Space

[Page: 10029]

Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I join Senator Thurmond in urging our colleagues to adopt this conference report on H.R. 3230, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997. I also join him in commending the staff. Les Brownlee, George Lauffer, and Jon Etherton on the majority side have led a very capable majority staff. Arnold Punaro, David Lyles, and Andy Effron, now Judge Effron, did the same on our side. They have worked together in a splendid fashion.

This truly is a bipartisan bill. As Senator Thurmond has said, President Clinton has indicated he plans to sign this bill, and that is a reflection that the bill is solid for national security. This also reflects the kind of leadership we saw this year under Senator Thurmond. He made sure this was a bill that did reflect not only his strong concern and continued commitment for a national security, but also a bill that could be signed into law.

I commend him on his leadership, and I thank Senator Thurmond for his very thoughtful and kind remarks about my career in the Senate, particularly my involvement in the national security arena.

I also would like to join Senator Thurmond in being one of those who can testify in the first person about the tremendous role that Senator Exon and Senator Cohen have played as members of this committee.

Senator Cohen and I have joined in numerous national security matters over the years, including the creation of a special forces command, the builddown proposal, and moving away from MIRV'd warheads. I can think of numerous proposals that he and I jointly championed. He has been a stalwart of national security. He has made an outstanding record, not only in this area but in others. I certainly share the very strong statements made by Senator Thurmond in terms of praise for Senator Cohen.

I also would like to add very loud applause for Senator Exon who has chaired the Strategic Subcommittee for a number of years. Every year when I was chairman, Senator Exon chaired the subcommittee. That is not only where the controversy was, that is where the money was.

We had one matter after another that had to be handled, both in terms of strategic weapons and in terms of overall arms control concerns. Senator Exon has been a stalwart leader. He has been a person who could find a light of agreement and mold together a consensus in very difficult circumstances. He has been steadfast in his support for a strong and sensible national security. He has been my partner time and time again in crucial matters, and he will be sorely missed. Senator Exon also has been a leader and a champion of moving toward a balanced budget in his leadership on the Budget Committee. He will be missed in that area as well.

Mr. President, this budget that we have before us increases the President's budget on national security, and it does so in a way that is going to boost the funds for procurement, research and development, and, as Senator Thurmond said, quality of life for our military forces. I think everyone should keep in mind, even with the substantial increase over President Clinton's budget, this budget remains a reduction from last year in real terms. When we hear over and over again `the very large increases in the defense budget,' those increases are relative to the proposals made by the Clinton administration but do not accurately reflect that the trend continues downward in national security.

Many of these cuts that have taken place over the last 8 or 10 years were needed and necessary. This drawdown has been the most successful, in terms of personnel policy, we have ever had in the U.S. military after a major mission or, in this case, the end of the cold war. We have been able to maintain the quality and the qualifications of the men and women who serve in our military. This is a very difficult and challenging task, and none of us should diminish the importance of it. If we had not been able to accomplish this successful drawdown, we would be reading all sorts of horror stories about readiness and horror stories about our military being demoralized. We are not reading those stories because we have had a very successful drawdown.

I think our committee and our counterparts in the House deserve some credit for this. We have come up with new, innovative ways to ease into this transition and to take care of the personnel, not only those that were leaving but those that are staying, and their families.

I also think the leadership of Dr. Perry has been outstanding in this regard, and I believe the leadership of the services has been outstanding. The U.S. Army, in particular, has been able to manage a very, very substantial drawdown of forces and reduction in the size of the Army. The Army has moved forces from parts of the world back home in an unprecedented and very skillful way.

Mr. President, the Senate passed this bill in early July. Under the leadership of Senator Thurmond, the House and Senate conferees completed a very difficult conference on this large and very important bill in 4 weeks. I congratulate Senator Thurmond for his leadership of this conference and the bipartisan manner in which it was conducted. He kept all of us in harness and told us we had to finish this conference before we left for the August recess. Without that leadership, without that push, we would not have this bill before us today.

Again, I thank Senator Thurmond, not only for his work on this bill, but for his stalwart leadership on national security issues during the entire time I have been in the U.S. Senate. I thank him most of all for his friendship and for being a man of integrity and a man who absolutely places the security of our country above partisan interests and above parochial interests. I thank him for that. I think our Nation is, indeed, indebted to him for that kind of leadership. I am indebted to him for his personal friendship.

I thank our House counterparts, Chairman Spence, who was determined to get a bill this year and who exercised leadership time and time again, along with my good friend, Congressman Ron Dellums, who is the ranking Democrat. They were determined to get a bill. They were determined to make changes and display flexibility where flexibility was absolutely required if we were going to see a bill signed into law. I commend them for their leadership, as well as all the House conferees and all of our Senate conferees for their cooperation in bringing this conference to a successful conclusion. I also would like to thank, as Senator Thurmond did, the chairman and ranking members of each of our subcommittees. These members played such a key role on the Senate committee in getting this legislation passed.

Mr. President, this is the last defense authorization conference report of my Senate career. I want to express my deep appreciation to the staff of the Armed Services Committee, not only this year but over the years that I have served on the Committee. They have provided tremendous support during this conference and throughout this year: Les Brownlee, John Etherton, Arnold Punaro, David S. Lyles, and Andy Effron. I mention them again because without them this bill would simply not be possible. Arnold Punaro and all of the members of the minority staff have continued to provide the outstanding assistance to me and to other members on the Democratic side. This support has been their trademark for many years. More importantly, both Les Brownlee and Arnold Punaro have the confidence of the entire committee. They make contributions, as do their staffs, to the analysis and thinking of the committee members on both sides.

Mr. President, Senator Thurmond has already summarized the major features of this conference report. I endorse those statements he has made, but I would emphasize a few others, which I think are very notable provisions in this conference report.

I am pleased the House conferees agreed to the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996, which the Senate adopted unanimously, both in this bill and in the appropriations bill. This legislation is a critical step in addressing our Nation's ability to deal with the threats from the proliferation of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons with special emphasis on combating domestic terrorism. I, too, thank Senators Stevens and Inouye for supporting this legislation, both on the floor and in conference in the appropriations bill. I also thank them for their splendid leadership in the national security arena.

This legislation authorizes $201 billion for the Departments of Health, Human Services, and Energy to address the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This includes $65 million for the Defense Department to conduct a program to train, equip, and assist local first responders in dealing with incidents involving nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and related materials. Within this $65 million, $10.5 million is specifically earmarked for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Health and Human Services in forming emergency medical response teams capable of dealing with the consequences of the use of these materials.

A total of $30 million is authorized for DOD to provide equipment and assistance to the U.S. Customs Service and to help train custom services in the former Soviet Union, the Baltic States, and Eastern Europe in an effort to improve our ability to detect and interdict these materials before they can reach the hands of terrorists in the United States. Of course, a partnership between the United States and these other customs services is absolutely essential for our own security.

An additional $27 million is provided to the Department of Defense and to the Department of Energy for efforts to research and develop improved detection technologies, which are badly needed. I will not go into detail, but that was one of the most important lessons learned at the Olympics in Atlanta. All elements of our law enforcement need to learn to detect more thoroughly, with a broader area and with more confidence, the presence of a chemical or biological weapon, if one is released. This area needs attention in the research field.

Finally, this conference report authorizes additional funding to address the threat of proliferation, as we have done in the past, at its source. In addition to fully authorizing the administration's request of $327.9 million for the DOD Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, this legislation authorizes $37 million for DOD projects designed to destroy, dismantle, and improve controls over the former Soviet Union's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

DOE is being provided $40 million for its program in this area.

I must commend our colleague, Senator Domenici, for his outstanding leadership in developing, implementing, following through, and providing the funding for this legislation.

This legislation also calls for the creation of a senior level coordinator to improve the coordination among Federal departments and agencies dealing with the threat of proliferation, and to improve coordination between the Federal Government and State and local governments and emergency response agencies.

Mr. President, the threat of attack on American cities and towns by terrorists, malcontents, or representatives of hostile powers using radiological, chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons is one of the most serious national security threats we face today. I put it right at the top of the list. Too many experts have said it is not a question of `if' but only of `when' terrorists will use chemical, biological--or even nuclear--weapons in the United States. The legislation in this conference report is a major step forward and will significantly improve our ability at the local level and State level and all over this country to deal with this threat--a threat which today we are clearly not prepared for. I anticipate that the National Guard, if they choose and if the administration moves in that direction, will be able to play a major role in this area.

We have Guard forces in every community of any real size in America. Every Governor has Guard forces that are available if an emergency comes at on the State level. A number of these units are trained in the chemical and biological area. I think it is a natural fit because Guard forces are on the scene and also enjoy a great deal of confidence by our citizens. I would like to see, as one of the originators of this entire legislation, it move in the direction of the Guard.

I am also pleased that the conferees agreed to the Senate provision giving the Secretary of Defense discretionary authority to waive some of the existing buy-America limitations for defense procurement. I joined Senator McCain in sponsoring this provision in committee and in conference. I commend Senator McCain for his leadership in this respect.

Mr. President, this waiver authority is essential if we are to live up to our commitments to our allies to work for free and open competition for defense procurement. If we do not buy from them in a fair way, they are not going to buy from us. We enjoy an advantage on the sale of defense articles. It is a favorable part of our trade balance. This is a very important step for those who sell defense equipment to our allies.

Two of the most difficult issues in this conference and in this whole bill, Mr. President, were the multilateralization of the ABM Treaty and the demarcation between theater missile defense systems and ABM systems.

The House bill contained provisions on each of these issues which the administration vigorously opposed as infringements on the President's treaty-making powers under the Constitution. The Senate bill reported by the committee contained similar language, but both provisions were modified on the Senate floor. The administration was prepared to accept the two provisions in the bill that passed the Senate.

Again this year, a majority of the conferees decided to drop all the provisions on these two issues, rather than accept the bipartisan provisions contained in the Senate bill. This same course was followed last year with respect to language on national missile defenses , with the end result that the Congress provided some $800 million for national missile defense for the current fiscal year without any guidance to the Department of Defense as to how to spend it.

Mr. President, I commend the House conferees on their willingness to drop their language. I have never understood why the language adopted in the Senate, both last year and this year, was not acceptable.

After removing all of the bill language regarding both multilateralization and theater missile defense demarcation this year, a majority of the conferees endorsed the statement of managers language on both issues. That, of course, is the right of the conferees. This statement of managers language was not endorsed by all of the conferees. In fact, some of my colleagues on the minority side of our committee decided not to sign the statement of managers accompanying the conference report, in large part because of their disagreement with this statement of managers language.

While I signed the conference report and statement of managers because of my overall support for this bill, I want to make clear my concerns with the statement of managers language on both multilateralization of the ABM Treaty and on theater missile defense demarcation.

Mr. President, it is unfortunate that Congress remains deeply divided on missile defense issues. We may have a debate on issues relating to missile defense in the next 2 or 3 weeks before we adjourn this session. For one thing, I think a debate would be healthy. I think this subject needs to be debated. I think it needs more understanding, both in the media and in the main body of the American people, as well as here in the Congress.

We are in sort of a gridlock in the DOD's management of missile defense programs, which is not helpful for program execution. In each of the past 2 years, the Senate has reached a bipartisan consensus on missile defense language that has had overwhelming support, only to see this consensus language dropped from the final conference report. While the Senate seems to be able to develop, at least under pressure when required, a consensus, the House and Senate have not been able to see eye to eye on this issue.

[Page: S10032]