• Forum
• SITREP
• Military
• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security

• Space

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Public Eye

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the conference on the Fiscal Year 1997 Department of Defense Authorization bill has been concluded. In many respects, the bill has been improved in conference over both the House- and Senate-passed versions. Policy provisions have been dropped that might have led us into needless conflict with Russia and that might have jeopardized strategic arms reductions which make the whole world safer. I commend the conferees, under the able leadership of Senator Thurmond and Senator Nunn, for these changes. I would note also that this is Senator Nunn's last defense conference. I congratulate him on the selfless and dedicated service he has given to the Senate Armed Services Committee, to the Senate, to the people of Georgia, and to the Nation. I shall miss his thoughtful analysis and cogent arguments of security threats facing this nation.

Although action was taken on the floor to bring the bill into line with the Budget Resolution, at $265.6 billion, it is still $11 billion over the administration's request of $254.3 billion. It is hard to imagine that $254.3 billion is not sufficient to maintain our nation's military forces, but it was adjudged to be too little to maintain our defense establishment.

I earlier expressed my hope that the amount might be reduced in conference, but it has not been. As I have stated previously, I did not vote for the Budget Resolution because I did not agree with the choice made to add funds to defense while cutting other critical non-defense domestic discretionary accounts. The Fiscal Year 1997 defense authorization and appropriations bills hew to the path that was set forth in the Budget Resolution. I cannot blame the managers of these bills for playing the card they were dealt, and spending the money in the most effective manner possible, but I cannot follow the same path. Regretfully, for I believe the conference has improved its content, I must vote against this bill.

A strong defense is all well and good, Mr. President, but other things are also important. A nation's strength is measured not only in military strength, but in the strength of its infrastructure, its economy, and its people. I think we need a better balance between our spending on defense and our spending on other programs. Recent events in Atlanta and the tragic and unexplained loss of TWA flight 800 have raised fears of terrorism to new levels, and have added priority as well as funding to anti-terrorism and counterproliferation efforts. Americans have prepared themselves for the inconvenience and drag on productivity that greater security measures will impose. But what about the loss of life and loss of productivity created by the imbalance in funding between defense and non-defense discretionary programs that has been accentuated by the congressional budget process? How high does the illiteracy rate have to climb before we stop cutting funds for education, teachers, and books? How many airline crashes must occur before the FAA gets funds for more inspectors? When will we add funds for programs to keep aircraft and passengers safe, rather than add funds for far-fetched and technologically risky plans to stop incoming ballistic missiles ? This conference agreed to add $350 million to the administration's already generous request of $508.4 million for national missile defense.

How many children must die from contaminated hamburgers before we find more funds for food inspectors? How many sick people must die before the Food and Drug Administration gets more funds to speed the review of new medicines and other treatments? These are the choices we make when we add money to defense . The pot is only so big; the more that gets ladled into the defense bowl, the less there remains to dole out to defense against illiteracy, unsafe conditions, and disease.

There is much talk of readiness, of funds being needed to prepare for military contingencies. That is what some of these added funds are meant to address. But, while we are willing to prepare for and to wage war, we must also be prepared to pay the wages of war. I offered an amendment to provide $10 million for independent scientific research into the possible link between chemical warfare agent exposure and the Gulf War syndrome being suffered by large numbers of Gulf War veterans. My amendment would also have provided health care for the children of these veterans who have birth defects or catastrophic illnesses that may be related to their parents' wartime exposures.

I am glad that the conferees agreed to designate the funds from within the $9 billion Defense Health Program for this research. It has been five years since the Gulf War, and no such research has been conducted, despite veterans' concerns that this exposure may be at the root of their illnesses and at the root of their childrens' tragic conditions. A recent Department of Defense admission that chemical weapons were among Iraqi ammunition stores that were blown up over U.S. troops have reignited concerns about chemical warfare agent exposure. I am glad that this research may now be conducted, and I hope that the Department of Defense will move quickly to get the research started.

In the interim, I had hoped that the conferees would agree with my proposal to provide health care for the affected children. Their situations are truly tragic, and are financially devastating to their families. I asked that these children, the likely victims of an increasingly toxic battlefield, be given the benefit of the doubt until scientific research establishes evidence of a link between their parents' exposure and their conditions. Sadly, the conferees were not prepared to be that compassionate. Out of a $265.6 billion defense budget, not $30 million could be found to provide for these children while appropriate scientific research is conducted. Instead, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs have been directed to develop a plan to provide care only after these birth defects and catastrophic illnesses have been proven to a reasonable scientific certainty to be linked to their parents' wartime exposures. I urgently hope that the research moves fast enough to convince my colleagues before these children and their families pay too high a wage for their participation in our Nation's wars.