[Pages S12317-S12323]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
now resume consideration of S. 1087, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1087) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and
for other purposes.

The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

Pending:
(1) Hutchison amendment No. 2396, to provide for the
management of defense nuclear stockpile resources.
(2) Bumpers amendment No. 2398, to reduce the amount of
money provided for the Trident II missile program.
(3) Harkin amendment No. 2400, to delete funding for the
upgrade of the Kiowa Warrior light scout helicopters.
(4) Stevens amendment No. 2424, to rescind funds for
berthing barges.
(5) Kerry motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on
Appropriations with instructions.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. There is now time allotted for the Senator from
Arkansas, 10 minutes for the Senator from Arkansas and 5 minutes in
opposition, to be followed by a similar period for Senator Harkin, an
equal number of minutes on each side, and then the time sought by
Senator Kerry on a motion to recommit.

[[Page S 12318]]

Amendment No. 2398

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum for
about 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I seriously considered not offering this
amendment because obviously I will not win. As a matter of fact, I do
not think a single amendment that has been proposed to change this bill
has prevailed.
It causes me a great deal of despair to think about how we almost
relish cutting education, the arts, public broadcasting--just about
everything in nondefense discretionary spending--but you cannot take a
penny out of this bill despite the fact it contains almost $7 billion
more than the Pentagon requested. And when you ask: ``Why are we
putting $7 billion more in it than our President and military leaders
want?'' the answer is, essentially, ``What do they know?''
So here I am offering an amendment that I have offered for the last 2
years--this will be the third year--a chance to save well over $4
billion, $4.5 billion to be precise, and I might get 30, possibly 40
votes, despite the fact that people in the Navy itself and in the
Defense Department will tell you that the logic of this amendment is
unassailable.
We have eight Trident submarines in the Pacific Ocean. We have 10 in
the Atlantic. The ones in the Atlantic fleet are equipped with a
missile called the D-5 or the Trident II missile. The eight submarines
in the Pacific are equipped with a missile called the C-4, or Trident I
missile. This amendment simply prevents the Navy from starting to spend
money in 1996 to backfit the eight submarines in the Pacific to carry
the D-5 missile.
We are testing C-4 missiles every year. And they are just fine. The
tests are perfectly satisfactory. But here is the key to this
amendment. Here is what Martin Meth, Director of the DOD Weapon Support
Improvement Group, said on November 9, 1992. Now, this is as good an
authority as you can get on C-4 and D-5 missiles and on the Trident
submarines.
Listen to this:

There are no obvious life limiting modes or logistics
barriers to extending the service life of the currently
deployed C-4 missiles to the year 2016. Therefore, I would
recommend that any Navy plans for either restoring the C-4
missiles or D-5 missile backfit should not be supported.

We are getting ready to backfit, take the C-4's off those Trident
submarines in the Pacific and replace them with D-5's, despite the fact
that the C-4 missile will last as long as the submarines they are on.
And what do you get? What are you going to get for this $4.5 billion?
Listen to this. The C-4 has an unclassified range of 4,000 nautical
miles. It can hit any place you want to hit. The D-5 has something in
excess of 4,000 miles. The C-4 has what we call a circular error
probability of 300 meters. That means if you fire it, the warheads,
half of them will fall within 300 meters of the target.
Let me restate that. On the C-4--the C-4--50 percent of the warheads
will hit within 300 meters of the target. And the D-5 will hit within
150 meters.
So for $4.5 billion, with a 100-kiloton warhead that will destroy
everything for miles around, you get a warhead that will hit 150 meters
closer to the target, 450 feet.
It is the most asinine thing I can imagine, to spend $4.5 billion to
replace a missile that is that accurate, that has that life expectancy.
And, incidentally, they are only going to backfit four of the Trident I
subs. They will take the other four out of service. And the four they
will backfit will be out of service by the year 2016, and, as I said,
the Pentagon says the C-4 missiles will last just as long.
You just cannot find enough places to put money to satisfy most
Members of the Senate, as long as it explodes. You cannot get 10 cents
around here for something that will not explode.
And I will tell you what we are going to wind up with. We are going
to wind up with a nation exploding with ignorance because of our
misplaced priorities.
I will tell you what is despairing, what is so depressing. It is that
you study these issues, you attend committee meetings, you listen to
the chiefs of the military services. They tell you what is doable, what
is not doable, what they want, what they do not want. We mark up the
bill and we bring it to the floor. And no matter how meritorious your
amendment may be, if it conflicts with the bill, the distinguished
chairman of the committee--who is my friend, he has a right to do it--
he just gets up and says, ``I move to table the amendment.'' People
walk through that door over there. He gives them the signal to vote
``aye'' or to vote ``no.'' Many do not have a clue to what the
amendment is about.
These are complicated subjects. I admit that. But you cannot get
anybody's attention on these issues. I have been given 10 minutes this
morning to explain an immensely complex amendment that would save $4.5
billion. If all 100 Senators were sitting on the floor, I might be able
to convince them. But otherwise we will never get this budget under
control until we have campaign finance reform. Here is $4.5 billion you
might as well throw off the Washington Monument. It will do you just as
much good.
So, Mr. President, I am not going to belabor the point. Here is just
another case. We have had case after case since we have been on this
bill where the Pentagon says, ``No, we do not want to do it.'' Now, I
admit, the Navy wants to do this. The Navy wants to backfit. But the
people who understand the weaponry say it is a waste. The sume of $4.5
billion to retrofit four submarines, which in all probability, if we
ever get to START III, we will even have to take out of service before
their service life expectancy ends.
You know, if we had somebody to shoot at, maybe this would make some
sense. I have said a half dozen times on the floor, and it is worth
repeating, if I had made the offer to my colleagues 10 years ago, What
would you give in defense spending to get rid of the Soviet Union? I
daresay the least percentage that anybody would have given me is to say
we could cut Defense by 30 percent if we did not have the Soviet Union.
Now, the Soviet Union's bombers, the Russian bombers, are not on
alert. Their missiles are not targeted at us. And they are destroying
ballistic missile submarines and ICBM silos. And what are we doing? We
are putting $7 billion more in the Defense budget than the Pentagon
asked for, and continuing to spend twice as much money as our eight
most likely adversaries combined.
On a personal note, this morning at breakfast my wife said, ``What
are you going to do, Dale?'' I said, ``I am going to fight another
fight with the windmills. I love jousting with windmills.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BUMPERS. I ask for an additional 2 minutes, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUMPERS. ``Go down there and find a battle.'' I said, ``I
probably won't even offer it or I will withdraw it.'' On the way down I
thought, ``No. Let's just let everybody vote for another $4.5 billion.
Maybe, if this whole thing will get so bad, the President will veto the
bill.''
So, Mr. President, I am not going to withdraw it. I am going to let
everybody vote on it. And they can go home and tell folks about how
those old Russians used to be the Soviet Union, now the Russians or
North Koreans or somebody else is going to come up the Potomac River
and get us. I have listened to that for 21 years. I heard that every
year since I have been here.
Everybody wonders why we have a $4.5 trillion debt and why we have
such a terrible time getting our deficit under control. And in the last
20 years--you listen to this, colleagues--nondefense discretionary
spending--immunization of children, education, law enforcement,
highways, everything that goes in the making us a decent, civilized
nation--has gone down. You think of that. The budget is about three
times higher than it was in 1970, and nondefense domestic discretionary
spending has gone down. And defense spending is up about 100 percent. I

[[Page S 12319]]
think the first budget I saw when I came here in 1975 was $145 billion.
And so many Senators get up here and say, oh, defense spending has
gone down in real dollars. When we wake up and realize the security of
this Nation does not just depend on how many tanks and planes and guns
and bombs we have, it will be too late.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. BUMPERS. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the order, the Senator from Alaska has 5
minutes.
The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, it does not give me any pleasure to speak
in opposition, because my friend is always eloquent and impressive. But
most sincerely, I believe my friend is not correct in this instance.
First of all, there is no buildup in the U.S. nuclear forces; 8 years
ago, when we began our drawdown, we also retired a few of our
submarines. In fact, we retired 50 of them. As a result, 30 Poseidon
and Trident I submarines are now in drydock.
Second, one would conclude that from this presentation there must be
cost savings. This amendment calls for the deletion of $150 million. It
is a whole lot of money, but if this amendment is adopted then we will
have to add $250 million to close up the production and to provide for
replacement parts--$250 million.
Is the D-5 necessary? I have a letter dated August 11, 1995, from the
Department of the Navy, Secretary of the Navy, and I am going to read
the last paragraph:

The D-5 missile, currently in production, has greater
range, better reliability, much improved accuracy and most
importantly, twice the design life of its predecessor, the C-
4, which ceased production in 1987. Even with an aggressive
and expensive sustainment program, the C-4 cannot be expected
to last the projected life of the submarines which carry
them. Therefore, the C-4 will require substantial and costly
life extension efforts or replacement by another missile. The
most sensible and cost-effective approach to this issue is to
continue procurement of D-5 missiles and continue planning
for backfit for four submarines.
Your continued support is appreciated. John H. Dalton,
Secretary of the Navy.

If we end the production, it could also reduce incentives for Russia
to implement both START and START II. While there is every indication
that START I and START II will ultimately enter into force, I think it
is both premature and unwise to make major force structure decisions,
such as immediately stopping D-5 missile production.
Terminating production of the D-5 at this time will severely degrade
the capability of our strategic forces. The D-5 missile provides for
better accuracy, as the Secretary stated and, therefore, Mr. President,
I hope that my colleagues will oppose this amendment and support the
management of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield his remaining time?
Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute.
Mr. INOUYE. I yield back time.
Mr. STEVENS. Is there any time for the Senator from Arkansas?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, his time has expired.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have been requested not to start the
next amendment until 9:30. That was the understanding. If the Senator
from Arkansas would like a few more minutes, we will be happy to let
him speak.
Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator very much, if I may take a few
minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2
minutes for the Senator from Arkansas and the remainder to the Senator
from Hawaii, and then we will start the vote at 9:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me clarify one thing. My amendment
takes the $120 million out that starts us down the road to backfitting
these Trident submarines. Bear in mind it is always that way, the first
$120 million does not amount to much. When you vote against this
amendment, you are voting to go ahead and do the backfit. You are
talking about $4.5 billion. But all this amendment does is postpone the
decision on whether to embark on this program or not. We have at least
3 years to make this decision.
My good friend, the Senator from Hawaii, has said that this will
close the line down. I do not understand that argument because there
are six D-5 missiles in this bill, and I do not touch them. I am not
trying to stop the production of those six D-5 missiles, so there is no
threat of closing the line down.
All I am saying is, let us postpone the decision on whether we are
going to backfit these missiles for at least a couple of years, because
if the Russians do ratify START II, we are going to be right off on
START III and Trident submarines are going to be a part of the START
III talks.
So, Mr. President, it is an opportunity to jeopardize defense not one
whit and make a sensible decision that later on may save us $4.5
billion.
As I say, let me point out one more time, that even the Navy will
tell you the C-4 missiles, which are on these submarines right now,
will last as long as the submarines will. So when you start on this
$4.5 billion program, I will tell you what you get. You get a warhead
that will land 150 meters closer to its target, and when you are
talking about a 100-kiloton weapon, who cares?
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The
Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, once again, I note for my colleagues that
we have received a letter from the Secretary of the Navy, dated this
morning, requesting our support for continued D-5 missile production.
I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Department of the Navy,

Office of the Secretary,

Washington, DC, August 11, 1995.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Last year's comprehensive Nuclear
Posture Review recommended a START II compliant strategic
deterrent force for the United States which the President
approved. The continuing importance of our strategic TRIAD in
providing a survivable, responsive, and flexible deterrent
was reaffirmed in the force structure defined by the review.
When START II enters into force, the fourteen TRIDENT
submarines which comprise the Navy portion of the TRIAD will
represent our only day-to-day survivable leg of the TRIAD.
Only ten submarines have been or will be completed with the
newer 5-D missile. Four of the remaining eight ships require
backfit to carry the D-5. In concluding that backfit of these
submarines was the proper course for the nation, the Nuclear
Posture Review recognized the improved military effectiveness
and reliability of the D-5, the operational and fiscal
efficiencies which accrue from maintaining only one strategic
missile in the fleet, and the need to ensure that missile
service life is matched to that of the submarines which carry
them.
The D-5 missile, currently in production, has greater
range, better reliability, much improved accuracy, and most
importantly, twice the design life of its predecessor, the C-
4, which ceased production in 1987. Even with an aggressive
and expensive sustainment program, the C-4 cannot be expected
to last the projected life of the submarines which carry
them. Therefore, the C-4 will require substantial and costly
life extension efforts or replacement by another missile. The
most sensible and cost-effective approach to this issue is to
continue procurement of D-5 missiles and continue planning
for backfit for four submarines.
Your continued support is appreciated.
Sincerely,
John H. Dalton,
Secretary of the Navy.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we do understand the feelings of the
Senator from Arkansas. However, I remind the Senate that missile
production continues in Russia. We still have this force to maintain,
and we are following the request of the Navy which, as the Senator from
Hawaii has indicated, is really more cost-effective than doing what the
Senator from Arkansas wants.
He would require not only the $250 million to cancel the existing
contract, but then we would have to go back, as the Secretary of the
Navy points out, and recondition and modernize the C-4 before its
lifespan is over.
Mr. President, I move to table the Bumpers amendment, and I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.

[[Page S 12320]]

The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there was to be an intervening amendment.
At the request of the sponsor, he urges that we go ahead and vote on
this amendment and then Senator Harkin will take his time on his
amendment. That will be followed by a vote on his amendment.
Then we will take the time on Senator Kerry's amendment and proceed
in that fashion in order to accommodate the sponsors. If it takes
unanimous consent to change the request from last night, I ask
unanimous consent the order be as I just stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion
to lay on the table the Bumpers amendment No. 2398. The yeas and nays
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] is
necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley]
is absent because of illness in the family.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 31, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 393 Leg.]

YEAS--67

Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Brown
Bryan
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Exon
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pressler
Robb
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--31

Akaka
Baucus
Boxer
Breaux
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dorgan
Feingold
Grassley
Harkin
Hatfield
Jeffords
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Snowe
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--2

Bradley
Simpson

So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2398) was agreed
to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.

Amendment No. 2396

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there is one amendment not covered by our
agreement last night, No. 2396, Senator Hutchison's amendment. There is
2 minutes on either side.
I ask unanimous consent we yield her the full 4 minutes prior to her
withdrawal of that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. STEVENS. May we have order, please?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I put an amendment on the floor in the
open body of the Senate about 6:45 last night. About 10:30 I saw the
senior senator from Nebraska protesting that I had put an amendment in
that he had just now heard about.
This was not some new amendment. This was an amendment that embodied
language that has already been passed by this body. Every sentence in
it has already been voted on and passed by the U.S. Senate.
So what does the amendment do? Because we are being held up in the
Defense authorization bill, I wanted to make sure that the very
important language that we had already passed would be part of the
appropriations bill. It is important because it is a key issue between
the Republicans and the Democrats. I think that has become very clear
because that is now why we know that the authorization bill is being
held up and the threat of holding up this bill has now been made.
What does the amendment do? The amendment provides for Department of
Energy to maintain and enhance of our nuclear deterrent capabilities.
The bill provides further direction to the DOE to make necessary
decisions to clean up nuclear waste sites.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order, please. The
Senator deserves to be heard.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. It makes sure we have new reactor options for
disposition of fissile materials. Why do we need this amendment? We
need this amendment because the Department of Energy's published 5-year
budget plan calls for cuts in the weapons activities of up to 40
percent in fiscal year 1997 and beyond. The DOE portion of the Defense
authorization bill should be used for its intended purpose, to meet the
nuclear deterrent capability and the security needs of this country.
The issue is not testing of new weapons. It is about assuring U.S.
nuclear deterrence. If we are going to maintain a credible nuclear
weapons capability in our country, we must assure the safety----
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. And reliability of our existing stockpile. Unless we
have the ability to continue experiments and testing, we cannot assure
either. Hydronuclear testing will not violate any U.S. treaty
commitment nor our self-imposed moratorium on nuclear testing.
This is a key issue for the future of this country. We now know there
are nuclear capacities in as many as 16 countries around the world. The
idea that we would not maintain our nuclear stockpile and have the
ability to test and make sure that we can defend this country is one I
will never understand.
So, Mr. President, this is a key issue. I am going to withdraw my
amendment because I want to have a Defense bill so the armed services
of this country will have the money they need, after October 1, to
defend our country. But this issue will not go away.
This is an issue of our future and the safety of our future
generations. It is clear from the delays and the hold up in completing
action on the Defense authorization bill for the first time in at least
10 years and maybe more, and the threat to overturn this bill that we
have worked so hard on for the last 2 days--it is clear we have a
philosophical difference between the Democrats and Republicans in this
Senate.
I am not going to hold up the bill but, Mr. President, we will not
back away from protecting our future generations. I will bring this
bill up again and again and again, until we make sure that we can do
what we need to do to preserve our future.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time under the unanimous consent has
expired.
Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator from Texas withdraw her amendment?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2396) was withdrawn.

Amendment No. 2424 withdrawn

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will withdraw amendment 2424.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2424) was withdrawn.
Mr. STEVENS. There is now time for the Senator from Iowa?

Amendment No. 2400

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the amendment of the
Senator from Iowa. Under the order there are 10 minutes allotted to the
Senator from Iowa, 5 minutes under the control of the Senator from
Alaska.
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment at the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the pending question.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, do I have 10 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 10 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thought last night it was a 15-minute
agreement.

[[Page S 12321]]

Mr. STEVENS. It is 15; you have 10, I have 5.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). That is 15 minutes total. The
Senator has 10 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment is to reduce the amount
provided in excess of the Pentagon's request to produce the Kiowa
helicopters by----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order. The Senator
deserves to be heard. The Senate is not in order.
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is to reduce the request for the
Kiowa helicopters by $125 million. Again, this was not a request by the
Pentagon. It was not a request by the Army. It was put in there. And I
think this is, again, the amount of money we could save our taxpayers.
We do not need it. The armed Kiowa Warrior OH-58D helicopter is used
for light attack and reconnaissance. It has a two-man crew, and is used
in missions by itself or, more usually, together with the Apache
helicopters.
In combination with the Apaches, the armed Kiowa Warrior would locate
and designate a target with a laser beam. Apaches would then fire a
Hellfire missile at a ground target. However, the armed Kiowa Warrior
itself carries up to four Hellfire missiles, plus it has a 50-caliber
machinegun.
I have no problem with the armed Kiowa Warrior in its history as a
helicopter. It served our country well in the gulf war. It searched out
Iraqi patrol boats. However, I want to emphasize the primary role of
the Kiowa now is as a scout helicopter.
The Army requested $71.334 million for 33 of these helicopters. The
committee added another $125 million for 20 more. Mr. President, this
works out to be about $2.16 million per helicopter for the Army-
requested Kiowa, and about $6 million per helicopter for the committee-
added Warriors.
Again, there is another way, basically, of taking care of the problem
that we have in terms of getting the reconnaissance, the scout
missions. That is by using what is called a UAV, an unmanned aerial
vehicle known as the UAV.
The military magazines, such as Aviation Week & Space Technology,
have devoted whole sections to the UAV's.
The UAV is a small airplane. It is remote controlled. It does not
have a pilot on board. It has all the instrumentation such as low-light
TV cameras, laser rangefinders, thermal sensors, and optical
boresights. It has everything that a scout helicopter has except people
on board.
The Army has battle tested the UAV's. Both the Hunter UAV and the
Predator UAV have shown they can better fill the scout role in recent
tests in Bosnia.
So again we are moving into a whole new era of information gathering
on the battlefield.
So why now put another $125 million into taking a helicopter that
basically has been built since 1968--and it is an old frame. Obviously,
as I said, it worked well in the past. But it seems like we are
spending $125 million to take all these old helicopters, fix them up to
be not only a scout but Kiowa Warrior helicopter, when, in fact, we
have a cheaper, more cost-effective way of getting the information to
the battlefield. And the UAV, the Hunter UAV, works out to be about
$2.5 million per vehicle if you include the share of the ground system,
whereas the Kiowa is coming in at over $6 million per vehicle. And, I
repeat, no lives are put at risk. Recently we lost one young pilot and
had another captured by the North Koreans. They were piloting a
helicopter over North Korea. That would not have happened if we had
used a UAV instead.
So, in short, what I am saying is there is a revolution going on in
this kind of technology, and we are funding UAV technology heavily in
this bill. So it does not seem to me to make sense to then take another
$125 million and put it into, as I said, this old airframe that goes
back to 1968 and to waste this money on an outdated helicopter. For
anything that is that far out of date, the more you try to fix it up,
the more it costs. That is really what is going on here.
So, again I point out, the Army has not requested it, and the
Pentagon has not requested it. They put the money in there for the 20
additional, and I think we could save that $125 million. If the
committee saw fit to put that much more into the UAV technology, this
Senator probably would have no objection to it.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this upgrade will make the Kiowa Warrior
night- and armed-reconnaissance capable. It also will give it the
ability to be converted to a medical evacuation helicopter for night
use while it is armed.
It is a very vital necessity, according to the Army people that we
have dealt with. And I would only disagree with my friend on one item.
The Army listed this as being its most critical aviation deficiency.
That is why we have funded it.
I am prepared to yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, do I have any time left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I just cannot resist commenting on the
statement by my friend from Alaska about the use of some of these for
medical evacuation. That is a new one I had not heard of. But I would
point out that there is an article from Flight International of late
last year that the military is now giving away--giving away--giving
away over 2,000 helicopters to be used for medical evacuation by the
National Guard and police forces, and everybody else, I guess. The
District of Columbia police force is going to get some, too. If they
want medical evacuation, they are giving away 2,000 of them. That is a
new one I had not heard of before.
But, again I still think the basic reason for this is the scout
helicopter, and I think we ought to move ahead in the new technology we
have.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. This is a two-place helicopter,
a converter, to become a medical evacuation helicopter, I am informed,
for night use. It is very critical.
If the Senator is prepared to yield back his time, I am prepared to
yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, I move to table the Harkin amendment, and I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now ask that be set aside temporarily
so that we might hear from the Senator from Massachusetts for a motion
to recommit the bill, following which there is 2 minutes to either side
on that matter. As far as I am concerned, the Senator can have the full
4 minutes if he would like.
We will then proceed to vote on both amendments. I might say to the
Senate at that time those will be the last two amendments that I know
of on this bill. We will then follow with third reading after that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
On the motion to recommit, the Senator from Massachusetts is
recognized.

motion to recommit

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding me this
time, which is obviously a sign of how truly contentious this amendment
is and where it may wind up.
But I just would like to suggest to my colleagues that, if we stand
back from the norm that has governed the way in which we have passed
the Defense authorization and the Defense appropriations bills in the
past, measure it against the needs of the country, measure it against
the needs of the military, and measure it against reality, you really
cannot help but ask yourself: How is it when last year we enacted a
$241 billion budget, that this year where the President requested, with
the consent of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a $236 billion budget, we
are, nevertheless, increasing the Defense budget? We are increasing it
in the face of extraordinary cuts in almost every other portion of the
budget. We are cutting safe schools and drug-free schools. We are
cutting substance abuse money. We are even targeting Cops in the Street
money. Yet, here we are with the end of the cold war incapable of
finding a 2-percent reduction in the military budget.
Now, I think I am as sensitive as anybody here to having a military
that

[[Page S 12322]]

is second to nobody in the world. But I would respectfully suggest to
my colleagues that with creative approaches, for instance, encouraging
private ownership of industrial assets used in defense production--
something that should appeal to everybody here--with a procurement of
the most cost-effective airlift, the C-17's, or commercial, with the
repeal of something as wasteful and as ancillary as the civilian
marksmanship program, if we were simply to scale back the production
level and maintenance activities at DOE to support an arsenal level of
4,000 warheads, which is above START II, all of these things would
leave us with an adequate deterrent capacity--and all of these things
would not threaten our defense capacity one iota--we could find a 2-
percent reduction in this budget.
So this is a vote really about our own creativity and our own
thoughtfulness and our own capacity to try to show Americans that as we
reduce 15, 20, 8, or 10 percent in all the other sectors of the budget
that affect Americans equally, we ought to be able to find the 2-
percent reduction in this budget.
We are instead raising this overall level over 1995, and we are
raising it beyond the President's proposal. The difference is $6
billion.
I would respectfully suggest that in the pipeline itself you can find
hundreds of millions of dollars that would allow us to share the
sacrifice that we are asking all Americans to bear. If we are going to
ask them to bear a $270 billion reduction in Medicare so that we can
give them back money in a tax reduction, we ought to at least be able
to find 2 percent in this budget.
So my amendment does not presume to tell people how to do it. It does
not cut any one program. It simply says to the Armed Services
Committee, take this back, be more creative, come back to us, show us a
2 percent reduction measured against the reductions in all of the rest
of the budget.
I think that is a fair and a sensible way to approach deficit
reduction as well as the responsibilities of sharing the sacrifice.
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am constrained to say anything about
the Seawolf.
I move to table this motion and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Order of Procedure

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, before the vote is commenced, I want to try
to alert my colleagues about what could happen after this.
I understand we are going to third reading which is as far as you can
go because the House has not passed the bill.
I want to first commend the managers of this DOD appropriations bill.
They have done an outstanding job. We may or may not file cloture.
There may be a vote on cloture on the DOD authorization bill. There may
be a vote on the Summers nomination. There will be a vote, if we reach
an agreement on the Summers nomination. There will be very little
debate on that nomination.
But it depends on the agreement we get on the DOD authorization bill.

When we started the negotiating, we had eight amendments, and then I
got 37 yesterday from one side and 15 from one side. We are not going
to accept that agreement if we cannot get a good agreement. A lot of
Members who had amendments on the DOD bill and then put them on the
appropriations bill, then dreamed up some more to put on the
authorization bill, the same amendments.
I thought we were operating in good faith. And if not, then we will
have a cloture vote later today, and we are not going to release any
nominees--not one, not one Ambassador, not one judge, not anybody
else--until we get a satisfactory agreement.
That is what this was all about. It was all about good faith. And I
just ask my colleagues, I think we played the game and we hoped you
would.
There are a lot of these amendments that have already been offered,
and Members dreamed up some other amendments to put back on DOD again.
We are not going to bring up DOD authorization unless we can do it in
3 or 4 hours when we get back. Welfare reform is going to be on the
floor, and it is going to stay on the floor for 4 or 5 days. We are not
going to be interrupted by 2 or 3 days, the same people making the same
speeches they have made on DOD appropriations on DOD authorization.
Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. I appreciate the remarks of the distinguished majority
leader, and I say to him we are working as hard as we can. Your people
are here in the Cloakroom now and amendments are being peeled off and
an agreement is imminent, I think. So I would hope that we all
understand we are doing as well as we can on both sides.
So when the majority leader says there is 15 additional amendments on
that side and you are trying to cut those down, maybe we have twice
that many, we will cut those down. But we are getting very close.
I want Senators to know everything is being done in good faith. There
is not any bad faith here. It is all being done in good faith, and I
hope that we will have an agreement that everyone will accept and have
it shortly.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, under the agreement from last evening,
these are 10-minute votes.

Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 2400

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table the amendment of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin]. The yeas and
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley]
is absent because of illness in the family.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 35, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 394 Leg.]

YEAS--64

Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Packwood
Pell
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--35

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Graham
Harkin
Hatfield
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--1

Bradley

The motion to table the amendment (No. 2400) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, if it has been announced.
Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vote On The Motion To Table The Motion To Recommit

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table the motion to recommit offered by the Senator from Massachusetts
[Mr. Kerry].
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] is
necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] is
absent because of illness in the family.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 38, as follows:

[[Page S 12323]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 395 Leg.]

YEAS--60

Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pressler
Robb
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--38

Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Glenn
Graham
Grassley
Harkin
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--2

Bradley
Simon

So the motion to table the motion to recommit was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

disposal of bonaire housing

Mr. COHEN. I would like to bring to the manager's attention a problem
with the disposal of surplus property in Presque Isle, ME, from the
former Loring Air Force Base. The designated local reuse authority is
having difficulty with the Department of the Interior in the disposal
of the Federal property known as the BonAire Housing Complex. I
understand that it is the intention of the chairman to assist the Maine
delegation in resolving this matter.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Maine is correct. I will be pleased to
work to address this issue in an appropriate manner.
Mr. COHEN. I thank the distinguished chairman for his assistance on
this matter.

gear infac

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I would like to discuss with the
distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations
Defense Subcommittee a matter of importance to my constituents and a
key element of the defense industrial base.
Mr. STEVENS. I would be pleased to discuss such a matter with my
colleague.
Mr. BOND. As Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye know, the committee
has provided funds in the past to continue work performed under a
program referred to as the Instrumented Factory for Gears, or GEAR
INFAC. As a primary purchaser and user of precision gears, the Army has
endorsed and supported this program.
Mr. INOUYE. The Senator is correct. The committee added $8,500,000 in
fiscal year 1995 to continue the GEAR INFAC Program. The funds were
included in the research, development, test and evaluation, Army
account, effecting the transfer of this program to the Army from the
Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator from Hawaii.
The Army provided documents to my office indicating that the fiscal
year 1996 DOD budget included $6,000,000 for GEAR INFAC. However, new
documents make it unclear whether the Army has allocated adequate funds
to continue this important program. I would ask the chairman and
ranking member to discuss this matter with the Army to determine what
is available and what is required for GEAR INFAC. Furthermore, I would
ask the chairman to ensure that adequate funds are available in the
conference agreement on the DOD Appropriations Act, 1996, for GEAR
INFAC.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I assure the Senator that we will discuss
this matter with the Army. I will work in conference to address the
fiscal year 1996 requirement for funds to support GEAR INFAC.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read
the third time.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Order For Vote on September 5, 1995

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote
take place at 5 p.m. on September 5.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that if the Senate votes in the
affirmative on S. 1087, it be held at the desk until the Senate
receives H.R. 2126 from the House; that at that time, the bill, H.R.
2126, be deemed to be called up, read twice, and all after the enacting
clause be stricken, and that the text of S. 1087, as passed by the
Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof, that the bill, as amended, be
deemed read for the third time, and passed, and that the motion to
reconsider that vote be laid upon the table.
I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate insist on its
amendments, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint
conferees on the part of the Senate.
I further ask unanimous consent that, upon completion of above
action, S. 1087 be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object. I
just hope to keep the Senate mindful of the Senate rules. Does the
Senator, in setting a time specific for a final vote on the bill,
include in his unanimous-consent request a waiver of paragraph 4 of
rule XII of the Standing Rules of the Senate?
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. I ask unanimous consent that
that be included in the request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senate for its
cooperation. I particularly express, once again my great pleasure in
being able to work with my friend, Senator Inouye. We are cochairmen of
this subcommittee. I appreciate him very much and feel very deeply my
affection for him. I thank him for all his help in getting this bill
passed.
Let me thank also our staff members, particularly Steve Cortese on
this side and Charlie Houy on that side, and others who worked with us
so well on this bill.
I thank the leader.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank my leader for his kind words. I
wish to thank the Senator from Alaska for his masterful management of
this bill. I would like to also note three individuals who have been of
great assistance to us by providing timely and correct information
regarding the many amendments that have been offered: Bobbie Sherb, an
Army lieutenant colonel and a nurse, who has monitored health care
matters for the subcommittee; Ryan Henry, a Navy captain on detail with
the subcommittee, who has monitored many of the details of this bill;
Emelie East of the subcommittee staff; and last, but not least, Charlie
Houy. I thank the Chair.

____________________