatical movements, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction that exist today, we do not have the luxury of investing in our military after the fact. We must remain ready and fully capable, both to deter and defeat. Although we cannot--and should not--commit to every conflict where we might have an interest, we must be able to dominate those where we clearly do have vital national security interests. Imagine what this world would be like without United States involvement and leadership in World Wars I and II, the Korean war, and the Persian Gulf war. Without a strong military, our identity as Americans would be a shadow of what it is today.

Then, there are those who think that our military capabilities should depend solely on the threat. Their familiar refrain is: Where is the threat? What threat? That is exactly the point. What they see now is the result of a commitment to a strong defense in the past. When they do see a threat, it will be because of a lack of commitment to adequately fund our military today. As General Reimer, Army Chief of Staff, aptly says, `History shows that those who wish to threaten us will do so at our weakest point * * *. They will seek to exploit a perceived lack of U.S. commitment.'

Mr. President, our Armed Forces continue to suffer from a decline in size and spending levels. Fiscal year 1997 will witness the 12th straight decrease in defense funding, which has declined 41 percent since 1985. Some of my colleagues may not know what happened the last time our defense budget was this low. Let me tell them. Repeated budget cuts in the late 1940's, and their deleterious effects on our Armed Forces, served as a virtual invitation for aggression in Korea. By the time we saw this threat, it was too late. As described by former Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Creighton Abrams:

[Page: S6371]

We paid dearly for unpreparedness during those early days in Korea with our most precious currency--the lives of our young men. The monuments we raise to their heroism and sacrifice are really monuments we owe to ourselves for our blindness to reality, for our indifference to real threats to our security, and . . . for our wishful thinking about how war would not come.

In Korea, we suffered nearly 50,000 American dead and had to settle for an embarrassing stalemate. Indeed, that war has yet to officially end, and we are still living with its consequences.

Some saw Korea as a military embarrassment. But it was, in fact, a political embarrassment. Our lack of military readiness was a result of our lack of political commitment. I fear we may be laying the seeds for another Korea. Are we willing to suffer another such war?

Mr. President, this bill is a sound bill. It provides a foundation to build on to prepare our Nation's Armed Forces to meet the challenges of the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to join the members of the Committee on Armed Services, who voted this bill out of committee 20 to 0, and pass this bill with a strong bipartisan vote. Of special note, the committee vote reflects a consensus that the issue of national missile defense policy should be dealt with only in connection with S. 1635, the Defend America Act. Accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to refrain from offering amendments relating to national missile defense policy to the defense authorization bill. If Members on either side of the aisle wish to debate national missile defense policy, I suggest we proceed to consideration of S. 1635 as soon as possible following passage of the defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, I would like to remind my colleagues that any amendments to the defense authorization bill that would increase authorizations for defense spending should be accompanied by offsetting reductions. Finally, Mr. President, because the Armed Services Committee marked up this bill before the approval of this year's budget resolution, we marked to the defense allocation for fiscal year 1997 contained in last year's budget resolution. I want to assure the Senate that the amount authorized for defense will conform to the funding level designated in this year's budget resolution when we complete the conference on this bill.

I thank the Chair, and yield the floor.

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jerry Reed, a congressional fellow in my office, have the privilege of the floor during the consideration of this bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, Senator Nunn is expected to be here momentarily to make his opening statement. I expect that other Members will follow thereafter. We want to get as many statements completed during these initial hours as possible.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The senior Senator from West Virginia is recognized.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as if in morning business for the purpose of introducing a bill and making a statement thereon that will not exceed 10 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I thank the managers of the pending measure.

(The remarks of Mr. Byrd pertaining to the introduction of S. 1881 are located in today's Record under `Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.')

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Georgia has the floor.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, as we begin debate on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997, I first express my deep appreciation to Senator Thurmond, the chairman of the committee, for the bipartisan process under his leadership that was followed in marking up this legislation.

I also thank Senator Thurmond for the very gracious remarks he made about me. This is my last Defense authorization bill that I will be helping to manage on the floor, and I deeply appreciate his remarks but, most of all, his friendship and his leadership and his stalwart support of national security for the entire time I have been in the U.S. Senate and really for many years before.

I express my appreciation to Les Brownlee, the majority staff director, and the other members of the majority staff, for their hard work and cooperation during markup.

Of course, I add my deep appreciation, on a continuing basis, to Arnold Punaro, minority staff director, as well as all members of the minority staff working with Mr. Punaro.

The Armed Services Committee has a long tradition of members working across the aisle in the interest of national defense, and that was fully reflected in the process that was used to develop the bill now before us. So, Mr. President, I say to Senator Thurmond, I am very grateful to him and to his staff.

We have had and will continue to have issues on which there are sharp differences of opinion between Senators on that side of the aisle and this side of the aisle, and between Senators on both sides of the aisle among themselves. It is not simply a breakdown of Democrats versus Republicans. There are a lot of individual views on defense, and that is how it should be on a defense bill, as important as it is, as much money is involved and as much is at stake, which is, indeed, the stake of our national security and our freedom.

Those differences, however, should not obscure the fact there is a broad consensus in favor of the key features of this bill. Mr. President, there is strong support for provisions in the bill that enhance the quality of life for our men and women in uniform and their families, including a 3-percent pay raise, a 4-percent increase in basic allowance quarters, revised allowances for single personnel and for couples in which both spouses are members of the Armed Forces, and increased funding for military construction pertaining to family housing, unaccompanied personnel housing, dining facilities and, most important, child development centers.

The bill also continues many of the committee's key initiatives over the last decade, including modernization of weapons systems and support for programs essential to the readiness of our military forces.

Mr. President, there will certainly be a lot of controversy about the funding level in this bill, and I am sure we will have amendments to try to reduce the funding level of the bill. Let

me state, I believe the overall funding level of $267.4 billion represents a prudent increase by the committee to the administration's budget request. It is slightly higher than the $265.6 billion that is contained in the conference report on the budget resolution because that budget resolution contains later information related to inflation. These differences will not require any major readjustment of the committee's priority, but we will need to reduce either on the floor or in conference this bill from $267.4 to $265.6 billion, which is our guideline given to us by the budget resolution passed by both the House and the Senate.

I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the funding question will recognize that even with this plus-up of the Clinton administration's budget, this bill still represents a real decrease in spending from last year. So I am sure, as usual, all the reports and headlines will read that this is a vast increase in defense. That is not accurate. This is not an increase in defense. This $265.6 billion in the budget resolution, compared to last year, is a reduction in real dollar terms from last year's funding level, but it is an increase over the President's recommended level by about $11 billion.

Mr. President, some of the provisions of the bill are likely to be the subject of vigorous debate. Although we have avoided, thus far, many of the provisions that make the House-passed bill unacceptable to the administration, there are a number of issues that remain troublesome.

I think it is important for everyone to bear in mind it is clear the House bill and a number of its provisions are unacceptable to the administration, and I hope we can avoid that here. It is clear that we do have some issues that already are unacceptable in this bill to the administration. For example, the language relating to the demarcation line between theater and national missile defense, which is in our bill, is not at this time acceptable to the administration, and the language concerning multilateralization, or adding new parties to the ABM Treaty. Both of these provisions, it is my hope, can be worked in a way that will avoid a veto by the President of this bill, but that remains a very serious challenge.

We will also consider a number of amendments that are likely to draw broad bipartisan support, in terms of enhancing our national security. As I noted in my remarks on the floor on May 30, I have been working very diligently with Senator Lugar and Senator Domenici, and others, to address our Nation's lack of preparedness to cope with threats from the full range of weapons of mass destruction, including biological and chemical weapons.

We will have an amendment on this bill by Senator Lugar, Senator Domenici, and myself that will strengthen the ability of the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to assist local fire departments and police departments, local law enforcement, in terms of helping prepare them and equip them to deal with a possible chemical or biological attack by terrorists.

Mr. President, the nuclear component of that, the so-called NEST capability, already exists in the Department of Energy. We do not have anything comparable on the chemical or biological side. It is my judgment, after having numerous hearings on this subject, after having considerable indepth hearings and a long preliminary investigation of the Aum Shinrikyo and the religious cult attack in Tokyo over a year ago that killed 12 people but

injured 5,000. If that attack had been better prepared in terms of delivery system for the sarin gas, there would literally have been tens of thousands of people killed.

That was a religious cult that existed and had over $1 billion in assets, although more members are in Russia than Japan. They had tested sarin gas in Australia and even embarked on preliminary stages of trying to develop biological weapons. They had a very serious chemical stockpile and had already, previous to the Tokyo attack, carried out other smaller chemical attacks in Tokyo.

Not many of us would have predicted Japan would have been the first place that would have happened, but it is predictable that effort is going to be made in the United States, by either foreign or domestic terrorists.

We had the World Trade Center attack. We have seen the devastation of that explosion. What many people do not realize, and what the judge noted in his findings, is that attack on the World Trade Center also included a chemical weapon that was consumed by the flames and, therefore, did not activate and did not cause damage. The damage was done by the conventional-type weapons.

So we have already, according to the judge, had a chemical attempt in this country. So it is almost predictable, with very little doubt, that we are going to have chemical and biological efforts made against soft targets in this country, including our cities, including our population centers, over the next 5 to 10 years.

We can either begin to get in front of it and deal with it in advance, try to prevent it from happening, or we can wait until it happens and then have everybody say, `Why didn't we do something about it?'

Mr. President, we are going to try to do something about it on this bill. We are going to have an amendment that would have the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, in a very carefully prescribed way--we are not getting DOD and DOE involved in enforcing the law at a domestic level. We are not talking about that. We are talking about having them help prepare, in terms of training, in terms of equipment, our local police, and fire officials around this country to deal with what almost all experts on terrorism believe is an inevitable kind of threat we face to our own country.

We have seen the work of domestic terrorists in Oklahoma City and the terrible, terrible destruction that was caused in terms of human suffering in Oklahoma City and to the Murrah Building there. We have seen the attack in Tokyo. We have seen the World Trade Center attack. Fortunately, the chemical part of that attack did not activate. There was enough destruction without it, but it would have been truly of a worse magnitude had the chemical component really done its job.

Mr. President, we have also seen in Russia the Chechen or some group representing the Chechen rebels put a radiological weapon in a very prominent place near Moscow, a radiological weapon being using the radiation from nuclear materials without causing an explosion but causing huge destruction. That was not an effort to actually use the weapon but a warning that it could be done.

So we are in a different kind of world now. We have moved from an era of very high risk of nuclear war to an era of much lower risk of nuclear war. But we have moved from an era of high stability because of that very risk of nuclear war and because the two superpowers knew that, if their clients got into a war or if there was some event that came that got out of control, the whole escalation could take place and we could have a nuclear war.

Because of that, we had high stability, high risk but high stability, during the cold war. We moved to much lower risk in terms of a nuclear war. We can all be very thankful for that because of the change in climate, because of the arms control agreements, because of the substantial number of nuclear weapons in the Soviet Union. All of that greatly reduces the risk of nuclear war.

But the decline of the Soviet Empire has also ushered in a new era of lower stability, meaning that there are countries all over the world that are having ethnic, religious conflict. We no longer have the two superpowers who are basically policing the world so that we do not have conflict between two superpowers.

We are in another era. We are in an era of organized crime not only in Russia but in many other places. We are in an era where we have had the first empire in history disintegrate but still containing 30,000 or so nuclear weapons, over 40,000 tons

of chemical weapons, and no one even knows how much in the way of biological weapons, and also scientists all over the former Soviet Union, not just in Russia, who know how to make these weapons of mass destruction, who know how to make ballistic missiles, but in many cases do not know how they are going to feed their families, and rogue nations all over the world trying to develop these kinds of capabilities, as we have seen in the past in Iraq and other places.

The combination of organized crime, terrorism, empire disintegration, tons of material and know-how in terms of weapons of mass destruction, all of that combined means that we are in a different era. What we have to make sure of, in terms of our overall debate in both the ballistic missile defense area, as well as this Nunn-Lugar-Domenici No. 2 effort, as we can call it, we have to make sure that we are not so obsessed with the past that we cannot think of the future.

The future kind of threats we are going to face are going to be different. We are going to have to be more agile, as David Abshire, president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in a recent article he wrote. We are going to have to be more agile, more flexible. We are going to have to understand the threats that face us in the future. And we are going to have to understand that the Department of Defense mission is still to protect the national security of this country. Included in that mission, I think at this stage, is a very critical need to help our police officials and our fire officials be able to deal with the kind of threat that they may face in the future.

Mr. President, I will have more to say on this subject. I know that Senator Lugar and Senator Domenici will have more to say. But I did want to let people on both sides of the aisle know that sometime in the next few days while we are considering this bill there will be that kind of an amendment.

Mr. President, it will be aimed primarily on the domestic side. It will be very carefully framed so that there will be no doubt that we are not getting DOD and DOE involved in the actual enforcement of the law. That is not the effort here. It is to equip and train and prepare our law enforcement officials to deal with these kinds of threats. There will be a part 2 of this that will deal with a growing need to beef up our Customs Service to make sure that they can do their part and do it well in preventing those kinds of materials from ever getting into this country, and also to help them be more effective in preparing the customs services of other nations, particularly the former Soviet Union, in preventing materials from getting out of those countries--a growing threat.

So, Mr. President, there really are three parts of this overall Nunn-Lugar effort. Part one is already underway and has been for about 4 or 5 years. That is, in my mind, still the most crucial need because the window is open for cooperation with these former Soviet states, including but not limited to Russia. We are helping to do that. The last missile was just taken out of the Ukraine. The last nuclear warhead was taken out of the Ukraine the other day. So this is a remarkable success.

Two years ago it appeared we were going to have four new nuclear states coming out of the one old one, the Soviet Union. It appeared we were going to have a nuclear component, very strong nuclear component, not only in Russia, but in the Ukraine, also in Kazakhstan and also in Belarus. I know all

nuclear warheads have been taken out of Kazakhstan, all nuclear warheads have been taken out of Ukraine, and the last weapons, I am told, will be taken out of Belarus this year. The missiles will be destroyed. The Nunn-Lugar program has helped facilitate that. Secretary of Defense Perry told us this morning at the armed services breakfast, without that program we could not have done what has been done. There is a long way to go. There is a lot left to do.

The most prominent feature of this program has been stopping these weapons at the source, preventing them from leaking all over the world. It is going to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars--if we have nuclear materials and chemical and biological materials and missile technology know-how disbursed all over the world, it is going to cost us hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars to defend against it. Even then it will be extremely difficult to defend against.

The first priority is to stop it at the source, to help these countries--not only Russia, but Ukraine and Kazakhstan and Belarus and others--get control of their own borders, to help them understand the priority of controlling nuclear materials and chemical materials and biological materials and know-how; second, to make sure that they have strong and effective border control and, where they want our help, to help them in that regard; third, to beef up our borders here in this country, to beef up our border protection; and, fourth, to be able to deal with this kind of catastrophe if it ever occurs. First to deter it, prevent it domestically, but to be able to deal with it, not only with police departments and fire departments, but also with health departments.

In the Aum Shinrikyo attack in Tokyo, the Japanese police were certainly not prepared. There is no doubt about that. But the health officials, under the circumstances, did a pretty good job. There is strong indication that the Japanese were better prepared to deal with the health aspects of this kind of chemical attack than we are in this country. In fact, one of the key agencies in HHS to deal with this, one of the few agencies, very, very thinly staffed, has had almost all of its funding cut in the House. I hope that can be corrected because I am sure that the people who made those cuts did not realize the context in which that agency would have to work. So we are going to be talking about all those issues.

[Page: S6373]

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following named 14 minority staff members on the Committee on Armed Services and two congressional fellows be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of and votes relating to S. 1745, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997.

Minority staff members: Christine E. Cowart, Richard D. DeBobes, Andrew S. Effron, Andrew B. Fulford, Daniel B. Ginsberg, Mickie Jan Gordon, Creighton Greene, Patrick T. Henry, William E. Hoehn, Jr., Jennifer A. Lambert, Michael J. McCord, Frank Norton, Jr., Arnold L. Punaro, Julie K. Rief, James R. Thompson III. Congressional fellows: Maurice B. Hutchison and DeNeige V. Watson.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, summing up my remarks, I pledge to Senator Thurmond my cooperation on this bill. The chairman has an awesome responsibility to be here on the floor, to help manage the bill and to make judgment on amendments. My role will be to help him and assist him where he calls on me and where I can be of help.

I hope that people who have important amendments will come to the floor and begin that process in the next few hours. I know that the majority leader is under a great deal of pressure with a lot of other bills. I have never known us to be able to pass this bill in less than 3 or 4 days. It is my hope that we can do that in this context. That will depend on the cooperation of all of the Members.

I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to thank the able Senator from Georgia, Senator Nunn, for his kind remarks. It will be a pleasure working with him on this bill. He is a former chairman of this committee. He is now the ranking member and does a very fine job for defense, and we are very proud of him.

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Craig Williams, a fellow on the staff of Senator McCain, be granted the privilege of the floor during the discussion of S. 1745.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield Senator Inhofe 15 minutes. Is that sufficient?

Mr. INHOFE. Yes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.

Mr. INHOFE. First of all, Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator, the chairman of the committee, Senator Thurmond, for all of his hard work. I really believe that our committee has spent a lot of time, has had a lot of bipartisan cooperation in coming up with a product, which I think is still inadequate but is still the very best that we could come up with at this time.

I think it is very unfortunate that most American people do not realize what a crisis our country is in in terms of our defense. I was very proud the other day before Senator Thurmond's committee when the four Chiefs of the four services came in and made the statement that we are $20 billion underfunded in our procurement accounts. I think this is something that we have to listen to because this is unprecedented. At least I do not recall any time in history when the Chiefs themselves have come in and said that the President's budget is underfunding procurement by $20 billion.

They said that we need to get it up there in order to have the very minimum requirements the American people expect to defend our country.

The administration's request is almost $20 billion less, in real terms, than we are spending this year, and there are several of us who are trying to do something about this by adding back an amount of money.

So I guess what I am trying to say is that the authorization that we are dealing with in this bill is still, in my opinion, inadequate. Yet, I think it is the best that we can do at this time. Our budget has actually decreased for 12 consecutive years.

There is a lot of talk about what to do about the deficit. All of the liberals will point toward defense and say, `We need to cut defense spending,' when we have done nothing but cut defense spending for the last 12 consecutive years. Back during the Kennedy administration, 60 percent of our budget went to defending America and 17 percent to human services. Now, 17 percent of our budget goes to defending America and 60 percent goes to human services. It just shows the change that has taken place in the attitude of the function of Government.

We talked about the balanced budget amendment not long ago, and the fact that we need to do something to bring it into balance. So they always point toward national defense, when we have already taken cuts there.

It is kind of interesting that there is a study documented --and it has not been refuted on the floor of the Senate, and I brought this up several times--that shows that if we were to put growth caps on Government--one was a 2-percent cap, and one was a 2.5-percent cap--we could actually balance the budget without cutting one Federal program. I can assure you that I would be delighted to have that kind of treatment in our defense budget because it has deteriorated and consistently gone down over the years. Since World War II, there have only been 4 years that have been lower than we are right now--1947, 1948, 1949, and 1950. This is the lowest budget since 1950.

So it gets down to the question, is there a reason for this? Is it because the threat is not as great out there as it was in previous years? I suggest that that is a matter of interpretation. You will get a lot of difference of opinion on this floor. To me, it is incontrovertible.

I have some articles I will submit for the Record. I am going to paraphrase these. The first one--this is just in the last few days--was in the Washington Times. The last paragraph of this is:

[Page: S6374]

In a report released ahead of publication today, Stern-- that is the German magazine.
Said the plant was similar to one in Tarhunah, Libya. The United States says that complex is a chemical weapons factory. Libya says it is an irrigation plant.

Then we have what appears to be a new relationship between Syria and Iraq. This was an article in the Washington Times on June 5.

The third article I will submit is `U.S. Investigates Ukraine-Libya Alliance.' This is kind of a scary thing that is going on right now. All of these are recent.

The fourth article is, `Report Cites China-Pakistan Missile Links.'

A new, draft U.S. Government report states that all intelligence agencies believe with `high confidence' that Pakistan has obtained medium-range ballistic missiles made by China, and says for the first time that Pakistan probably has finished developing nuclear warheads for these missiles, U.S. officials said yesterday.

Of course, we have been talking, time and time again, about the threat that is out there that is different than it has been before. I understand that we are not going to be really addressing the national missile defense problem that we have. We tried to do that with the Defend America Act.

We have a President in the White House who vetoed last year's authorization bill because his veto message was that he did not want to spend more money on national missile defense.

Time and time again, we have Members of this body stand up and talk about, well, we cannot spend another $50, $60, $70, or $80 billion more on star wars. Star wars is just a term to try to make it appear as if there is not any real threat out there. I suggested that back in 1983. We recognized that, in the medium term, we were going to have to defend America against ICBM's, a missile attack with weapons of mass destruction.

Now, everything has gone in accordance with the schedule that was articulated at that time by President Reagan. So that here we are today with a system that was to be in place by the year 2000, and we have an investment of approximately $50 billion in a national missile defense system.

Yet, we stopped it dead in its tracks in spite of the fact that the Russians have missiles, that China has missiles, and the Taepo Dong II missile from North Korea is one that will be able to reach the United States by somewhere around between the year of 1999 and 2002.

So the threat is very real. It is out there. And we have people that are of the caliber of Saddam Hussein who made the statement back at the time of the Persian Gulf war. He said, `If we had waited to invade Kuwait for 5 more years we would be able to have the missile capability of reaching the United States.' Would he do it? Sure he would. Anyone who would kill his own grandchildren would do something like that. Look at what is happening in Libya. Qadhafi is developing weapons of mass destruction, and they have a new alliance with the Ukraine. We have very real problems that are out there.

The Senator from Georgia, Senator Nunn, mentioned the crisis, the disaster, the bombing of the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City and all the tragedy that was linked to that. It is something--that unless you are there to see not just the loss of lives of 168 innocent people but the brutality that was with it; the fact that all that happened with one bomb that is the equivalent of 1 ton of TNT. The smallest nuclear warhead known is 1 kiloton--1,000 times that power; that explosive power. So just imagine. No one is immune from that type of threat.

We saw just recently China and how overt they are getting right now in the Taiwan Straits with their missile testing that is taking place. Then the statement that was made by a high ranking Chinese official--it has been verified that he did say it. He said, `We are not concerned with the United States coming in and defending Taipei because they would rather defend Los Angeles.' At a very minimum it is an indirect threat. Are we being held hostage? I think we are.

We see the new developments in Syrian-controlled Lebanon and throughout the Middle East; that when Jim Woolsey 2 years ago--it has been 2 years now since. He certainly would not be considered a Republican. He was a CIA Director under two Democratic Presidents including President Clinton--said 2 years ago that we know of between 20 and 25 nations that have or are developing in the final stages weapons of mass destruction, either biological, chemical, or nuclear, and working on the missile means of delivering it. That was 2 years ago. He has come out since then and expanded that up to 30 nations.

So we are not talking about the days when we had two superpowers. Of course, we are looking at elections taking place right now in Russia. We do not know how they are going to come out. But we see a change in attitude in the former Soviet Union. We saw what happened in the newest elections last December when the Communists took over 153 seats to Yeltsin's 54 and Zhirinovsky roughly 53 or 54 seats. So we are seeing a change there.

But let us assume that there was tranquillity and there was no problem between the United States and the former Soviet Union, as we talked about, during the cold war. The threat was there. I have always contended that the threat during the cold war was not as great as the threat is now because at least we could identify who enemy was at that time. We had the Soviet Union and we had the United States. We had at that time a treaty, an ABM Treaty, and said that we were going to agree to downgrade our nuclear capability. That was called mutually assured

destruction. `You shoot at us. We shoot back at you. Everyone dies, and everybody is happy.' That is no longer the case. I did not agree with the policy. That was not a Democratic policy. It came under Nixon and Kissinger. That did not make any sense. But there were those who did believe it was worthwhile. I talked to Kissinger about it. He said, `It's nuts to make a virtue out of our vulnerability.' That is what we have done. So here we are out there adhering to a policy through START II, which in my interpretation puts us back with the ABM Treaty where we are downgrading our nuclear capability with one other nation while the rest of the 25 or so rogue nations are increasing their nuclear capability.

So I think that we do not address that in this. We should be addressing that in this authorization bill. But I know what would happen if we did. We would not get it passed and the President would veto it because he said that he would.

So I say, Mr. President, that this bill does not go far enough. We have real serious problems today. During the Persian Gulf war we had 26 divisions. We are going to be down to 15 divisions with this. I think that it is a very serious threat. We are right now No. 9, as I understand it, in ground forces, having been passed by Pakistan.

So America is not at the strength level that America should be. While I say that, I am supporting this bill because it is the only dog in the fight. We need to have an authorization bill. I support this.

Since the beginning of our country's history, national security has been the most solemn obligation our Government holds with its citizens. In order to honor this obligation, top priority must be given to the forces that guarantee our national security. These forces do not ask much of us for their service. But they do need a certain amount of support from their Government in order to carry out their duties and protect the security of the United States as well as maintain our status as the world's preeminent military power.

However, in order to allow our military to honor their sworn duty, we have to provide them with the means to do many things. We must give them the authority to retain ample manpower in the form of adequate end strengths. Our military must have the means to recruit high-quality personnel to carry us into the 21st century. In addition, in order to keep our high-quality personnel, and protect their quality of life which is so important in maintaining morale, we must provide them with equitable pay and benefits--including a 3-percent pay raise to protect against inflation--and appropriate levels of funding for the construction and maintenance of troop billets and military family housing.

We must keep the battle sword sharp by providing enough resources to maintain readiness and continue modernization efforts to provide the capabilities needed for future wars. Our military must also be given the means to field the type and quantity of weapons systems and equipment needed to fight and win battles decisively, with minimal risk to our troops, just as they did in the gulf war.

Another important lesson learned in the gulf war was that we need to be able to protect our troops from ballistic missiles, missiles that are capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction. Whether it is nuclear, chemical, or biological, we must protect our forces while they are in the field and we must protect their families at home. The way we do this is through the development and deployment of missile defense systems: land and sea-based theater missile defense systems, which can protect United States and allied forces against cruise and ballistic missiles while deployed in the field; and a national missile defense system to defend American families at home. We will have a ballistic missile defense, it will either be before--or after--we first need it.

I have spoken about what we must provide for our military, now I would like to point out what we can take away. To begin with, we can eliminate defense spending that does not contribute directly to the national security of the United States; such as policing of the Olympic Games. More importantly, we should stand back and evaluate U.S. involvement in nontraditional military operations, and its impact on combat readiness, budgeting, and our national interests. Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti; these and other police actions continue to drain defense funds and put a strain on personnel who are already being stretched beyond their breaking point--the breaking point that our military as a whole is rapidly approaching. Bosnia alone is going to cost American taxpayers $3 billion in defense dollars.

Some people never seem to see a breaking point, however. They say we are spending enough on defense. Some say that we are spending far more money on defense than other countries.

Well--of course we spend more money on defense than other countries. In fact, in 1996 the United States will spend three times as much on defense as any other country on Earth, and more than all its prospective enemies and neutral nations combined.

There are two problems with this comparison, however: it assumes that all countries are equal, and it suggests that the comparison between how much the United States spends versus other nations is a legitimate measure of which side will prevail in a conflict. But because of geography, all things aren't equal. We are separated from our potential enemies by two great oceans. And rather than fighting wars in our own backyard, Americans prefer to fight `over there.' Because we prefer to fight abroad, it will naturally cost us much more than it costs our enemies to field the same force, since we have to transport, sustain and operate our fighting force in a place where his already is. Each of these activities--moving, sustaining and fighting far away--increases the cost of our military without significantly changing the friendly-to-enemy force ratio. This cost is raised further if we want to field a force that is not just equivalent to our enemy's, but one that can defeat his force, again, with minimal casualties as in the gulf war. The question, therefore, is not whether we will be paying more for our armed forces than our enemy does, but rather how much more we must pay. Is the right number three times as much, as with Russia, or more?

More than 2,000 years ago, Sun Tzu said you should have five times the strength of an enemy to assure success. Well, there have been some changes in warfare since Sun Tzu's time. We now have tanks, and planes, and submarines, so the ratio has changed a little. And we can stand here and argue till we are blue in the face over what the proper force level is; two times, three times, five times as much as the other guy. But the cost of our unique geography makes any comparison between what we pay and what our enemies pay irrelevant. The point is: if you want to fight, `over there,' and win, decisively, with minimal losses, then you can expect to pay many times what the enemy pays for his military.

Now, the people who complain that we spend three times as much on defense as any other country on Earth are smart people.

They know that we must cross our oceans to fight. They know that what we consider defense spending may not be what our enemies consider defense spending: First, there is the high cost of our high-quality volunteer military: recruiting, paying, providing medical care and retirement. Many people do not realize it, but two-thirds of our defense budget is spent on paying people. Then there is the cost of supporting our worldwide surveillance network, our nuclear deterrent and so on. They know these costs are unique to the United States but they choose to ignore it in their arguments. Why? Because it supports their view of proper levels of defense spending.

We can disagree on what it takes to field a given capability, but let us drop these invalid comparisons and let us deal with the facts. And with the facts in hand, let us spend no more than necessary to get the job done, and let us spend enough to fight, `over there,' and win, decisively, with minimal losses.

In this regard, I have to say I was disappointed by the administration's budget request for 1997 defense spending. The administration's fiscal year 1997 budget request was $18.6 billion less in real terms than the level enacted for fiscal year 1996. Now, let me put that

another way; in real terms, since the end of WWII, there have only been 5 years that the United States has spent less than the Clinton administration is recommending for fiscal year 1997. Only in fiscal year 1947, fiscal year 1948, fiscal year 1949, fiscal year 1950, those years immediately following WWII, and fiscal year 1955 immediately after the Korean War, has defense spending been so low that it is less than the President's recommendation for this year. Not even during the hollow force years of the 70's have we spent so little on defense. Clearly, it is time that we address these shortcomings.

As we prepare to vote on the fiscal year 1997 defense bill, it should come as no surprise, that I am truly concerned about the effects that decreasing levels of defense spending have had upon our Armed Forces. If the general public fully understood the severity of defense cuts under the Clinton administration, I believe that they would also be very concerned. In my State of Oklahoma, I have heard this message already. We can see the cuts all around us and it is time to put these reckless defense cuts to an end. History has demonstrated that superpower status cannot be sustained cheaply, nor can it be sustained by budget requests which do not provide for adequate funding of our forces. I am committed to maintaining America's superpower status. However, I am skeptical about the administration's commitment to this goal.

Right now our military--the finest fighting force on this Earth--is being torn in two directions. Our spending on defense is decreasing, while at the same time, the demands on our personnel are increasing. We are stretching the rubber band tighter and tighter, and if defense funding levels do not increase, I fear the rubber band will break and this dangerous combination may result in an exodus of high quality, trained-personnel and, ultimately, a military crises.

It is our duty, as Senators of the United States, to do our part in providing for our national security. In doing our part, we must vote for a defense bill which gives our military the means to do their part. Our forces do not ask much of us for their service, but they do need a certain amount of support from their Government in order to carry out their duties and protect the security of the United States of America.

I feel it is time we take a more responsible approach to defending this Nation, and I therefore urge my colleagues to support the fiscal year 1997 DOD authorization and its modest increase over the administration request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that four articles be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

[Page: S6376]

[Page: S6377]

Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to commend the able Senator from Oklahoma for his fine statement. He is a valuable member of the Armed Services Committee. We appreciate his coming here and making a good statement.

I now yield to the able Senator from Indiana, Senator Coats, another valuable member of the Armed Services Committee.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank our chairman and my friend, the Senator from South Carolina, for his kind statements and for allowing me this time.

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

First of all, Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff, Maj. Sharon Dunbar, be allowed permission to be on the floor during the debate on the defense authorization bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I have a somewhat lengthy statement which I will try to abbreviate. There are essential points which I would like to make as we are debating the 1997 national defense bill.

The President's proposed defense budget of $254 billion is, in my opinion, the epitome of a mindset that has been prevalent throughout the Congress and this administration that the military can do more with less. Not only does this budget figure as has been proposed to us constitute the 12th consecutive year of decline for defense spending but it flies squarely in the face of his many pledges and commitments to ensure a strong national defense, and at the same time in the face of this declining figure of 12 straight years our military is being asked to do more and more, to be prepared to do more, and actually is committed to more conflicts and more deployments around the world than it has in a long, long time.

In his 1994 State of the Union Address the President said:

From the day I took the oath of office, I pledged that our Nation would maintain the best equipped, best trained, and best prepared military on Earth.

This year's defense budget is a disavowal of that pledge--that falls far short of meeting many of the needs of our Armed Forces. But the President's rhetoric in this instance, as in many other instances and many other issues, simply does not match the record. The President has praised our men and women in uniform for their courage and skill, and yet each budget that he sends up refuses to back up that praise and that commitment with adequate resources to allow them to do their job.

Let me just give a couple of examples. In the area of procurement, in order to ensure future military readiness and superiority against threats from outside by tyrants, terrorists, rogue nations, and others, our military needs to, on a regular basis, recapitalize existing equipment and buy new systems.

There is amazing change taking place today in technology and what is available to us. We saw vivid pictures of that during Desert Storm--a revolution in terms of the way warfare is fought to engage in that size conflict with that number of troops, and to come away with as few casualties as we have. It was extraordinary. Never in the history of warfare has this happened. It is due to those changes in technology which allow us to have a significant advantage over our adversaries. It is due to the extensive training of troops to utilize that new technology, to outstanding leadership, and the availability of a synergy of training, quality personnel, quality leadership, and modern technology in new weapons.

Yet, in spite of warnings by senior military officials that procurement is in a crisis, in the defense budget the President seeks to fund procurement at its lowest level since the Korean war--$21 billion less than what senior military leaders have testified as required by the year 1998. We are significantly under the procurement budget that is necessary to maintain pace with recapitalization of existing equipment.

[Page: S6377]

Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?

I now yield to the able Senator from Indiana, Senator Coats, another valuable member of the Armed Services Committee.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank our chairman and my friend, the Senator from South Carolina, for his kind statements and for allowing me this time.

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I have a somewhat lengthy statement which I will try to abbreviate. There are essential points which I would like to make as we are debating the 1997 national defense bill.

In his 1994 State of the Union Address the President said:

From the day I took the oath of office, I pledged that our Nation would maintain the best equipped, best trained, and best prepared military on Earth.

The war-fighting commanders, military service chiefs, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have all testified to their deep concerns about the President's budget. These senior military leaders universally have identified readiness, quality of life, and modernization as desperately requiring attention and increased funding. The Senate Armed Services Committee has weighed their testimony carefully. It authorized an additional $12.9 billion over the President's budget based upon the military's own needs and requirements. Even with this addition, the 1997 committee bill will still be $5.6 billion below the inflation-adjusted spending levels of last year's defense bill.

So Members and colleagues need to understand that even though we are adding this to the President's request, we are still below what is necessary to maintain a level of funding over last year's bill.

So we are now entering the 12th consecutive year of defense declines. The defense bill before us does not provide our troops with what is required for the defense of our Nation, what is required to sustain military superiority in a rapidly changing global environment. Rhetoric matters little if our troops lack the resources they need to execute the mission or enjoy an acceptable quality of life during military service. The bill that we are bringing forward authorizes our Armed Forces to modernize their equipment, to replace aging trucks, ships, and aircraft, and encourages our military to develop new operational capabilities based on emerging technologies and to better prepare themselves for a military technological revolution that may well be ushered in in the next century, a revolution that may profoundly change the character of future conflicts.

Finally, the bill that the Armed Services Committee is bringing forward will improve the quality of life of our military personnel by addressing compensation, work and living conditions. Addressing these issues will enable the troops to focus on their mission rather than worry about the welfare of themselves or of their families.

So, Mr. President, what I am stating here is that had we followed the President's requested budget, we would not have begun to address the concerns that were laid out before us as members of the committee and members of the armed services leadership came and testified.

With this $12.9 billion plus up, in addition, even though we fall short of maintaining parity with spending last year inflation adjusted, we do address some of the critical areas that need to be addressed, primarily improving our readiness, improving quality of life for our troops and their families and beginning the process of modernizing to keep pace with the technological changes that are before us.

As chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, I have had the opportunity to visit our troops, listen to them testify before our committee and meet with them at many military installations around the country and the world. With a 30 percent less force structure, I found that our military is overextended in meeting many of the new demands of the post-cold-war world. By demanding more of those who remain in the military after a nearly 40 percent decrease in personnel levels and spending levels but by not training or equipping them to conduct these additional missions, we are eroding the state of military readiness and the quality of life of our military members.

Let me give some examples. What is called personnel tempo,

that is, the amount of time our military members spend away from their home base, has increased considerably since the end of the cold war. Today, four times as many Air Force personnel are deployed as there were in 1989. People think we are in this peace period, post-cold-war period, where most of our troops are staying home and not having commitments for deployment or heavy training. That is simply not the case. Air Force personnel are deployed at four times the rate they were in 1989. General Reimer, the Army Chief of Staff, indicated that requirements for the Army forces have risen 300 percent during that time.

Today, more than 41,000 U.S. soldiers are currently deployed on nearly 170 missions in 60 countries. General Sheehan, the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Atlantic Command, has testified that he has forces deployed in 18 separate operations worldwide, 70 ships, 400 aircraft, and 37,000 personnel. At this pace, maintenance, morale, and readiness rapidly erode if they do not have the resources capable of meeting these demands.

General Reimer has testified:

[Page: S6378]

Excessive time away from home is often cited by quality professionals as the reason for their decision to leave the military. It is common to find soldiers that have been away from home for 140, 160 or 190 days in the past year. The Army's future depends upon our ability to retain the best soldiers to be tomorrow's leaders.

The quality of our Armed Forces, their training, their professionalism, and their commitment, is what distinguishes the American military from all the others. Today we have an excellent, dedicated force, but in order to attract and retain the quality of personnel for which our military is known, we must pay attention to their needs and concerns.

Quality of life is a factor of readiness that we cannot ignore. It involves not just where our military families live but how they live. We must not forget that training programs and the quality-of-life initiatives are major investments in the future of our Armed Forces. If we fail to address these issues today, our Armed Forces will suffer the consequences tomorrow.

The defense bill before us addresses the quality-of-life issues that matter the most to our military personnel and their families. Included in this legislation are provisions to provide equitable pay and benefits and to restore funding for troops, barracks, and military family housing. The committee added $122 million to the fund for family housing requirements. This need was pointed out clearly by General Krulak, Commandant of the Marine Corps, who expressed his concern about conditions of housing. General Krulak testified:

We are not where we ought to be. I went with my godchild to his barracks and was appalled at what he was living in. Appalled is probably a mild word for it. We are building some barracks, we are building some homes, but it is not to the level that I as Commandant or you as a public servant would be very pleased about. It is simply a matter of available money.

Mr. President, I have visited barracks and family housing units at bases across this country and in different parts of the world. I wish I could take every Member of the Senate to these bases and show them personally what we are providing for our troops in terms of living arrangements. They would be appalled to see the conditions that we are asking our service members and their families to live in. Today, over 60 percent of all military housing is deemed substandard by military standards, and those military standards are far lower than the standards we find in civilian occupations outside of the military--soldiers with rotting shower stalls and running toilets, half of which do not work, with drywall with holes punched through, with leaky, rusted pipes and units with asbestos in the ceilings and in the walls. It is just extraordinary to see the disrepair that our troops are required to live with and raise their families in.

I commend the Secretary of Defense for understanding this problem and taking initiatives to address this problem. He has established both an internal task force and an external task force to address this housing problem, but housing year after year after year has been deferred and delayed in terms of rebuilding new housing and maintaining existing housing because we have had scarce resources and have had to divert those resources into the essential needs of readiness and training and pay for our personnel, and yet we have ignored the very facilities in which they live. Members would feel it a disgrace if they visited these facilities. Members here would not think of raising their families under the conditions that our soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen are required to raise their families in. Soldiers today are pooling their own funds and going down to Home Depot to buy materials to bring back to their barracks to fix their shower stalls, to fix leaky windows, to fix rotting ceilings, to repair the facilities that they live in, with their own money on their own time.

Our units are being organized by their commanders to do self-work projects in order just to obtain minimal living standards. It is a disgrace. So, for those who come to this floor and say the military has money flowing out of its pockets and is wasting taxpayers' dollars on defense needs, I would like them to join me on a short trip to a number of facilities so they can see what kind of quality of life our troops have, what conditions they are asked to live in.

We take great pride in providing our troops with the best training, the best leadership, and the best weapons. Yet, when it comes to quality of life, whether it comes to the time they spend with their family or take the weekend off, they return to a substandard quality of life that this Nation ought to be ashamed of.

One of the ways in which the committee is attempting to close this gap between military housing costs and housing allowances, to span that gap, is we have recommended a 4-percent increase in the basic housing allowance. We also have authorized single E-5's to receive basic allowance for quarters, one of the Navy's highest quality-of-life priorities.

In addition, we provided a 3-percent pay raise for our troops, both needed and well deserved, which is, again, less than the Congressional Budget Office's 3.2 inflation estimate, but it is close. So it is hardly unreasonable to ask for a 3-percent increase in pay.

Additionally, General Shelton, who is commander in chief of Special Operations Command, testified before our committee about his inability to pay Army special operation forces special duty assignment pay. He simply did not have the funds. So we authorized the funding to give them that pay that other special operations forces receive. These are just a few of the personnel initiatives that we have taken to attempt to address some serious personnel problems.

With regard to modernization issues--procurement, research, development, test and evaluation, military construction, housing--the administration concedes that the budget is `* * * contingent on the realization of savings expected to accrue from infrastructure reductions, especially base closings, and the successful implementation of acquisition reform initiatives.'

Let me just comment briefly on that. I have some very fundamental concerns about the administration's approach to funding future needs based on assumptions that may not pan out. Many of these funding modernizations are critical to the future of our forces, yet we are depending on freeing up funds based on assumptions about inflation which will defy all past records of what inflation levels will be in the future. Any miscalculation is going to impact greatly the resources necessary for updating many of our programs.

Second, planning for weapons modernization is not the same as funding weapons modernization. Mortgaging of modernization to fund near-term readiness over recent years has already created massive bow waves in weapons requirements. The tactical air fleet is reaching its half-life. Army and Marine utility helicopters have already exceeded their half-life, and combat vehicles and trucks will reach their full life cycle by the end of the future year's defense plan. We have military personnel today who are flying aircraft and driving trucks that are older than they are.

So linking future modernization funding to illusory savings

from acquisition reform, base cloture and inflation is unacceptable. Even if these savings materialize, modernization at best will be funded at $60 billion 4 years later than what is required. If these savings do not materialize, and I suspect they will not, modernization of our Armed Forces will be pushed further into the 21st century.

Finally, let me just state that the assumptions behind the administration's defense budget are based upon its Bottom-Up Review strategy calling on our military to fight and win two nearly simultaneous major regional contingencies. It is not realistic to expect our military to fight two major regional conflicts with a $10 billion nominal decline in the defense budget. Until the Department of Defense conducts another strategic review, our military must continue to organize, train, and equip to execute this strategy.

Many of us share concerns that the outdated Bottom-Up Review may be detracting from prudent defense investments. Misinvestments will adversely impact our war fighters, but it will also affect taxpayers. Because of these concerns, I am supporting, along with Senator Lieberman, an amendment calling for the Defense Department to undertake a comprehensive innovative study of alternative force structures in 1997, and urge Members to participate in this debate and listen to the reasons why we need to do this.

Last year, during the debate on the defense authorization bill, we heard from a number of Members who were offering amendments to cut funding for the Defense Department who were questioning the increases that we were seeking in the funding for the defense of our Nation. We heard them say over and over and over, `Well, the Pentagon did not ask for this money, the Pentagon did not seek these funds. So, therefore, everything that is being requested on this floor that exceeds what the Pentagon sent over in its budget request has to be pork-barrel spending, it has to be unnecessary spending, wasteful spending, spending that is not needed.'

I want to make sure my colleagues know that when this excuse is brought up this year in the context of discussion about this bill, or spending priorities, that this statement that `the Pentagon did not ask for it, and therefore it is not needed,' is an excuse that just simply will not wash. It does not square with the testimony received by the Senate Armed Services Committee. It only squares with what the President's budget department decided they would spend for defense. It does not come anywhere close to what the military has testified on the record that they need in order to accomplish the tasks and the missions that have been required of them by this administration.

So that excuse, that this is above the Defense Department's own request, is a phony excuse. It does not reflect in any way the testimony we received from senior military leaders. It reflects what those senior leaders were told to say and the constraints that were placed on them by the administration. So let us make sure we understand what the difference is between defense needs and their stated needs, and what the administration has told them their needs are and their top-line spending is.

In a December 1994 Rose Garden speech, President Clinton affirmed that `We ask much of our military and owe much to them in return.' What is a fair return to our troops for dedicating themselves to service for our Nation--for risking their lives to defend America's interests around the world? Our troops do not ask for much. In fact, their requests are actually quite reasonable--modernized weapon systems to defend America's interests, to give them a superior edge over those they fight against, training programs to improve their warfighting capabilities, a decent standard of living, and decent quarters in which to live. Attending to these basic needs is indeed a small investment for the services our Armed Forces provide to the Nation each day. Attending to these needs is a small return on the price we may ultimately ask our Armed Forces to pay in defense of our Nation.

We must not squander the opportunity to plan our military's future during a time of peace. Nor should we be lulled into a false sense of security that in the 21st century--indeed in the years preceding it--our Armed Forces will not again be called upon to defend America. I respect the argument that our Nation must grapple with many, often conflicting, priorities. Clearly, the Government has an obligation to get its financial house in order and balance the budget. However, we must avoid the temptation to act as if cutting defense spending has no consequences. History is replete with examples of the consequences of ignoring military preparedness.

In speaking of our Nation's failure to address these very same issues after World War II, Gen. Creighton Abrams said:

[Page: S6379]

We paid dearly for unpreparedness during those early days in Korea with our most precious currency--the lives of our young men. The monuments we raise to their heroism and sacrifices are really surrogates for the monuments we owe ourselves for our blindness to reality, for our indifference to real threats to our security, and our determination to deal in intentions and perceptions, for our unsubstantiated wishful thinking about how war would not come.

In his annual report to the President and Congress, Defense Secretary Perry wrote:

The world has changed dramatically over the past few years, but one thing remains constant: a strong military force, made up of the finest American men and women, is the Nation's best insurance policy.

I urge my colleagues to ponder the haunting words of General Abrams, and the deliberate words of Secretary Perry. As tempting as it may be in an era of scarce resources and competing priorities, we must not allow indifference to serve as the basis for today's defense spending. A strong, well-prepared military has been, and will continue to be, our Nation's only insurance. A strong national defense does not come cheaply. We should not delude ourselves into thinking otherwise.

Mr. President, I will say to those who think defense needs to do more of its share in helping to reduce our spending, had every other item of Government done half the share that defense has provided of reduced spending over the past 12 years, we would more than have a balanced budget. If other agencies of Government had taken the same steps, or half the steps, taken by the Department of Defense, we would not be arguing over the need for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget or how we get to a balanced budget.

The truth of the matter is that over the past 12 years, defense spending has declined nearly 40 percent, and it continues to go down, now the 12th consecutive year. Name me one other program of Government that has begun to match the record of reduced spending as the Department of Defense--40 percent less troops, 40 percent less spending for equipment, troops deployed all over the world, stretched to the limit, in many cases, in terms of their operations tempo and their personnel tempo, troops living in substandard housing.

What Member of this Congress can take any sense of satisfaction in knowing that 60 percent or more of the men and women and families who have committed to defend this Nation live in absolutely substandard housing arrangements? It is a disgrace, and it is simply something that we absolutely have to correct.

So, as we go forward in the debate on the defense bill, I hope my colleagues will remember defense has contributed more than its share in reducing our spending and trying to get in line with a balanced budget. No other agencies of Government can begin to compare with that. And in the end, one of the most essential, if not the most essential, functions for Federal Government is to provide for the common defense and the national security of this country. I can think of no higher spending priority. We need to understand that. We need to understand that this administration is not committed to that priority, despite their rhetoric.

Let's hope that the debate will lead us to a satisfactory result, so we can at least tell our troops that we have done the best we can--we have not provided them everything they need, but we have at least taken steps in the right direction to recognize that they provide security and defense for more than 250 million people of this country and deserve adequate support in doing that.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?

Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend the able Senator from Indiana for the valuable contributions he has made to this debate.

I now yield to the Senator from North Dakota.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina. I will start today by expressing my respect for the Senator from South Carolina. I think he has brought a bill to the floor that includes many features that are very important. He and Senator Nunn are two Senators for whom I have the highest regard. I appreciate very much the work he does on behalf of this country in the area of defense.

I regret I am going to offer an amendment he likely will not support, but that does not diminish in any way my respect for his work and effort, nor does it diminish in any way the respect I have for the others on the defense authorization committee.

I intend to offer an amendment later today to reduce by $300 million the amount of money that was added to the National Missile Defense Program or, I call it, star wars, because it has a space-based, multisite component. But I intend to offer that, hopefully today, and give the Senate an opportunity to reduce by $300 million this Defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to show my colleagues the following piece of metal. It is an item that comes from a hinge to a door on a missile silo. The silo was silo No. 110 in Pervomaysk, Ukraine. It held an SS-19 missile that was targeted against the United States of America. That missile likely would have held, I believe, five or six warheads buried in the ground in the Ukraine. Missile No. 110 and SS-19. This piece of metal was taken from that destroyed missile silo.

That missile does not exist anymore. Where this was part of a component to hold an SS-19 targeted against the United States, there now exists not a silo, not a missile, not a warhead, but a piece of level ground planted not with a missile but with sunflowers. Sunflowers have replaced an SS-19 that was targeted against the United States of America.

How did that happen? How does it happen that I hold a piece of metal from a silo that housed a nuclear weapon targeted against our country? This has come from halfway around the world and from more than that distance, philosophically, in terms of what we have understood how we can make progress in arms reductions if we do the right thing.

Senator Nunn and Senator Lugar proposed legislation that is now law that provides funding for the destruction of missiles under the arms reduction treaties we have with Russia and the old Soviet Union. Today, as I speak, there are missiles armed with nuclear warheads that used to be pointed at this country that are being chopped up and crushed and taken out of silos and destroyed.

Surely, everyone would agree the best way to destroy a missile that is aimed at the United States is to destroy it before it leaves its silo. Hundreds of these missiles have been destroyed before they have left the silo under the Nunn-Lugar provisions, which have substantially reduced the nuclear threat and which, under the arms reduction treaties, have resulted in fewer missiles and fewer nuclear weapons threatening our country.

In this Defense authorization bill, we are going to have a debate about whether to build a new National Missile Defense Program. Some call it Defend America. Some call it star wars. Some call it NMD. Whatever it is, the Congressional Research Service says it is from between a $30 billion to $60 billion new program to build a new set of missiles in our country to create some kind of an astrodome across America so that other potential enemy missiles are unable to penetrate.

This defense authorization bill adds $300 million to the $508 million that was requested by the administration and the Pentagon on research and development on a national missile defense system. Let me be clear, I do not oppose research on a National Missile Defense Program. I do not oppose research. I do oppose going beyond research, adding hundreds of millions of dollars, demanding we deploy, as quickly as is possible, almost immediately, a national missile defense system.

To do that will destroy the arms control agreements we now have. To destroy the arms control agreements makes no sense at all. Those are the agreements by which we are seeing the missiles in the Ukraine--the Ukraine, incidentally, is nuclear free. There are no more missiles, no more nuclear warheads in the Ukraine. There used to be thousands.

To do what is being proposed, to undercut and destroy the foundation of the arms control agreements, means that we may no longer have the Nunn-Lugar program with the opportunity to have our former adversaries destroying missiles and destroying warheads that previously were once aimed at this country.

Should we have a national missile defense program? I do not know. Should we decide immediately that we want to add extra money--$300 million in this case, but a down payment at least on a program that is going to cost $60 billion--to demand early deployment of a multisite, spaced-based component of a national missile defense system? Should we do that now? Of course not. We should not spend money we do not have on something we do not need.

We will have a longer debate on this. I am happy to engage in a debate with my colleagues. I will do so respectfully. I very much respect their views. We, however, have spent a lot of time wringing our hands, gnashing our teeth, mopping our brow about the Federal budget deficit. We should do that because it is a serious problem.

But I find it fascinating that those who have bleated the loudest or brayed the loudest about the Federal deficit are at the first opportunity coming to the floor of the Senate saying, `By the way, I am concerned about the Federal deficit, but I very much want to see us embark on a new $60 billion national missile defense program.'

My amendment will be very simple. My amendment will be to say, let us preserve the $508 million the administration in the Defense Department asked for in research and development funds for a missile defense program. We may need one sometime. We may need to deploy it sometime after the turn of the century. I do not know. But I do not subscribe to those who believe we ought to deploy it on an expedited basis, who demand we need to build it now, we need to buy before we fly, we need to overstate a threat in order to justify a new program.

So, again, with the greatest respect for those who disagree, I will offer an amendment to cut the $300 million from the defense authorization bill so that we are back at the $508 million on the national missile defense program that the Defense Department had requested in its budget. In the scheme of the Federal budget, $300 million may not be the largest amount of money, but it is a significant amount of money. I hope my colleagues, when we have the larger debate about this subject, will agree.

Let me finish where I began. This piece of metal is symbolic of what we do if we do the right things together. Arms control agreements work. This used to be housed in the silo that held a missile with nuclear warheads aimed at America. The missile and silo do not now exist. There are sunflowers planted on that ground in the Ukraine. Where missile 110 used to exist, an SS-19 with a nuclear warhead, we now have a patch of sunflowers.

That is the way to destroy an adversary's missile, in the ground before it is fired. Arms control agreements have worked. I cannot compliment Senator Lugar and Senator Nunn

enough for the leadership they have shown in these areas. I say, let us be very, very, very careful, as we move forward on any missile defense program, that we do not undercut arms control agreements that have achieved significant and real results in reducing the nuclear threat.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

[Page: S6380]

Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his comments. I look forward to a spirited debate on this subject.

Mr. President, Senator Warner is a valuable member of the Armed Services Committee. He has been on the committee a long time and done a fine job. I now yield such time as he may require.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished chairman.

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that Comdr. Mike Matthes, U.S. Navy, a fellow assigned to my office, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of S. 1745.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will begin by again recognizing the fine leadership provided by Chairman Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, and Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, our ranking member. This year, as in many years past, the defense authorization bill is truly a bipartisan product. I have often thought that in areas of defense and foreign policy partisanship stops at the water's edge, a concept envisioned by one of our former colleagues many years ago. I think it is a concept that is as true today as it was then.

Despite some differences, we were able to work together to unanimously report out the bill which is before the Senate at this time. Less than 3 months after receiving the administration's budget request, the Armed Services Committee had conducted a thorough set of hearings and completed its markup of the defense authorization bill. This record-setting pace is a tribute to the committee chairman, Senator Thurmond, and the ranking member, and the fine professional staff under the direction of Col. Les Brownlee, U.S. Army, and Gen. Arnold Punaro, U.S. Marine Corps.

Mr. President, the bill before the Senate goes a long way towards ensuring that our Armed Forces will remain capable of meeting the many challenges that lie ahead. To achieve this goal, the committee added $12.9 billion to the Clinton administration's budget request and concentrated the additional funding in the vital modernization accounts.

President Clinton's request of $254.4 billion represented an $18.6 billion real decline in defense spending from the fiscal year 1996 appropriated level. Over the past decade, Mr. President--I want to repeat that--over the past 10 years, the amount the United States has spent on defense has declined by 36 percent in real terms. Of course, that reflects adjustments for inflation. Even with the funding added by the Armed Services Committee, this year will mark the 12th straight year of declining defense budgets. To all of the critics, I simply say what we have done is not increase defense spending; we have merely slowed the rate of decline. That was the purpose

of adding back these funds to the President's budget.

I was particularly concerned with the inadequate funding of the procurement accounts contained in the President's budget. Despite last year's promises that a modernization ramp up would begin in 1997, procurement funding continued a dramatic decline. We are already at a 40-year low, Mr. President. Not since the start of the Korean war have we spent so little on purchasing new weapons for the men and women of the Armed Forces today and, also, Mr. President, future generations.

May I give a few examples.

Ten years ago, fiscal year 1986, the United States of America purchased 840 new tanks. This year no new tanks are requested.

Ten years ago, in 1986, the United States purchased almost 400 new tactical aircraft. This year only 34 new tactical aircraft were requested.

Ten years ago, Mr. President, we purchased 40 new ships for the U.S. Navy. This year only 6 new ships were requested.

Enough, I think, is enough, Mr. President.

U.S. troops are currently deployed in 10 separate military operations overseas. Despite the end of the cold war, we are calling on men and women of the Armed Forces at an ever increasing rate. It is our responsibility to provide our troops with adequate resources so they can effectively and safely perform their missions. We must not ever send them into harm's way with equipment that is less than the best, particularly if it is outdated.

The bill before the Senate today corrects this problem by providing both funding and directive language to ensure that the shipbuilding compromise and the competitive process mandated in the 1996 defense authorization bill is adhered to by the administration.

Mr. President, before the Senate is a fine bill. I am proud to join my colleagues on the committee--and I think everyone in the U.S. Senate--in acknowledging that our military is second to none worldwide. We need no less than to carry out the very heavy responsibilities of this Nation in terms of its world role of leadership--not world role of policeman, but world role of leadership--if we are to remain the world's most powerful Nation in terms of leadership on security matters. We must be willing to provide adequate funding today for our troops and tomorrow in the form of procurement for modern weapons. This bill accomplishes that goal.

Mr. President, I salute, once again, the distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Thurmond of South Carolina, and the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Nunn of Georgia.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

(Mr. ASHCROFT assumed the chair.)

[Page: S6382]

Mr. THURMOND. I wish to commend the able Senator from Virginia for the fine contribution he has made to this debate.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield to the able Senator from Texas, a valuable member of the Armed Services Committee, such time as she may require.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I, too, want to thank the Senator from South Carolina for the leadership he has given to the committee and his strong and enduring, never-flagging support for the military of our country.

Mr. President, the post-cold-war era has brought about tremendous changes in our security environment. The absence of great power confrontation is the peace dividend we have received as a result of our military investments in the 1980's. While the end of the cold war changed the strategic environment, serious threats remain. For just as soon as we paused in our celebration over the fall of the Berlin Wall, Saddam Hussein dashed all illusions that this new era meant an end to the requirement for a strong military capability.

Shaping our military forces to meet existing and future challenges requires strong leadership, strong leadership by the Congress and the President together, to make sure that we have a military that will keep the freedom that we so enjoy.

As we reduce our military forces to the lowest level since just prior to the outbreak of World War II, we must remain mindful that the threats we face are global in nature and that the training requirements of a smaller military must be even more rigorous to retain readiness.

Mr. President, I am very concerned that continuing cuts in defense spending will leave us with a military force structure that lacks the manpower and materiel to defend the United States and our vital interests. This would be disastrous, not only for the United States, but certainly for our allies and for peace and stability in the world. We need to keep in mind that our national security assumptions are based on the capability of our drastically downsized military forces to fight and win two major regional conflicts. We do not know from where the threats will come in the future. But the magnitude of the challenge we have set forth for our military force is discernible from recent history.

In addition to forces currently deployed in Haiti, northern Iraq, the Sinai, and now in Bosnia, we could also conceivably find ourselves facing the threat of all-out North Korean aggression, or renewed aggression by Saddam Hussein. Both represent very real threats to our national security interests, and both demonstrate the increased risk we face when we dissipate our military strength through involvement in operations such as Bosnia and Haiti, which do not represent clear national security interests.

Mr. President, none of us wants to think of this scenario, but it is not inconceivable. In depending on our slimmed-down forces to meet these very real and terrible threats, we must have an expectation that our men and women in uniform can meet that threat if we provide the support that they need.

The success in Operation Desert Storm demonstrated the unequaled capabilities of our military. Even after the post-cold-war drawdown our Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines remained the best trained, the best led and the most formidable fighting forces in the world. But that superb quality could be at risk. If we do not make the correct strategic decisions today we will reap the sad rewards 5 to 10 years from now. Our responsibility in this Congress is to minimize the risk. I am personally committed to that goal. Before we send soldiers into harm's way, whether it be a Desert Storm, or a Somalia, or a Haiti, or a Bosnia, it is our responsibility here in Congress to ensure that our military personnel are provided the equipment and training they deserve.

While the President is the Commander in Chief, under our Constitution our Founding Fathers established a primary role for Congress. Our Founding Fathers decided that the Congress would have the sole ability to declare war, the power to make regulations of the land and naval forces, the power to call forth the militia, to raise and support the Army and the Navy, the power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the military. When Congress deliberates and considers executive branch judgments on military policy, we are fulfilling our constitutional responsibility.

I continue to have strong reservations about whether or not we are providing enough to enhance our military capability. While the major provisions of this bill go a long way toward addressing some of the serious defense shortfalls, I believe serious weaknesses remain which have not been adequately addressed.

As we try to achieve an elusive peace dividend we do so at the expense of our military capability. We have cut too far too fast and too deep. Based on the threats we face today we still need a strong military capability.

How do you define sufficient capability, and what does having this capability mean for our men and women in battle? To soldiers, sailors, airmen, or marines in harm's way sufficient military capability means they have what it takes to win decisively. It means they take fewer casualties. It means they survive the battles and come home to their loved ones.

General Eisenhower once noted that, `If asked to capture a village defended by a battalion, I would send a division and I would take the village without casualties.' That is what having sufficient military capability means--accomplishing the mission with as few casualties as possible. This has always been the hallmark of U.S. military operations. We have as Americans preferred to expend firepower and resources--not personnel.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee I have often gone on record with my concerns over the speed of the current drawdown and the implications for our national security. The current force structure simply does not meet our national security requirements.

By further stretching our resources to participate in Bosnia operations I am afraid that we could soon be faced with the painful reality of just how much this drawdown has affected our military. President Bush, Secretary Cheney and General Powell proposed what they termed the `base force.' President Clinton's current force is referred to as the `Bottom-Up Review force.' It is significantly smaller than the Bush plan. The stated goal of both forces is to be able to prevail in two major regional conflicts, and it is referred to as the `two MRC requirement.' The main difference between the two is that under the base force we would be capable of winning under the base force. We would be capable of winning two simultaneous major regional conflicts. But under the Bottom-Up Review force we could prevail in winning two near simultaneous major regional conflicts. The difference between those two terms, Mr. President, is as vast as an ocean.

First, what does `near simultaneous' mean? Is it a week? Is it 6 months? Will we have 9 months to build up from a nonmilitary

or security deployment of our troops? Under the base force it was assumed that some forces would be engaged in operations other than war, or peacekeeping such as we have in Bosnia. These forces would not be in the calculation for winning two major regional conflicts because the combat skills of any military unit degrade when they are not training for their primary mission. Rather than send troops into a combat situation for which they might be woefully unprepared they were excluded from the two MRC calculations.

So what we are saying is under the base force that was put forward by President Bush these operations other than war would not count toward our goal of winning two major regional conflicts simultaneously. But the Bottom-Up Review force under President Clinton removes that cushion. General Shalikashvili said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that if one major regional conflict arises, forces performing operations other than war will have to be withdrawn in order to go to a second major regional conflict.

Mr. President, that is a vast difference from what the base force that President Bush envisioned would be capable of doing. That takes away the ability to have simultaneous conflicts that we would win, and says nearly simultaneous because we would have to rush out and retrain troops that were in an operation other than war because they are not trained and ready for combat when they are performing humanitarian or peacekeeping missions.

We have a large force in Bosnia today. We have sent an entire Army division plus support troops to Bosnia totaling 20,000 personnel with 5,000 at least in Croatia and Macedonia and with thousands more supporting this operation from Hungary, Italy, Germany, the Mediterranean and the United States. This deployment is said to last for a year, and during that time we are not able to have our troops in training for their combat missions. The Bosnian deployment will cost us billions of dollars in unprogrammed contingency defense expenditures in addition to the billions that we know it will cost up front. The military services could have to deplete vital training accounts to pay for these unplanned operations.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee I am alarmed by the cuts that I see being contemplated in our Armed Forces. In my view, many of the reductions which have occurred in the past 5 years have seriously undermined the capability to support a national defense strategy in which we must be prepared to fight and prevail in two major regional conflicts simultaneously. In fact, I feel very strongly, Mr. President, that in rapidly reducing our Armed Forces from 2.1 to 1.4 million we have already reduced their size to a level that is inadequate to meet our needs, and we can reduce no further.

When General Sullivan, the former Chief of Staff of the Army, assumed his position his watchword as the drawdown began was no more Task Force Smiths. He was referring, of course, to the task force commanded by Lt. Col. Bradley Smith which was rushed into battle in Korea in July 1950 to counter the North Korean attack. This courageous American force was sent into battle outgunned, ill-equipped, and ill-prepared, and was quickly and easily overrun by the Soviet-equipped North Korean force. At the time Americans were shocked to learn that the same military which defeated the Japanese and the German armies 5 years before had so quickly become a hollow force.

Last summer, our Nation dedicated a memorial to those who fought in the Korean war. That honor was long overdue. My husband served in the Navy during this time. He and I went to see the Korean monument. And I am going to tell you that visiting the monument to our veterans of the Korean war is one of the most poignant and beautiful experiences that I believe I have ever had.

Now as we consider the 1997 defense authorization bill, we should reflect not only on those who died in Korea but on the lesson that we should have learned from that war. One of the finest books written about that Korean war is `This Kind of War: a Study in Unpreparedness,' by T.R. Fehrenbach, a fellow Texan and close friend of mine. As an infantry commander, he experienced the conflict from a unique vantage point, and his book, first published in 1962, remains in print today. I commend this book to my colleagues because what Mr. Fehrenbach is saying is we must always have a trained and ready field force, that whatever we try to do from the air is not going to win a war and we are not going to protect our freedom throughout civilization if we do not have the ability to go into the field, and place soldiers on the ground, well equipped and well trained.

Mr. President, what we are talking about today is making sure we have it all--that we have the technology, that we have the airlift and the sealift that will allow us to take that very last step, which is placing our troops on the ground. We are talking about having the training and arming our troops who must capture hold that ground while at the same time that we are making sure we have all of the strategic and technological advances which would keep them from having to go in the first place. But if we must send our forces, we want them to have all of the protections we can give them. So we need the technology; we need the equipment; we need the personnel; and we need the training. That is what we are talking about in this bill today.

We are having a major conflict with the President and the Congress on just what we need in terms of military capability. Congress is trying to get the military spending up so that we will not have a hollow force, so that we will be able to win two major regional conflicts simultaneously, because that is what a ready force is, and so that we will be able to prevail in two major regional conflicts quickly and with the fewest possible casualties.

That is our goal, and that is why Congress wants to spend $10 billion more than the President wants to spend to make sure that when the troops are in the field they are trained and equipped, to make sure they have the air cover they need, to make sure they have the equipment they need to protect them if they are in the field, and to make sure our shores are protected from any kind of incoming ballistic missile, which we now know 32 countries in the world have the capability to produce and someday soon send to our shores. We even have groups that are not countries with that capability. And with open borders, we could be vulnerable if we do not do what is right and make the strategic decisions that will protect the people who live in our country and will protect those who are protecting our freedom anywhere in the world in any theater from coming into harm's way if we can prevent it.

Mr. President, those are the decisions we are making with this bill. I hope we can sit down with the President to make sure we are doing what is right for our troops in the field today, for the protection of freedom today, and to make sure we will not wake up 5 or 10 years from now and realize that we have allowed another task force Smith; that we did not do what we needed to do in terms of the strategic thinking necessary to make sure we were not vulnerable to any kind of attack from any source in the world.

I commend the Senator from South Carolina for his leadership. I yield the floor.

[Page: S6383]

Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. THURMOND. I wish to commend the able Senator from Texas for the excellent remarks she has made on this bill. She has made a fine contribution to this debate.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Space

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 (Senate - June 18, 1996)

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1997
(Senate - June 18, 1996)