Summary:

All articles in Senate section

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
(Senate - August 04, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S11372-S11437] NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill. Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Exon amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. DOLE. Can we get the yeas and nays on all the amendments? Mr. EXON. I will be glad to incorporate that. I ask for the yeas and nays on all of the amendments with reference to the matter that we have been debating. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. DOLE. So there will be the yeas and nays on four amendments. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield back any time remaining, and I am going to move to table the Exon amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? Mr. EXON. I make an inquiry of the Chair. I thought that the yeas and nays on the Exon amendment had been ordered. Is that not correct? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. EXON. Then a tabling motion would not be in order at this time, would it? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is advised by the Parliamentarian that a tabling motion would be in order. Is there a sufficient second on the tabling motion? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Exon amendment is set aside. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] is recognized to offer an amendment, on which Senator Reid will control 40 minutes and Senator Thurmond will control 20 minutes. The Senator from Nevada. Amendment No. 2113 to Amendment No. 2111 (Purpose: To strike the provision designating the location of the new tritium production facility of the Department of Energy) Mr. REID. I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself and Mr. Bryan, proposes an amendment numbered 2113 to amendment No. 2111: On page 29 of the amendment, strike lines 18 through 21. Mr. REID. The record should read as on the amendment that this is offered on behalf of both Senators from Nevada. Mr. President, I object to the section of this amendment that directs the Department of Energy to site its new tritium production facility at Savannah River. For Members of the Senate, let me explain briefly what we are talking about. Tritium is an element that is critical to all modern nuclear weapons. However, it is radioactive and decays. Our weapons will cease to work if we do not periodically replace the tritium. We do not now in the United States have the ability, the capability to produce tritium. We must develop a new tritium source. We are, in this amendment, striking from this Thurmond amendment the specification that this new producer of tritium shall be in Savannah River. This is not an appropriate action and certainly it is not an appropriate issue for legislative action. Decisions like this belong with the administrative branch of our Government. Decisions like this must be based on a complete analysis of many complex technical and economic decisions. A fair and impartial assessment of alternatives for different techniques and sites is what is called for. To think that we, as a Senate, can step in without hearings, without any procedures at all to indicate what would be the proper site for this production facility would be absolutely wrong. It is clear the reason that this is in the bill is because of the chairman of the committee being from South Carolina. There is no other reason. The fact is there are a number of sites that the Department of Energy and this administration generally are looking at to determine where would be the best place to put it. One of the sites, of course, is at the Nevada test site. If there were a vote taken today with the people in the Department of Defense, people in the Department of Energy who are making the decision, Nevada would probably win, but that is not how these decisions are made. It is not by a vote. It is by people who are administrators, who listen to the experts who work under them and for them and with them to determine where would be the best place to site this production facility. It certainly should not be done in a site specific amendment as we are now asked to consider. Why does South Carolina feel that they must legislate the outcome of this issue? Why should not South Carolina and the Members of this Senate be willing to take their chances that their site is the best site? The junior Senator from New Mexico earlier today in his remarks on the underlying Thurmond amendment indicated that he would not approve of the site specific section of the bill. He said that he would support the Reid amendment, and I think that is the way it should be. This is not some small project that you can put any place you want. This is a multibillion-dollar project. This is not a project that costs a few million dollars, a few hundred million dollars. This is a project that costs a few billion, and it is simply wrong to site it as has been done by the committee in this bill. This is a multibillion-dollar [[Page S 11373]] project upon which our nuclear deterrent critically depends. As we all know, funds for all Federal projects are limited. We should not be taking such a large and significant project and turning it into a local jobs project. I have already stated that Nevada is one of the places that is being considered for this project, and I say ``considered'' because I do not know what ultimately, when all the merits are added up, where this project would go. Nevada has a shot at it, of course. But we certainly cannot eliminate good science and good administration and in this bill simply say it is going to South Carolina. It is wrong. This is one of the types of things that gives Congress the name it has now. If there were ever an example of congressional pork, this certainly would be a good example. I also realize that Nevada's chances are eliminated if we do not pass this amendment that is now before the body. So, Mr. President, this is not a parochial issue, it is an issue of good Government. We all agree that we have to balance the budget. We have a different method of doing that. We have priorities that seem to be bantered around here which would be the best way to go to balance the budget. We all agree it should be balanced. But one of the things we have to stop doing is legislating as we are doing in this manner. We simply cannot put a multibillion dollar project in a certain State or district because the chairman of the committee is from that State or district. That is wrong. This is an issue for all of us who care about spending our limited dollars wisely. This is not an appropriate way to spend our money. The amendment that I have offered to preclude the earmarking of the site for this new tritium project is an amendment for good Government and saving the Government money. I ask all Senators to join me in defeating this attempt to bypass the ongoing process to choose a technology and a site for our Nation's future tritium production. The language from the bill, that is from the Thurmond amendment, says, ``* * * shall locate the new tritium production facility of the Department of Energy at the Savannah River site, South Carolina,'' before we know the technology, before we know the cost, before we know the suitability of the Savannah River site for the project. It is regardless of NEPA reviews; that is, the environmental impact that it would have on that part of the country. It is regardless of the cost of alternatives. What if we find an alternative that will save 10 percent? That is hundreds of millions of dollars. What if we find an alternative that will save us 5 or 3 or 20 percent? Should we not be given the latitude, should our administration not be given the latitude of looking at what would be best environmentally, what would be best from a cost basis? What about the ability of the facility to start producing tritium? What if one site, that is, the one in South Carolina, would take 8 or 9 years to develop this production capability? And let us assume another one would take 2 years. Should the administration not look at which would come on line the quickest? Of course. But what we are doing, we are citing it in this amendment, regardless of the environmental impact, regardless of the cost, and regardless of when it will be able to come on board, when we will be able to start producing tritium. Does this mean we are forgoing the option of using a commercial reactor for tritium production? It appears that way. Mr. President, we have no tritium production today. Any production facility will therefore be a new facility. It seems that we have just precluded the commercial reactor option; that is, are we going to use some of the commercial reactors that are now available for tritium, and we would buy it from the commercial producer? That is an alternative. Should we not be able to take a look at that to see if that is most appropriate way to get our tritium for our nuclear weapons? Why are we forcing a decision now? Mr. President, the question is the answer. We all know why the decision is now being forced. We are needlessly constraining the decision process for what? Again, the question assumes the answer. It is very obvious. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Who yields time? Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina. Mr. THURMOND. I move to table the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the motion to table the amendment, is there a sufficient second? Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is a unanimous consent request that has been---- Mr. THURMOND. After we vote on the Exon amendment, not now. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion would not be in order until after all the time is expired or yielded back. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina. Mr. THURMOND. I will make it after the time expires. I rise to oppose the Reid amendment and point out to my colleagues that the Savannah River site has had the tritium production mission for over 40 years. Why change? The U.S. Government has invested heavily in a unique infrastructure at the site for handling that naturally decaying radioactive gas and for recycling tritium throughout the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. For this reason, it would not be cost effective for the new tritium source to be placed at any other location regardless of the technology used for production. The taxpayer, who is frequently mentioned here on the floor, would have to duplicate the recycling infrastructure required to handle the radioactive tritium and the gas bottles which contain it in our nuclear weapons. Additionally, transporting this radioactive gas across the land from separated production and recycling sites does not make sense either. The colocation of tritium recycling facilities and the new tritium production facility is the only solution that makes economic sense for the American taxpayer. I wish to point out to the Senate that the Savannah River site is located on the border between the States of Georgia and South Carolina. The people of both States have, after the land was condemned for this facility, supported this mission of the site for the past 45 years and cooperated fully with the Government in every way possible in its important mission to sustain the nuclear stockpile. Mr. President, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. REID addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada. Mr. REID. I say to my friend from South Carolina, if all these arguments are valid, then why should we have this in the bill? If all his arguments are valid, then the people who are making the decision, the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense, I am sure, will take all those facts into consideration. If he is right, South Carolina would wind up getting it. I will yield whatever time the Senator from Nevada may consume. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized. Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank my senior colleague for his leadership in providing this amendment, which I strongly support. Mr. President, as Senator Reid has indicated, he and I clearly have a vested interest in the outcome of this amendment. The Nevada test site is also being considered as the location for a new tritium source. Frankly, our view is it is far superior to any other location that is being considered. But I hope, Mr. President, my colleagues will understand that this is not just a battle between two States that seek to acquire a new major project which Senator Reid has indicated is of the magnitude of several billions of dollars. The Department of Energy's efforts to build a new tritium supply is probably one of the most important current programs to ensure our continued confidence in our nuclear stockpile. The tritium supply program is absolutely essential to our national security program. Senator Reid alluded to it, but I would like to embellish on it a little bit. Tritium is a radioactive gas and tritium is used in almost all of our nuclear weapons to achieve a so-called booster effect; that is, to magnify or to amplify the full impact of the nuclear yields. And our national defense planners, strategists, have come to rely [[Page S 11374]] upon those projections. So the premise undergirding our national defense strategic deterrence is predicated upon yields that can be achieved only with the use of tritium. Tritium, however, has a relatively short half life, a little over 12 years, which means that it decays at a rate of about 5 percent a year and needs to be replenished on a regular basis. Recent reductions in our nuclear weapons stockpile have allowed us during this interim period of time to recycle tritium from retired weapons and has reduced the pressure to build a new tritium supply somewhat. But the need in terms of a long-range supply is still quite critical. Even if we take advantage of the tritium made available by retiring weapons, if we do not have a new tritium supply on line by the year 2011--that is just 16 years away--we will need to start to dip into our tritium reserve. By 2016, even using the reserve, it will not be adequate to meet our needs. Mr. President, since I think most everybody acknowledges it will take about 15 years or more to get a tritium supply facility up and operational, we need to act now to make sure we will have a viable nuclear deterrent capability after the year 2011. There are two ways, as I understand it, that you can produce tritium. There is the traditional way that we have produced it in the past with a nuclear reactor, and there is a new way which offers considerable hope and promise. It is a linear accelerator. Scientists tell us that either way is feasible, and the Department of Energy is in the process of evaluating these two options, including an evaluation of numerous options within the nuclear reactor category. A decision on which technology will provide us the most confidence and will be the most fiscally responsible is to be announced soon by the Department of Energy. In addition to evaluating the technology options, the Department is going to decide where to site this new tritium facility. Several sites are considered including one in Idaho, Savannah River, Oak Ridge, Pantex, and the Nevada test site. This will be primarily research oriented. I do not consider the naming of the site at this time an urgent matter. Nevertheless, the Secretary of Energy is committed to the announcing of a preferred site for the tritium supply technology in the near future. The Department recognizes the seriousness of this decision and has devoted a considerable amount of time and a great many resources to ensuring that the final decision will result in a viable cost-effective tritium supply program. Mr. President, this is not the time for Congress to meddle in what is essentially a technical and scientific decision process. I realize that some of my colleagues may be frustrated with what they perceive to be delays in moving forward with the tritium supply decision, and given the Department's track record in a number of programs, it is all too easy to place the blame for delays in a program on the Department of Energy. In this instance, however, I simply do not believe the criticism is justified. Since 1988, when the New Production Reactor Office was established to develop a new supply for tritium, there have been incredible changes in the environment in which the Department is acting: The Soviet Union has imploded. The cold war is over, and President Bush's three announcements during 1991 and 1992 of significant reductions in the nuclear weapons stockpile program has dramatically changed the picture with regard to a new tritium supply. When the Bush administration, under Secretary of Energy Watkins, decided not to pursue the new production reactor, an entire new plan had to be developed for the production of a tritium resource. The Secretary of Energy was required under the fiscal year 1994 Defense Authorization Act to issue a programmatic environmental impact statement by March 1, 1995. This draft PEIS for tritium supply and recycling issued by the Department last February complied with the requirement and is the latest product of a 7-year process to develop a rational, cost-effective, scientifically based program to ensure the capability of our nuclear weapons well into the next century. No preferred site or technology was identified by the February 1995 document, nor is one required under the NEPA process. At that point, the Secretary of Energy committed to executing a record of decision by November of this year. By Government standards, that is a reasonably quick turnaround. The Secretary also made it clear that a decision on the preferred technology or site may be announced prior to the November record of decision. That is where we stand today, Mr. President. The PEIS is on the street and the Secretary is committed to a decision by November of this year. The Secretary, clearly feeling she did not have sufficient basis to make a decision on site or technology prior to March 1, is currently evaluating the technical and scientific evidence gathered through the NEPA process. That is as it should be. To give you some indication of the magnitude of the PEIS, this indicates the voluminous nature of the information that is being compiled, that is currently being reviewed and analyzed by the Department. These are two volumes entitled ``The Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Tritium Supply and Recycling.'' It is my view that the Secretary ought to be permitted to move forward in that evaluating process. It is hard to understand how Congress, on a matter of such importance to our national defense, could even consider substituting its judgment on a parochial basis for the scientific and technical expertise that is being considered by the Department of Energy. I realize that the language our amendment seeks to strike only specifies the site for the new tritium source. The language presumes to leave the technology choice to the Secretary of Energy and only identifies the site for the new facility. Unfortunately, Mr. President, it is not quite that simple. In order to obtain the most reliable and cost-effective results, the Department of Energy must maintain the flexibility it needs to determine both the site and the technology for the new tritium resource. As the draft PEIS makes abundantly clear, each of the sites being considered for the new tritium source has its own advantages and disadvantages. Should the DOE decide to build a new reactor, whether it is a so- called triple-play reactor, advocated by the senior Senator from South Carolina, or any other type of reactor, Savannah River appears to be the most likely site. The Nevada test site is less suitable and, parenthetically, I would oppose building a reactor anywhere in Nevada. On the other hand, given the freedom to make the most rational decision, the Nevada test site would be the preferred alternate, if the chosen technology turns out to be an accelerator. Others would disagree, and I acknowledge this is a debatable proposition, but at this point, the best course we in Congress can pursue is simply let the NEPA process run its course. In supporting the Reid-Bryan amendment, that is what the Senate is pursuing: To allow the course which the Congress set in motion in 1994 by directing that a programmatic EIS be developed to make the determination as to site and technology for the new tritium supply. That is what we allow to occur. By leaving the language in the bill as it currently is, we preempt that process, and in the interest of a parochial decisionmaking process, foreclose the Department from making a determination both, in my view, on technology as well as site. Mr. President, I yield my time back to the distinguished senior Senator from Nevada. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia. Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I will make brief remarks on this amendment. I support the Senator from South Carolina and his position. Savannah River has been the tritium production complex since the dawn of the nuclear age. It has the infrastructure, it has the trained work force, it has the experience, it is a logical place for the new tritium facility, whatever technology is being chosen. [[Page S 11375]] We do not have in this bill now, as I understand this amendment--I have not been a part of working on this amendment--but as I understand it, there is nothing in the bill now, after this amendment is adopted, that would tell the Secretary of Energy what kind of reactor to have. She still has that choice--the light-water reactor, the gas reactor, the multipurpose reactor, heavy water or even the accelerator. All of those technologies are available. The Secretary of Energy said she is going to make this decision sometime in late summer or early fall. That means that this bill is bound to be in conference in September, and if the Secretary of Energy makes any other decision, other than Savannah River, then certainly we will have a time to study that carefully and to react to that in conference. So I support the Senator from South Carolina on this. I urge the defeat of the second-degree amendment. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina. Mr. THURMOND. I yield the able junior Senator from Georgia such time as he may require. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia. Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, as my good colleague from Georgia noted, the Savannah River site has been the site for weapons tritium production for nearly half a century--specifically 40 years. Obviously, given the importance of the production of that plant in terms of our nuclear policy, a very large capital investment has already been made by the taxpayers of the United States on the Savannah River site's unique, extensive tritium handling, tritium bottle recycling and production infrastructure--a huge capital investment. If the new tritium production facility which DOE was planning were to be located at another site other than Savannah River, the large tritium bottle recycling facilities and the tritium production handling facilities would have to be replicated, rebuilt at a new site. This would be very expensive, cost-ineffective, and not wise. Another alternative, I guess, would be to transport radioactive tritium to the Savannah River site bottle recycling from a distant new production site. This would require expensive, unique transportation, and would be perceived as a potential negative public health risk in the States transversed. On this basis, it is both logical and cost- effective for the Congress to designate this longstanding facility, a facility uniquely prepared to deal with this production as the location for the tritium production facility. The bottom line here is, if you are talking about a change, you are talking about spending millions and millions of dollars, and you are talking about breaking the continuity chain of preparedness that the Savannah River site represents. Mr. President, I yield back my time to the Senator from South Carolina. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, how much time is left on each side? The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 13 minutes remaining for the Senator from South Carolina, and the Senator from Nevada has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining. Mr. REID addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized. Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend, the ranking member, the former chairman of the committee, said the only question is what kind of facility. Well, that really is not the only question. But, in fact, if that were the only question, why in the world would you want to site in South Carolina, no matter what kind of facility, a reactor accelerator? If the Secretary of Energy is going to make this decision late summer/early fall, why would Congress want to meddle with what is already in the process of being decided? If there were ever an example of congressional meddling, this certainly would be it. Mr. President, this is a big project. I am reading from one newspaper: The new tritium production facility would be the Nation's first since the 1960's. Cost estimates range as high as $10 billion, and the project could create more than 2,000 jobs. In the other body, something like this was tried and, again, I read from the Energy Daily of June 1995, where over there it was referred to as ``radioactive pork.'' Well, thank goodness the House in its wisdom got rid of that radioactive pork, and that was deleted from their legislation. If the Savannah River site is so good, why do they not let it compete on its merits? If the threat that I heard--namely, if the Department of Energy sites it someplace else, we will take a look at it in conference. This is a threat to the Secretary to site it on the Savannah River, or we will take care of it in conference. That is wrong. My amendment lets the system of Government work the way it should, not with ``radioactive pork.'' It would be with the orderly process of Government. Let me repeat, Mr. President, the language in the underlying amendment of the Senator from South Carolina that I and Senator Bryan are attempting to delete States, ``shall locate the new tritium production facility * * * at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina.'' We are subverting, standing on its head, making a mockery of the system of Government that we have, where the Director of the Department of Energy--the Secretary--will make a determination after due consultation with the Department of Defense, with the people that work for and with her, as to where it should go. But in this Thurmond amendment, we are going to site it in South Carolina before we know the technology that will be used, the cost, or the suitability of the Savannah River site for the project. There may be technology that should only go to Savannah River that the Secretary will decide on. Or she may find that that is technology that they want to use and should not go to Savannah River for many reasons. Maybe the cost of the Savannah River, because of all the pollution from the failed reactor, for over 45 years, makes that site so expensive, so unreliable, that it should go someplace else. This language sites it in South Carolina, regardless of the environmental concerns, regardless of the need for reviews, regardless of the cost alternatives, and, of course, as I have mentioned before, regardless of the impact on the schedule to produce tritium. What if we need to get tritium produced quickly. Does this mean that we are foregoing the option of using an existing commercial reactor for tritium production? Yes, it does. That may be the decision the Secretary will make, saving the taxpayers of this country billions of dollars. We have no tritium production today. Any production facility will therefore be a new facility. It seems that we have just precluded the commercial reactor option. That is wrong, and that is not what we should want or what this Congress should be up to. We have certain budget constraints that we have all been working under. This flies in the face of that. Why are we forcing a decision now when we know, as indicated by the senior Senator from Georgia, that the Secretary is going to make this decision in late summer? Late summer is upon us. This decision could come within a matter of weeks. We are needlessly constraining the decision process. For what? We are doing it for ``radioactive pork,'' and that is wrong. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to take a minute or two more. I want to just recall that in 1946, when I was Governor of South Carolina, the project was announced to build this plant in Aiken, SC, on the Savannah River between Georgia and South Carolina. I moved to Aiken to practice law. I guess I represented over 90 percent of the landowners down there. They had the land condemned and taken away, whether they wanted to or not. The Government said, ``We need this land for this plant.'' The Government needed it. They sacrificed a lot. They underwent many hardships. The plant was built. Why now do we want to take away the opportunity for those people who sacrificed like they did to help the Government to build this plant for the good of our country? We are not asking that they use any particular kind of technology. They can use the accelerator or they can use the reactor, or whatever they want to. We are merely saying it should not be taken away from these people who [[Page S 11376]] sacrificed so much in their lifetime for this plant and for the Government. We feel it should not be moved, regardless of what the technology is. It ought to remain at this site. It has been there for 45 years. Why take it away? They have done a good job. They have the infrastructure. They have the workers. They have everything to make a success. I do hope that this amendment will be defeated. Mr. REID. Mr. President, the proponents of sight infrastructure costs as their main argument, but this facility will produce training for 50 years. I say, what is the lowest life cycle cost of 50 years? Do we care? We should care, Mr. President. I yield to my colleague from Nevada whatever time he desires. Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague. It seems to me, Mr. President, that we have heard what essentially are three arguments by the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. One is that it has been there for 45 years, and therefore it should continue in perpetuity for 45 years. Mr. President, I think the answer to that question is self-evident. We are considering prospectively what is the best location for the tritium production facility in the future. That is the entire purpose of the problematic environmental impact statement. Indeed, they may make and come to the same conclusion that our friend, the senior Senator from South Carolina made. But that is not an analytical or rational argument for a policy that has always been there, always been that way, and therefore we should continue that way forever in the future. The second argument that my friend made was to suggest that somehow the recycling operation has been at Savannah River and that by colocating the new production facility, somehow we would ease or eliminate the transportation of tritium. Mr. President, that is simply not true. As my colleagues, I am sure, know, we do not move nuclear bombs around the country, to have the tritium components of them added in second. When we are talking about retrofitting or adding the tritium component, you are talking about doing that at a facility that has the capability of doing that. That is, first and foremost, the facility at Pantex. No one should have the impression that by having a recycling and production facility in South Carolina that we eliminate the necessity of transporting that new tritium product to either Pantex, or there is a facility at the Nevada test site that could handle the disassembly. My friend makes the argument of sacrifice. While I am sure he recites the history, nobody quarrels with the senior Senator from South Carolina when he describes the history of the state that he has represented so long and so ably, and which I know he has great personal affection. If we are talking about sacrifice, he is talking about the few thousand acres at Savannah River. Nevada is the mother of all sacrifices--the mother of all sacrifices. The Nevada test site alone is larger than the entire State of Rhode Island. Just the Nevada test site. If you want to talk about Federal sacrifice, 87 percent of the entire land mass of the State of Nevada is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, either the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, the Bureau of Land Management, or the Forest Service. I must say that I do not think any of those three arguments are compelling. Finally, I return very briefly to, I think, the argument that my senior colleague makes so ably. That is, we started the process in 1994. We said, ``Let's look, see how we should handle future tritium production. Let's have a problematic EIS.'' Added into that mix is the fact there is a new technology we want to take a look at, the linear accelerator technology. There are different types of reactor technologies that we want to consider, as well, some four technologies within the rubric of the reactor option, which is the other option other than the accelerator. All of those ought to be considered rationally as part of an evaluation process and ought not to be the subject of micromanagement by the Congress. Let this process work its course. We in Nevada have a vested interest. We would like to see it in Nevada. I would like to see the linear accelerator, but I am willing to take my chance. I think that is the best policy. I urge the Congress and this Senate to allow that course to work its way, as well, and let the experts make the decision. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2114 to Amendment No. 2111 Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to make certain technical amendments to the Thurmond-Domenici amendment. These have been agreed to by both sides. I send them to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] proposes an amendment numbered 2114 to amendment No. 2111. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: Page 8, line 17 strike out ``$2,341,596,000 and substitute in lieu thereof $2,386,596,000''. Page 8, line 20 strike out ``$2,121,226,000 and substitute in lieu thereof ``$2,151,266,000''. Page 9, line 1 strike out ``$220,330,000'' and substitute in lieu thereof ``$235,330,000''. Page 9, line 25 strike out ``$26,000,000'' and substitute in lieu thereof ``$41,000,000''. Page 13, line 6 strike out ``$550,510,000'' and substitute in lieu thereof ``$505,510,000''. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back? Mr. REID. I yield back. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The amendment (No. 2114) was agreed to. Amendment No. 2113 Mr. THURMOND. I move to table the Reid amendment 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. Mr. REID. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Could the Presiding Officer indicate what the parliamentary status is now. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first vote will occur in relation to the motion to table the Exon amendment. Mr. THURMOND. I am informed Senator McCain is not going to offer an amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote on the motion to table the Exon amendment can occur now. Mr. REID. Immediately following that will be the Reid-Bryan amendment. Mr. BRYAN. 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. Mr. EXON. 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 question is on the motion to table. Mr. EXON. Yes. If I understand the agreement right, the Senator from Nebraska has 2 minutes, as does the Senator from South Carolina. I ask unanimous consent, as previously agreed to, that immediately preceding the vote on the Exon amendment, 2 minutes be allocated to the Senator from Nebraska and 2 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment No. 2112 Mr. EXON. Mr. President, there can be no question that we are about to cast a critically important vote. We will send a signal that will resonate around the world and have far-reaching implications on mankind's chances of moving further away from a reliance on nuclear weapons and a possible nuclear holocaust, or we can reverse course, abruptly and shamefully. As the world's leading nuclear superpower, we can send a signal loud and clear that, notwithstanding our protestations about the spread of nuclear devices, notwithstanding our supposed commitment to a nuclear test ban treaty, we are going to reverse course. [[Page S 11377]] The Exon-Hatfield amendment assures a constructive policy of gradual and very deliberate thought processes, and offers the nuclear olive branch, if you will, to potential friend and potential foe alike, that the United States of America offers a hand of nuclear understanding. If we vote down, if we table the Exon-Hatfield amendment, it is going to be a significant step backward for which we will not forgive ourselves, I suggest, for centuries to come. It is the time we reemphasize our restraint, our vigilance, and agree to the Exon- Hatfield amendment as we have explained in great detail during debate this morning. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I just want to say that every weapons system, indeed every machine in our technological society, requires testing. The hydronuclear testing is the only tool left to assess our confidence in the safety and reliability of the shrinking nuclear stockpile. Mr. President, we need to do this. We are living in a dangerous world. It is important that we be informed as to the reliability and safety of our weapons. They may have to be used. I do not need to cite the situations that could be dangerous in various parts of the world. We know about North Korea. We do not know what Russia is going to do, what China is going to do. We do not know what certain nations like Iran or Iraq and Libya will do, the terrorist nations. We must be prepared. And to be prepared we have to know what our weapons will do. We have to know they will be safe and reliable, and that is the purpose of this amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion to table the Exon amendment. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote? The result was announced, yeas 56, nays 44, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 359 Leg.] YEAS--56 Abraham Ashcroft Bennett Bond Breaux Brown Bryan Burns Coats Cochran Cohen Coverdell Craig D'Amato DeWine Dole Domenici Faircloth Frist Gorton Gramm Grams Grassley Gregg Hatch Heflin Helms Hollings Hutchison Inhofe Johnston Kempthorne Kyl Lott Lugar Mack McCain McConnell Mikulski Murkowski Nickles Packwood Pressler Reid Roth Santorum Shelby Simpson Smith Snowe Specter Stevens Thomas Thompson Thurmond Warner NAYS--44 Akaka Baucus Biden Bingaman Boxer Bradley Bumpers Byrd Campbell Chafee Conrad Daschle Dodd Dorgan Exon Feingold Feinstein Ford Glenn Graham Harkin Hatfield Inouye Jeffords Kassebaum Kennedy Kerrey Kerry Kohl Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lieberman Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murray Nunn Pell Pryor Robb Rockefeller Sarbanes Simon Wellstone So, the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2112) was agreed to. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote on Amendment No. 2113 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business is amendment No. 2113, and under the previous order there are now 4 minutes of debate equally divided between the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond]---- Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from South Carolina and I have agreed to yield back our time. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I agree to yield back the time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back? All time is yielded back. The question is now on agreeing to the motion to table the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk called the roll. The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 43, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 360 Leg.] YEAS--57 Abraham Ashcroft Bennett Biden Bond Breaux Brown Byrd Campbell Chafee Coats Cochran Cohen Coverdell D'Amato DeWine Dole Domenici Faircloth Frist Gramm Grams Grassley Gregg Hatch Hatfield Heflin Helms Hollings Hutchison Inhofe Johnston Kassebaum Kyl Lott Lugar Mack McCain McConnell Mikulski Murkowski Nickles Nunn Packwood Pressler Roth Santorum Shelby Simpson Smith Snowe Specter Stevens Thomas Thompson Thurmond Warner NAYS--43 Akaka Baucus Bingaman Boxer Bradley Bryan Bumpers Burns Conrad Craig Daschle Dodd Dorgan Exon Feingold Feinstein Ford Glenn Gorton Graham Harkin Inouye Jeffords Kempthorne Kennedy Kerrey Kerry Kohl Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lieberman Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murray Pell Pryor Reid Robb Rockefeller Sarbanes Simon Wellstone So the motion to table the amendment (No. 2113) was agreed to. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to. Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business is the vote on amendment No. 2111. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated on amendment No. 2111. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Do all Senators yield back their time? Mr. THURMOND. I ask for a voice vote on that amendment. Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, is all time yielded back? Mr. THURMOND. We yield back all time. Vote on Amendment No. 2111 The PRESIDING OFFICER. With all time yielded back, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2111. The amendment (No. 2111) was agreed to. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to. Mr. COHEN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business is an amendment to be offered by the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], dealing with defense firewalls, with 1 hour of debate equally divided. Who yields time? Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I hope the time will not start running until we have order in the Senate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas directs that the time not begin until the Senate is in order. The Senate will be in order, please. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized to offer his amendment. Amendment No. 2115 (Purpose: To restore a common sense approach to the appropriations process by repealing the defense firewalls established in the FY96 Budget Resolution) Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself, Mr. Simon, Mr. Wellstone, and Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes an amendment numbered 2115. Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new section: SEC. REPEAL OF DEFENSE FIREWALL. (A) Strike Section 201(a) through 201(b)(1)(B) of H. Con. Res. 67, as passed by [[Page S 11378]] both Houses of Congress and insert in lieu thereof the following: SEC. 201. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS. (A) DEFINITION.--As used in this section and for the purposes of allocations made pursuant to section 302(a) or 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, for the discretionary category, the term `discretionary spending limit' means-- (1) with respect to fiscal year 1996, for the discretionary category $485,074,000,000 in new budget authority and $531,768,000,000 in outlays; (2) with respect to fiscal year 1997, for the discretionary category $482,430,000,000 in new budget authority and $520,295,000,000 in outlays; (3) with respect to fiscal year 1998, for the discretionary category $490,692,000,000 in new budget authority and $512,632,000,000 in outlays; (4) with respect to fiscal year 1999, for the discretionary category $482,207,000,000 in new budget authority and $510,482,000,000 in outlays; (5) with respect to fiscal year 2000, for the discretionary category $489,379,000,000 in new budget authority and $514,234,000,000 in outlays; (6) with respect to fiscal year 2001, for the discretionary category $496,601,000,000 in new budget authority and $516,403,000,000 in outlays; (7) with respect to fiscal year 2002, for the discretionary category $498,837,000,000 in new budget authority and $515,075,000,000 in outlays; as adjusted for changes in concepts and definitions and emergency appropriations. (b) Point of Order in the Senate.-- (1) In General.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider-- (A) any concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002 (or amendment, motion, or conference report on such a resolution) that provides discretionary spending in excess of the discretionary spending limit for such fiscal year; or (B) Within 30 days of the date of enactment of this Act, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees shall meet to consider the reallocation of the fiscal year 1996 suballocations made pursuant to section 602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I know this psychologically is a terrible way to open a debate, but I have no delusions about the possibility of winning on this amendment. Given the makeup of the Senate right now, it is going to be several years before an amendment like this will take root, but it will take root when the American people focus not only on their misery but what caused it. Everybody here is aware of the fact that we treat defense as not only the highest priority but everything else is secondary to it. Not to be trite, but the truth of the matter is that we, like so many civilizations, from the Israelites on, may very well find that the strength of this Nation is not all in planes, tanks, and guns. How we treat our people, the kind of health care they get, the kind of education they get, the kind of environment they live in, those things determine what a powerful nation is, too. It usually takes me about an hour or two after I read the Washington Post in the morning to get enthused sufficiently enough to come to work. This morning it was especially depressing. Here were three front page stories: House votes to prohibit States from paying for an abortion in cases of rape or incest. Mr. President, to me, that is a form of barbarism, to say that a child who may be pregnant by her father, or the most innocent housewife who is raped, if she has the money, no problem. If she is poor, she will birth that child. You remember the beatitude, ``Blessed are those who are persecuted.'' If that is not a form of persecution, I do not know what is. The second story was: Senate votes to abrogate antiballistic missile treaty. That is not entirely true, but figuratively and, down the road, literally it is true. We will decide the interpretation of the treaty; we will decide whether it is abrogated or not, and if the Russians happen to disagree, so be it. The language of the bill itself said the Senate, not the President, will decide whether the ABM Treaty is in our interest or not. We will decide whether we want to live by it or not. And that solemn document that we put our names on in 1972 will be for naught. Who else wants to sign a treaty with us knowing that that is the way we treat our treaties? We simply cannot give up on the cold war. We just love it too much. Dr. Strangelove. Another beatitude is, ``Blessed are the peacemakers.'' Not too many people are blessed in this body. The third story was: House cuts $9 billion in education, health care, and food for the poor. ``Blessed are the poor,'' unless one of them happens to get pregnant at the age of 17. What do we do in the Senate? We add $7 billion more than the Secretary of Defense and our chiefs of staff want. Can you imagine that? We are adding $7 billion more than our defense authorization asked for. It was depressing. And as I read those three stories, I pondered on what else. Medicare? No firewalls around Medicare, health care for the elderly; there are no firewalls there. We are going to cut $270 billion over the next 7 years. We are going to give the States block grants on Medicaid and AFDC, not necessarily because we think it is more efficient, but because we are going to cut back on Medicaid. All that is health care for the poorest of the poor. We are going to cut PBS, which is one of the few things that provide a little enrichment for our children. ``Sesame Street'' and Big Bird, adios. ``All Things Considered,'' which every Member of the Senate listens to going to and from work on NPR, adios. No commercials. We need to privatize this so we can get some commercials on PBS and NPR. I want to see, right in the middle of the Civil War series, a bunch of youngsters running down the beach with a Budweiser in their hands. That is what I call cultural enrichment. And the arts--how I wish that guy Mapplethorpe had never received a grant. You see, he does not have anything to do with the repertory theater in my State. But we will be lucky to make it in my State with our symphony without some help from the National Endowment. Food stamps. We did not develop food stamp programs willy-nilly. We did it because we made a conscious decision that we did not want anybody in this country to go hungry. Everybody acts as though it was some sort of a Communist conspiracy that should have never been put in place. We are going to cut that. If you do not happen to have a PAC or a $1,000 check, you are not getting anything out of this crowd. Eliminate affirmative action. I have heard so many anecdotes on affirmative action that make my blood boil, and some of them are true. It has been an abused program. But do not say that the time has come when we have a level playing field when 14 percent of the black males in this country are unemployed, and 40 percent of the black teenagers are unemployed, compared to about 5 percent white. You know, if we were to eliminate this famous tax cut I hear so much about--that is what the Medicare cut is, $270 billion; and $250 billion of that--virtually all--is for a tax cut, 70 percent of which goes to people who make over $100,000 a year. When I was a young practicing lawyer, I yearned for the day when I would make $100,000 a year. So now I am going to get a nice healthy tax cut. Every Senator gets $133,000 or $135,000 a year, a big fat pension, a health care plan second to none, and we are going to get a tax cut when 50 percent of the people in this country over 65 cannot sleep at night because they are in abject terror of getting sick and not being able to pay their bills. If we just cut Medicare by half that amount and eliminate the tax cut and spend the other $135 billion on education and things that make us a great nation, we can still balance the budget in the year 2002 and do what we know we ought to do. No, we are going to reward those who have already been richly blessed. And we are going to further abuse those at the bottom of the ladder. Indeed, we will step on their hands if they happen to be reaching for the first rung. We have become so cynical and indifferent. So we have to put firewalls around defense to make sure none of it ever gets out of the Pentagon into the hands of some poor soul who might need it for an education. Senator Kohl is going to offer an amendment later today which would cut the $7 billion which was added on to this bill. Even if he were to prevail, which he will not even come close to doing, you could not take that money and use it for any other purpose. Mr. President, how much time is remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 minutes and 50 seconds remaining. [[Page S 11379]] Mr. BUMPERS. Will you kindly notify me when I have used a total of 20 minutes. Mr. President, here is a chart which shows what is going to happen from 1995 to the year 2002, in defense. We go from $264 billion in 1995 to $280 billion in 2002. What do we do with everything else--what is known as domestic discretionary spending--education, health care, you name it, medical research, law enforcement? What happens to that? It goes from $241 to $218 billion over 7 years. Of the spending cuts that are projected to be made over the next 7 years to reduce the deficit and pay for the Republican tax cut for the wealthy, domestic spending, the things that make us great will absorb 43 percent of all the cuts. What in the name of God are we thinking about? We will spend $400 billion more for defense spending than domestic programs over the next 7 years. Mr. President, $400 billion less to take care of the real needs of the people of this country, that we are going to spend on defense. How much are we spending on defense? Are we looking for two wars, as the Bottom-Up Review said? Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield? Mr. BUMPERS. Not until I finish this statement. This chart demonstrates what we spend for defense in comparison to our eight or nine most likely adversaries, Russia, China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Cuba--name somebody else. I do not care who you name. Our defense budget is twice as big as all nine of them put together. If you add NATO, twice as much as the rest of the world. What are the proponents of the bill we are considering today proposing? That we add $7 billion to the defense budget. We get so hairy chested around here when defense comes up. Everybody favors a strong defense. Nobody wants to ever be vulnerable. This is what you call piling on. You just cannot pile on enough money. Even the Pentagon is trying to shovel it back to us, and we will not take it. I appreciate the Defense Department. When we have a crisis, I am glad we have aircraft carriers. I am glad we have all the sophisticated weaponry. All I am saying is, there ought to be some kind of balance, because it is not going to make any difference how much we spend on defense if we are not careful about what we are doing back home. Mr. President, I saw a poll of high school seniors about 5 years ago. Who are your heroes? About the only one I can remember is Tom Cruise. I think Mr. T was on the list. It was a list of rock stars. Michael Jackson was high on the list. That is who the high school seniors revere in this country. Mother Theresa did not make it. The Pope did not make it. Poor old George Bush did not make it. Not even mom and pop. Senators, can you imagine somebody asking you that question when you were in high school, who were your heroes? I would have popped out my father so fast it would make your head swim. You talk about a hero. I worshipped the ground he walked on. Mom and pop did not make this list. If we keep going the way we have gone this year in the U.S. Congress, Tim McVeigh and David Koresh will be on the list next year. I am not trying to take the money away from the Pentagon with this amendment. I am simply saying the people of this body ought to be more thoughtful about where the real strengths of the Nation are. We ought to be more thoughtful about people who have not had the luck we have had. I know a woman who is very wealthy and she is always saying, ``Can't everybody be rich and beautiful like me?'' The truth of the matter is, most people who have made it, and especially if you come from a town during the Depression with a population of 851, have had a lot of help. I did not become a Senator just because I am such a great person. I tell you why I did it. I did it because this same Congress, back when they were a little more sensitive about things like this, gave me a free education. That is right. My brother went to Harvard. I went to Northwestern. My father was a poor man. He could no more have afforded that than he could fly to the Moon. I was fortunate and received a little Government help after World War II, and had a teacher who taught me to speak and read well, did something for my self-esteem. The main thing I did, and what most people that make it did, is choose my parents well. Mr. President, I just want to say I am not trying to move money out of the Defense Department into any of these other programs. I am saying as a psychological thing we ought not to be sitting here and saying you cannot touch defense for anything, no matter how critical it may be. If we continue the way we have started this year, and especially that Contract With America, this country is in for a terrible shock. That is not what the people were voting for, they wanted change, but this is not the change they were voting for, I do not think. When they begin to feel the pain, they are going to begin to wonder what they voted for. I am telling you, if we keep going the way we are going now, trying to tinker with the Constitution, spending every extra dime we can get our hands on on defense, that age of know-nothingism back in the middle of the 19th century will be known as the age of enlightenment. As you know I have such a reverence for the freedom of religion in this country, but there is a great quote of Isaiah, admonishing the Israelites when they got sort of cynical about all their people. He said to them: Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Maybe that is just good for the Senate prayer breakfast or on Sunday morning. It does not seem to be terribly relevant here. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Mexico. Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator will yield 6 minutes? Mr. THURMOND. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do we have in opposition? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 minutes. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first let me suggest to my good friend, Senator Bumpers, he has given a very great speech about what he thinks we ought to be doing in the United States. But I must tell those who are listening, very little of it has to do with the amendment he is talking about. The amendment he is talking about is very, very simple. In 1990 I was privileged to have an idea--that I had been thinking about and worrying about--become the law. In that year, 1990, and 3 years thereafter, we decided that once the Congress of the United States voted in an amount of money that they wanted spent on the defense of the United States, that during that year they only had two options regarding defense: First, if they did not want to spend all of the defense money, they applied what was saved on the deficit; and, second, if they want to spend defense money on anything else, they had to get 60 votes to do it. That is a pretty reasonable approach, when you consider the propensity of legislators to want more and more for programs that they love, or that they need, or that they want for their constituents. And you put it up against a big defense budget and everybody can say, ``Oh, take a little bit away for this. Take a little bit away for

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
(Senate - August 04, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S11372-S11437] NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill. Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Exon amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. DOLE. Can we get the yeas and nays on all the amendments? Mr. EXON. I will be glad to incorporate that. I ask for the yeas and nays on all of the amendments with reference to the matter that we have been debating. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. DOLE. So there will be the yeas and nays on four amendments. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield back any time remaining, and I am going to move to table the Exon amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? Mr. EXON. I make an inquiry of the Chair. I thought that the yeas and nays on the Exon amendment had been ordered. Is that not correct? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. EXON. Then a tabling motion would not be in order at this time, would it? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is advised by the Parliamentarian that a tabling motion would be in order. Is there a sufficient second on the tabling motion? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Exon amendment is set aside. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] is recognized to offer an amendment, on which Senator Reid will control 40 minutes and Senator Thurmond will control 20 minutes. The Senator from Nevada. Amendment No. 2113 to Amendment No. 2111 (Purpose: To strike the provision designating the location of the new tritium production facility of the Department of Energy) Mr. REID. I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself and Mr. Bryan, proposes an amendment numbered 2113 to amendment No. 2111: On page 29 of the amendment, strike lines 18 through 21. Mr. REID. The record should read as on the amendment that this is offered on behalf of both Senators from Nevada. Mr. President, I object to the section of this amendment that directs the Department of Energy to site its new tritium production facility at Savannah River. For Members of the Senate, let me explain briefly what we are talking about. Tritium is an element that is critical to all modern nuclear weapons. However, it is radioactive and decays. Our weapons will cease to work if we do not periodically replace the tritium. We do not now in the United States have the ability, the capability to produce tritium. We must develop a new tritium source. We are, in this amendment, striking from this Thurmond amendment the specification that this new producer of tritium shall be in Savannah River. This is not an appropriate action and certainly it is not an appropriate issue for legislative action. Decisions like this belong with the administrative branch of our Government. Decisions like this must be based on a complete analysis of many complex technical and economic decisions. A fair and impartial assessment of alternatives for different techniques and sites is what is called for. To think that we, as a Senate, can step in without hearings, without any procedures at all to indicate what would be the proper site for this production facility would be absolutely wrong. It is clear the reason that this is in the bill is because of the chairman of the committee being from South Carolina. There is no other reason. The fact is there are a number of sites that the Department of Energy and this administration generally are looking at to determine where would be the best place to put it. One of the sites, of course, is at the Nevada test site. If there were a vote taken today with the people in the Department of Defense, people in the Department of Energy who are making the decision, Nevada would probably win, but that is not how these decisions are made. It is not by a vote. It is by people who are administrators, who listen to the experts who work under them and for them and with them to determine where would be the best place to site this production facility. It certainly should not be done in a site specific amendment as we are now asked to consider. Why does South Carolina feel that they must legislate the outcome of this issue? Why should not South Carolina and the Members of this Senate be willing to take their chances that their site is the best site? The junior Senator from New Mexico earlier today in his remarks on the underlying Thurmond amendment indicated that he would not approve of the site specific section of the bill. He said that he would support the Reid amendment, and I think that is the way it should be. This is not some small project that you can put any place you want. This is a multibillion-dollar project. This is not a project that costs a few million dollars, a few hundred million dollars. This is a project that costs a few billion, and it is simply wrong to site it as has been done by the committee in this bill. This is a multibillion-dollar [[Page S 11373]] project upon which our nuclear deterrent critically depends. As we all know, funds for all Federal projects are limited. We should not be taking such a large and significant project and turning it into a local jobs project. I have already stated that Nevada is one of the places that is being considered for this project, and I say ``considered'' because I do not know what ultimately, when all the merits are added up, where this project would go. Nevada has a shot at it, of course. But we certainly cannot eliminate good science and good administration and in this bill simply say it is going to South Carolina. It is wrong. This is one of the types of things that gives Congress the name it has now. If there were ever an example of congressional pork, this certainly would be a good example. I also realize that Nevada's chances are eliminated if we do not pass this amendment that is now before the body. So, Mr. President, this is not a parochial issue, it is an issue of good Government. We all agree that we have to balance the budget. We have a different method of doing that. We have priorities that seem to be bantered around here which would be the best way to go to balance the budget. We all agree it should be balanced. But one of the things we have to stop doing is legislating as we are doing in this manner. We simply cannot put a multibillion dollar project in a certain State or district because the chairman of the committee is from that State or district. That is wrong. This is an issue for all of us who care about spending our limited dollars wisely. This is not an appropriate way to spend our money. The amendment that I have offered to preclude the earmarking of the site for this new tritium project is an amendment for good Government and saving the Government money. I ask all Senators to join me in defeating this attempt to bypass the ongoing process to choose a technology and a site for our Nation's future tritium production. The language from the bill, that is from the Thurmond amendment, says, ``* * * shall locate the new tritium production facility of the Department of Energy at the Savannah River site, South Carolina,'' before we know the technology, before we know the cost, before we know the suitability of the Savannah River site for the project. It is regardless of NEPA reviews; that is, the environmental impact that it would have on that part of the country. It is regardless of the cost of alternatives. What if we find an alternative that will save 10 percent? That is hundreds of millions of dollars. What if we find an alternative that will save us 5 or 3 or 20 percent? Should we not be given the latitude, should our administration not be given the latitude of looking at what would be best environmentally, what would be best from a cost basis? What about the ability of the facility to start producing tritium? What if one site, that is, the one in South Carolina, would take 8 or 9 years to develop this production capability? And let us assume another one would take 2 years. Should the administration not look at which would come on line the quickest? Of course. But what we are doing, we are citing it in this amendment, regardless of the environmental impact, regardless of the cost, and regardless of when it will be able to come on board, when we will be able to start producing tritium. Does this mean we are forgoing the option of using a commercial reactor for tritium production? It appears that way. Mr. President, we have no tritium production today. Any production facility will therefore be a new facility. It seems that we have just precluded the commercial reactor option; that is, are we going to use some of the commercial reactors that are now available for tritium, and we would buy it from the commercial producer? That is an alternative. Should we not be able to take a look at that to see if that is most appropriate way to get our tritium for our nuclear weapons? Why are we forcing a decision now? Mr. President, the question is the answer. We all know why the decision is now being forced. We are needlessly constraining the decision process for what? Again, the question assumes the answer. It is very obvious. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Who yields time? Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina. Mr. THURMOND. I move to table the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the motion to table the amendment, is there a sufficient second? Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is a unanimous consent request that has been---- Mr. THURMOND. After we vote on the Exon amendment, not now. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion would not be in order until after all the time is expired or yielded back. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina. Mr. THURMOND. I will make it after the time expires. I rise to oppose the Reid amendment and point out to my colleagues that the Savannah River site has had the tritium production mission for over 40 years. Why change? The U.S. Government has invested heavily in a unique infrastructure at the site for handling that naturally decaying radioactive gas and for recycling tritium throughout the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. For this reason, it would not be cost effective for the new tritium source to be placed at any other location regardless of the technology used for production. The taxpayer, who is frequently mentioned here on the floor, would have to duplicate the recycling infrastructure required to handle the radioactive tritium and the gas bottles which contain it in our nuclear weapons. Additionally, transporting this radioactive gas across the land from separated production and recycling sites does not make sense either. The colocation of tritium recycling facilities and the new tritium production facility is the only solution that makes economic sense for the American taxpayer. I wish to point out to the Senate that the Savannah River site is located on the border between the States of Georgia and South Carolina. The people of both States have, after the land was condemned for this facility, supported this mission of the site for the past 45 years and cooperated fully with the Government in every way possible in its important mission to sustain the nuclear stockpile. Mr. President, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. REID addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada. Mr. REID. I say to my friend from South Carolina, if all these arguments are valid, then why should we have this in the bill? If all his arguments are valid, then the people who are making the decision, the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense, I am sure, will take all those facts into consideration. If he is right, South Carolina would wind up getting it. I will yield whatever time the Senator from Nevada may consume. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized. Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank my senior colleague for his leadership in providing this amendment, which I strongly support. Mr. President, as Senator Reid has indicated, he and I clearly have a vested interest in the outcome of this amendment. The Nevada test site is also being considered as the location for a new tritium source. Frankly, our view is it is far superior to any other location that is being considered. But I hope, Mr. President, my colleagues will understand that this is not just a battle between two States that seek to acquire a new major project which Senator Reid has indicated is of the magnitude of several billions of dollars. The Department of Energy's efforts to build a new tritium supply is probably one of the most important current programs to ensure our continued confidence in our nuclear stockpile. The tritium supply program is absolutely essential to our national security program. Senator Reid alluded to it, but I would like to embellish on it a little bit. Tritium is a radioactive gas and tritium is used in almost all of our nuclear weapons to achieve a so-called booster effect; that is, to magnify or to amplify the full impact of the nuclear yields. And our national defense planners, strategists, have come to rely [[Page S 11374]] upon those projections. So the premise undergirding our national defense strategic deterrence is predicated upon yields that can be achieved only with the use of tritium. Tritium, however, has a relatively short half life, a little over 12 years, which means that it decays at a rate of about 5 percent a year and needs to be replenished on a regular basis. Recent reductions in our nuclear weapons stockpile have allowed us during this interim period of time to recycle tritium from retired weapons and has reduced the pressure to build a new tritium supply somewhat. But the need in terms of a long-range supply is still quite critical. Even if we take advantage of the tritium made available by retiring weapons, if we do not have a new tritium supply on line by the year 2011--that is just 16 years away--we will need to start to dip into our tritium reserve. By 2016, even using the reserve, it will not be adequate to meet our needs. Mr. President, since I think most everybody acknowledges it will take about 15 years or more to get a tritium supply facility up and operational, we need to act now to make sure we will have a viable nuclear deterrent capability after the year 2011. There are two ways, as I understand it, that you can produce tritium. There is the traditional way that we have produced it in the past with a nuclear reactor, and there is a new way which offers considerable hope and promise. It is a linear accelerator. Scientists tell us that either way is feasible, and the Department of Energy is in the process of evaluating these two options, including an evaluation of numerous options within the nuclear reactor category. A decision on which technology will provide us the most confidence and will be the most fiscally responsible is to be announced soon by the Department of Energy. In addition to evaluating the technology options, the Department is going to decide where to site this new tritium facility. Several sites are considered including one in Idaho, Savannah River, Oak Ridge, Pantex, and the Nevada test site. This will be primarily research oriented. I do not consider the naming of the site at this time an urgent matter. Nevertheless, the Secretary of Energy is committed to the announcing of a preferred site for the tritium supply technology in the near future. The Department recognizes the seriousness of this decision and has devoted a considerable amount of time and a great many resources to ensuring that the final decision will result in a viable cost-effective tritium supply program. Mr. President, this is not the time for Congress to meddle in what is essentially a technical and scientific decision process. I realize that some of my colleagues may be frustrated with what they perceive to be delays in moving forward with the tritium supply decision, and given the Department's track record in a number of programs, it is all too easy to place the blame for delays in a program on the Department of Energy. In this instance, however, I simply do not believe the criticism is justified. Since 1988, when the New Production Reactor Office was established to develop a new supply for tritium, there have been incredible changes in the environment in which the Department is acting: The Soviet Union has imploded. The cold war is over, and President Bush's three announcements during 1991 and 1992 of significant reductions in the nuclear weapons stockpile program has dramatically changed the picture with regard to a new tritium supply. When the Bush administration, under Secretary of Energy Watkins, decided not to pursue the new production reactor, an entire new plan had to be developed for the production of a tritium resource. The Secretary of Energy was required under the fiscal year 1994 Defense Authorization Act to issue a programmatic environmental impact statement by March 1, 1995. This draft PEIS for tritium supply and recycling issued by the Department last February complied with the requirement and is the latest product of a 7-year process to develop a rational, cost-effective, scientifically based program to ensure the capability of our nuclear weapons well into the next century. No preferred site or technology was identified by the February 1995 document, nor is one required under the NEPA process. At that point, the Secretary of Energy committed to executing a record of decision by November of this year. By Government standards, that is a reasonably quick turnaround. The Secretary also made it clear that a decision on the preferred technology or site may be announced prior to the November record of decision. That is where we stand today, Mr. President. The PEIS is on the street and the Secretary is committed to a decision by November of this year. The Secretary, clearly feeling she did not have sufficient basis to make a decision on site or technology prior to March 1, is currently evaluating the technical and scientific evidence gathered through the NEPA process. That is as it should be. To give you some indication of the magnitude of the PEIS, this indicates the voluminous nature of the information that is being compiled, that is currently being reviewed and analyzed by the Department. These are two volumes entitled ``The Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Tritium Supply and Recycling.'' It is my view that the Secretary ought to be permitted to move forward in that evaluating process. It is hard to understand how Congress, on a matter of such importance to our national defense, could even consider substituting its judgment on a parochial basis for the scientific and technical expertise that is being considered by the Department of Energy. I realize that the language our amendment seeks to strike only specifies the site for the new tritium source. The language presumes to leave the technology choice to the Secretary of Energy and only identifies the site for the new facility. Unfortunately, Mr. President, it is not quite that simple. In order to obtain the most reliable and cost-effective results, the Department of Energy must maintain the flexibility it needs to determine both the site and the technology for the new tritium resource. As the draft PEIS makes abundantly clear, each of the sites being considered for the new tritium source has its own advantages and disadvantages. Should the DOE decide to build a new reactor, whether it is a so- called triple-play reactor, advocated by the senior Senator from South Carolina, or any other type of reactor, Savannah River appears to be the most likely site. The Nevada test site is less suitable and, parenthetically, I would oppose building a reactor anywhere in Nevada. On the other hand, given the freedom to make the most rational decision, the Nevada test site would be the preferred alternate, if the chosen technology turns out to be an accelerator. Others would disagree, and I acknowledge this is a debatable proposition, but at this point, the best course we in Congress can pursue is simply let the NEPA process run its course. In supporting the Reid-Bryan amendment, that is what the Senate is pursuing: To allow the course which the Congress set in motion in 1994 by directing that a programmatic EIS be developed to make the determination as to site and technology for the new tritium supply. That is what we allow to occur. By leaving the language in the bill as it currently is, we preempt that process, and in the interest of a parochial decisionmaking process, foreclose the Department from making a determination both, in my view, on technology as well as site. Mr. President, I yield my time back to the distinguished senior Senator from Nevada. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia. Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I will make brief remarks on this amendment. I support the Senator from South Carolina and his position. Savannah River has been the tritium production complex since the dawn of the nuclear age. It has the infrastructure, it has the trained work force, it has the experience, it is a logical place for the new tritium facility, whatever technology is being chosen. [[Page S 11375]] We do not have in this bill now, as I understand this amendment--I have not been a part of working on this amendment--but as I understand it, there is nothing in the bill now, after this amendment is adopted, that would tell the Secretary of Energy what kind of reactor to have. She still has that choice--the light-water reactor, the gas reactor, the multipurpose reactor, heavy water or even the accelerator. All of those technologies are available. The Secretary of Energy said she is going to make this decision sometime in late summer or early fall. That means that this bill is bound to be in conference in September, and if the Secretary of Energy makes any other decision, other than Savannah River, then certainly we will have a time to study that carefully and to react to that in conference. So I support the Senator from South Carolina on this. I urge the defeat of the second-degree amendment. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina. Mr. THURMOND. I yield the able junior Senator from Georgia such time as he may require. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia. Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, as my good colleague from Georgia noted, the Savannah River site has been the site for weapons tritium production for nearly half a century--specifically 40 years. Obviously, given the importance of the production of that plant in terms of our nuclear policy, a very large capital investment has already been made by the taxpayers of the United States on the Savannah River site's unique, extensive tritium handling, tritium bottle recycling and production infrastructure--a huge capital investment. If the new tritium production facility which DOE was planning were to be located at another site other than Savannah River, the large tritium bottle recycling facilities and the tritium production handling facilities would have to be replicated, rebuilt at a new site. This would be very expensive, cost-ineffective, and not wise. Another alternative, I guess, would be to transport radioactive tritium to the Savannah River site bottle recycling from a distant new production site. This would require expensive, unique transportation, and would be perceived as a potential negative public health risk in the States transversed. On this basis, it is both logical and cost- effective for the Congress to designate this longstanding facility, a facility uniquely prepared to deal with this production as the location for the tritium production facility. The bottom line here is, if you are talking about a change, you are talking about spending millions and millions of dollars, and you are talking about breaking the continuity chain of preparedness that the Savannah River site represents. Mr. President, I yield back my time to the Senator from South Carolina. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, how much time is left on each side? The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 13 minutes remaining for the Senator from South Carolina, and the Senator from Nevada has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining. Mr. REID addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized. Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend, the ranking member, the former chairman of the committee, said the only question is what kind of facility. Well, that really is not the only question. But, in fact, if that were the only question, why in the world would you want to site in South Carolina, no matter what kind of facility, a reactor accelerator? If the Secretary of Energy is going to make this decision late summer/early fall, why would Congress want to meddle with what is already in the process of being decided? If there were ever an example of congressional meddling, this certainly would be it. Mr. President, this is a big project. I am reading from one newspaper: The new tritium production facility would be the Nation's first since the 1960's. Cost estimates range as high as $10 billion, and the project could create more than 2,000 jobs. In the other body, something like this was tried and, again, I read from the Energy Daily of June 1995, where over there it was referred to as ``radioactive pork.'' Well, thank goodness the House in its wisdom got rid of that radioactive pork, and that was deleted from their legislation. If the Savannah River site is so good, why do they not let it compete on its merits? If the threat that I heard--namely, if the Department of Energy sites it someplace else, we will take a look at it in conference. This is a threat to the Secretary to site it on the Savannah River, or we will take care of it in conference. That is wrong. My amendment lets the system of Government work the way it should, not with ``radioactive pork.'' It would be with the orderly process of Government. Let me repeat, Mr. President, the language in the underlying amendment of the Senator from South Carolina that I and Senator Bryan are attempting to delete States, ``shall locate the new tritium production facility * * * at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina.'' We are subverting, standing on its head, making a mockery of the system of Government that we have, where the Director of the Department of Energy--the Secretary--will make a determination after due consultation with the Department of Defense, with the people that work for and with her, as to where it should go. But in this Thurmond amendment, we are going to site it in South Carolina before we know the technology that will be used, the cost, or the suitability of the Savannah River site for the project. There may be technology that should only go to Savannah River that the Secretary will decide on. Or she may find that that is technology that they want to use and should not go to Savannah River for many reasons. Maybe the cost of the Savannah River, because of all the pollution from the failed reactor, for over 45 years, makes that site so expensive, so unreliable, that it should go someplace else. This language sites it in South Carolina, regardless of the environmental concerns, regardless of the need for reviews, regardless of the cost alternatives, and, of course, as I have mentioned before, regardless of the impact on the schedule to produce tritium. What if we need to get tritium produced quickly. Does this mean that we are foregoing the option of using an existing commercial reactor for tritium production? Yes, it does. That may be the decision the Secretary will make, saving the taxpayers of this country billions of dollars. We have no tritium production today. Any production facility will therefore be a new facility. It seems that we have just precluded the commercial reactor option. That is wrong, and that is not what we should want or what this Congress should be up to. We have certain budget constraints that we have all been working under. This flies in the face of that. Why are we forcing a decision now when we know, as indicated by the senior Senator from Georgia, that the Secretary is going to make this decision in late summer? Late summer is upon us. This decision could come within a matter of weeks. We are needlessly constraining the decision process. For what? We are doing it for ``radioactive pork,'' and that is wrong. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to take a minute or two more. I want to just recall that in 1946, when I was Governor of South Carolina, the project was announced to build this plant in Aiken, SC, on the Savannah River between Georgia and South Carolina. I moved to Aiken to practice law. I guess I represented over 90 percent of the landowners down there. They had the land condemned and taken away, whether they wanted to or not. The Government said, ``We need this land for this plant.'' The Government needed it. They sacrificed a lot. They underwent many hardships. The plant was built. Why now do we want to take away the opportunity for those people who sacrificed like they did to help the Government to build this plant for the good of our country? We are not asking that they use any particular kind of technology. They can use the accelerator or they can use the reactor, or whatever they want to. We are merely saying it should not be taken away from these people who [[Page S 11376]] sacrificed so much in their lifetime for this plant and for the Government. We feel it should not be moved, regardless of what the technology is. It ought to remain at this site. It has been there for 45 years. Why take it away? They have done a good job. They have the infrastructure. They have the workers. They have everything to make a success. I do hope that this amendment will be defeated. Mr. REID. Mr. President, the proponents of sight infrastructure costs as their main argument, but this facility will produce training for 50 years. I say, what is the lowest life cycle cost of 50 years? Do we care? We should care, Mr. President. I yield to my colleague from Nevada whatever time he desires. Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague. It seems to me, Mr. President, that we have heard what essentially are three arguments by the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. One is that it has been there for 45 years, and therefore it should continue in perpetuity for 45 years. Mr. President, I think the answer to that question is self-evident. We are considering prospectively what is the best location for the tritium production facility in the future. That is the entire purpose of the problematic environmental impact statement. Indeed, they may make and come to the same conclusion that our friend, the senior Senator from South Carolina made. But that is not an analytical or rational argument for a policy that has always been there, always been that way, and therefore we should continue that way forever in the future. The second argument that my friend made was to suggest that somehow the recycling operation has been at Savannah River and that by colocating the new production facility, somehow we would ease or eliminate the transportation of tritium. Mr. President, that is simply not true. As my colleagues, I am sure, know, we do not move nuclear bombs around the country, to have the tritium components of them added in second. When we are talking about retrofitting or adding the tritium component, you are talking about doing that at a facility that has the capability of doing that. That is, first and foremost, the facility at Pantex. No one should have the impression that by having a recycling and production facility in South Carolina that we eliminate the necessity of transporting that new tritium product to either Pantex, or there is a facility at the Nevada test site that could handle the disassembly. My friend makes the argument of sacrifice. While I am sure he recites the history, nobody quarrels with the senior Senator from South Carolina when he describes the history of the state that he has represented so long and so ably, and which I know he has great personal affection. If we are talking about sacrifice, he is talking about the few thousand acres at Savannah River. Nevada is the mother of all sacrifices--the mother of all sacrifices. The Nevada test site alone is larger than the entire State of Rhode Island. Just the Nevada test site. If you want to talk about Federal sacrifice, 87 percent of the entire land mass of the State of Nevada is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, either the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, the Bureau of Land Management, or the Forest Service. I must say that I do not think any of those three arguments are compelling. Finally, I return very briefly to, I think, the argument that my senior colleague makes so ably. That is, we started the process in 1994. We said, ``Let's look, see how we should handle future tritium production. Let's have a problematic EIS.'' Added into that mix is the fact there is a new technology we want to take a look at, the linear accelerator technology. There are different types of reactor technologies that we want to consider, as well, some four technologies within the rubric of the reactor option, which is the other option other than the accelerator. All of those ought to be considered rationally as part of an evaluation process and ought not to be the subject of micromanagement by the Congress. Let this process work its course. We in Nevada have a vested interest. We would like to see it in Nevada. I would like to see the linear accelerator, but I am willing to take my chance. I think that is the best policy. I urge the Congress and this Senate to allow that course to work its way, as well, and let the experts make the decision. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2114 to Amendment No. 2111 Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to make certain technical amendments to the Thurmond-Domenici amendment. These have been agreed to by both sides. I send them to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] proposes an amendment numbered 2114 to amendment No. 2111. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: Page 8, line 17 strike out ``$2,341,596,000 and substitute in lieu thereof $2,386,596,000''. Page 8, line 20 strike out ``$2,121,226,000 and substitute in lieu thereof ``$2,151,266,000''. Page 9, line 1 strike out ``$220,330,000'' and substitute in lieu thereof ``$235,330,000''. Page 9, line 25 strike out ``$26,000,000'' and substitute in lieu thereof ``$41,000,000''. Page 13, line 6 strike out ``$550,510,000'' and substitute in lieu thereof ``$505,510,000''. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back? Mr. REID. I yield back. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The amendment (No. 2114) was agreed to. Amendment No. 2113 Mr. THURMOND. I move to table the Reid amendment 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. Mr. REID. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Could the Presiding Officer indicate what the parliamentary status is now. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first vote will occur in relation to the motion to table the Exon amendment. Mr. THURMOND. I am informed Senator McCain is not going to offer an amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote on the motion to table the Exon amendment can occur now. Mr. REID. Immediately following that will be the Reid-Bryan amendment. Mr. BRYAN. 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. Mr. EXON. 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 question is on the motion to table. Mr. EXON. Yes. If I understand the agreement right, the Senator from Nebraska has 2 minutes, as does the Senator from South Carolina. I ask unanimous consent, as previously agreed to, that immediately preceding the vote on the Exon amendment, 2 minutes be allocated to the Senator from Nebraska and 2 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment No. 2112 Mr. EXON. Mr. President, there can be no question that we are about to cast a critically important vote. We will send a signal that will resonate around the world and have far-reaching implications on mankind's chances of moving further away from a reliance on nuclear weapons and a possible nuclear holocaust, or we can reverse course, abruptly and shamefully. As the world's leading nuclear superpower, we can send a signal loud and clear that, notwithstanding our protestations about the spread of nuclear devices, notwithstanding our supposed commitment to a nuclear test ban treaty, we are going to reverse course. [[Page S 11377]] The Exon-Hatfield amendment assures a constructive policy of gradual and very deliberate thought processes, and offers the nuclear olive branch, if you will, to potential friend and potential foe alike, that the United States of America offers a hand of nuclear understanding. If we vote down, if we table the Exon-Hatfield amendment, it is going to be a significant step backward for which we will not forgive ourselves, I suggest, for centuries to come. It is the time we reemphasize our restraint, our vigilance, and agree to the Exon- Hatfield amendment as we have explained in great detail during debate this morning. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I just want to say that every weapons system, indeed every machine in our technological society, requires testing. The hydronuclear testing is the only tool left to assess our confidence in the safety and reliability of the shrinking nuclear stockpile. Mr. President, we need to do this. We are living in a dangerous world. It is important that we be informed as to the reliability and safety of our weapons. They may have to be used. I do not need to cite the situations that could be dangerous in various parts of the world. We know about North Korea. We do not know what Russia is going to do, what China is going to do. We do not know what certain nations like Iran or Iraq and Libya will do, the terrorist nations. We must be prepared. And to be prepared we have to know what our weapons will do. We have to know they will be safe and reliable, and that is the purpose of this amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion to table the Exon amendment. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote? The result was announced, yeas 56, nays 44, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 359 Leg.] YEAS--56 Abraham Ashcroft Bennett Bond Breaux Brown Bryan Burns Coats Cochran Cohen Coverdell Craig D'Amato DeWine Dole Domenici Faircloth Frist Gorton Gramm Grams Grassley Gregg Hatch Heflin Helms Hollings Hutchison Inhofe Johnston Kempthorne Kyl Lott Lugar Mack McCain McConnell Mikulski Murkowski Nickles Packwood Pressler Reid Roth Santorum Shelby Simpson Smith Snowe Specter Stevens Thomas Thompson Thurmond Warner NAYS--44 Akaka Baucus Biden Bingaman Boxer Bradley Bumpers Byrd Campbell Chafee Conrad Daschle Dodd Dorgan Exon Feingold Feinstein Ford Glenn Graham Harkin Hatfield Inouye Jeffords Kassebaum Kennedy Kerrey Kerry Kohl Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lieberman Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murray Nunn Pell Pryor Robb Rockefeller Sarbanes Simon Wellstone So, the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2112) was agreed to. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote on Amendment No. 2113 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business is amendment No. 2113, and under the previous order there are now 4 minutes of debate equally divided between the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond]---- Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from South Carolina and I have agreed to yield back our time. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I agree to yield back the time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back? All time is yielded back. The question is now on agreeing to the motion to table the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk called the roll. The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 43, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 360 Leg.] YEAS--57 Abraham Ashcroft Bennett Biden Bond Breaux Brown Byrd Campbell Chafee Coats Cochran Cohen Coverdell D'Amato DeWine Dole Domenici Faircloth Frist Gramm Grams Grassley Gregg Hatch Hatfield Heflin Helms Hollings Hutchison Inhofe Johnston Kassebaum Kyl Lott Lugar Mack McCain McConnell Mikulski Murkowski Nickles Nunn Packwood Pressler Roth Santorum Shelby Simpson Smith Snowe Specter Stevens Thomas Thompson Thurmond Warner NAYS--43 Akaka Baucus Bingaman Boxer Bradley Bryan Bumpers Burns Conrad Craig Daschle Dodd Dorgan Exon Feingold Feinstein Ford Glenn Gorton Graham Harkin Inouye Jeffords Kempthorne Kennedy Kerrey Kerry Kohl Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lieberman Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murray Pell Pryor Reid Robb Rockefeller Sarbanes Simon Wellstone So the motion to table the amendment (No. 2113) was agreed to. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to. Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business is the vote on amendment No. 2111. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated on amendment No. 2111. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Do all Senators yield back their time? Mr. THURMOND. I ask for a voice vote on that amendment. Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, is all time yielded back? Mr. THURMOND. We yield back all time. Vote on Amendment No. 2111 The PRESIDING OFFICER. With all time yielded back, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2111. The amendment (No. 2111) was agreed to. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to. Mr. COHEN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business is an amendment to be offered by the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], dealing with defense firewalls, with 1 hour of debate equally divided. Who yields time? Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I hope the time will not start running until we have order in the Senate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas directs that the time not begin until the Senate is in order. The Senate will be in order, please. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized to offer his amendment. Amendment No. 2115 (Purpose: To restore a common sense approach to the appropriations process by repealing the defense firewalls established in the FY96 Budget Resolution) Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself, Mr. Simon, Mr. Wellstone, and Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes an amendment numbered 2115. Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new section: SEC. REPEAL OF DEFENSE FIREWALL. (A) Strike Section 201(a) through 201(b)(1)(B) of H. Con. Res. 67, as passed by [[Page S 11378]] both Houses of Congress and insert in lieu thereof the following: SEC. 201. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS. (A) DEFINITION.--As used in this section and for the purposes of allocations made pursuant to section 302(a) or 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, for the discretionary category, the term `discretionary spending limit' means-- (1) with respect to fiscal year 1996, for the discretionary category $485,074,000,000 in new budget authority and $531,768,000,000 in outlays; (2) with respect to fiscal year 1997, for the discretionary category $482,430,000,000 in new budget authority and $520,295,000,000 in outlays; (3) with respect to fiscal year 1998, for the discretionary category $490,692,000,000 in new budget authority and $512,632,000,000 in outlays; (4) with respect to fiscal year 1999, for the discretionary category $482,207,000,000 in new budget authority and $510,482,000,000 in outlays; (5) with respect to fiscal year 2000, for the discretionary category $489,379,000,000 in new budget authority and $514,234,000,000 in outlays; (6) with respect to fiscal year 2001, for the discretionary category $496,601,000,000 in new budget authority and $516,403,000,000 in outlays; (7) with respect to fiscal year 2002, for the discretionary category $498,837,000,000 in new budget authority and $515,075,000,000 in outlays; as adjusted for changes in concepts and definitions and emergency appropriations. (b) Point of Order in the Senate.-- (1) In General.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider-- (A) any concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002 (or amendment, motion, or conference report on such a resolution) that provides discretionary spending in excess of the discretionary spending limit for such fiscal year; or (B) Within 30 days of the date of enactment of this Act, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees shall meet to consider the reallocation of the fiscal year 1996 suballocations made pursuant to section 602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I know this psychologically is a terrible way to open a debate, but I have no delusions about the possibility of winning on this amendment. Given the makeup of the Senate right now, it is going to be several years before an amendment like this will take root, but it will take root when the American people focus not only on their misery but what caused it. Everybody here is aware of the fact that we treat defense as not only the highest priority but everything else is secondary to it. Not to be trite, but the truth of the matter is that we, like so many civilizations, from the Israelites on, may very well find that the strength of this Nation is not all in planes, tanks, and guns. How we treat our people, the kind of health care they get, the kind of education they get, the kind of environment they live in, those things determine what a powerful nation is, too. It usually takes me about an hour or two after I read the Washington Post in the morning to get enthused sufficiently enough to come to work. This morning it was especially depressing. Here were three front page stories: House votes to prohibit States from paying for an abortion in cases of rape or incest. Mr. President, to me, that is a form of barbarism, to say that a child who may be pregnant by her father, or the most innocent housewife who is raped, if she has the money, no problem. If she is poor, she will birth that child. You remember the beatitude, ``Blessed are those who are persecuted.'' If that is not a form of persecution, I do not know what is. The second story was: Senate votes to abrogate antiballistic missile treaty. That is not entirely true, but figuratively and, down the road, literally it is true. We will decide the interpretation of the treaty; we will decide whether it is abrogated or not, and if the Russians happen to disagree, so be it. The language of the bill itself said the Senate, not the President, will decide whether the ABM Treaty is in our interest or not. We will decide whether we want to live by it or not. And that solemn document that we put our names on in 1972 will be for naught. Who else wants to sign a treaty with us knowing that that is the way we treat our treaties? We simply cannot give up on the cold war. We just love it too much. Dr. Strangelove. Another beatitude is, ``Blessed are the peacemakers.'' Not too many people are blessed in this body. The third story was: House cuts $9 billion in education, health care, and food for the poor. ``Blessed are the poor,'' unless one of them happens to get pregnant at the age of 17. What do we do in the Senate? We add $7 billion more than the Secretary of Defense and our chiefs of staff want. Can you imagine that? We are adding $7 billion more than our defense authorization asked for. It was depressing. And as I read those three stories, I pondered on what else. Medicare? No firewalls around Medicare, health care for the elderly; there are no firewalls there. We are going to cut $270 billion over the next 7 years. We are going to give the States block grants on Medicaid and AFDC, not necessarily because we think it is more efficient, but because we are going to cut back on Medicaid. All that is health care for the poorest of the poor. We are going to cut PBS, which is one of the few things that provide a little enrichment for our children. ``Sesame Street'' and Big Bird, adios. ``All Things Considered,'' which every Member of the Senate listens to going to and from work on NPR, adios. No commercials. We need to privatize this so we can get some commercials on PBS and NPR. I want to see, right in the middle of the Civil War series, a bunch of youngsters running down the beach with a Budweiser in their hands. That is what I call cultural enrichment. And the arts--how I wish that guy Mapplethorpe had never received a grant. You see, he does not have anything to do with the repertory theater in my State. But we will be lucky to make it in my State with our symphony without some help from the National Endowment. Food stamps. We did not develop food stamp programs willy-nilly. We did it because we made a conscious decision that we did not want anybody in this country to go hungry. Everybody acts as though it was some sort of a Communist conspiracy that should have never been put in place. We are going to cut that. If you do not happen to have a PAC or a $1,000 check, you are not getting anything out of this crowd. Eliminate affirmative action. I have heard so many anecdotes on affirmative action that make my blood boil, and some of them are true. It has been an abused program. But do not say that the time has come when we have a level playing field when 14 percent of the black males in this country are unemployed, and 40 percent of the black teenagers are unemployed, compared to about 5 percent white. You know, if we were to eliminate this famous tax cut I hear so much about--that is what the Medicare cut is, $270 billion; and $250 billion of that--virtually all--is for a tax cut, 70 percent of which goes to people who make over $100,000 a year. When I was a young practicing lawyer, I yearned for the day when I would make $100,000 a year. So now I am going to get a nice healthy tax cut. Every Senator gets $133,000 or $135,000 a year, a big fat pension, a health care plan second to none, and we are going to get a tax cut when 50 percent of the people in this country over 65 cannot sleep at night because they are in abject terror of getting sick and not being able to pay their bills. If we just cut Medicare by half that amount and eliminate the tax cut and spend the other $135 billion on education and things that make us a great nation, we can still balance the budget in the year 2002 and do what we know we ought to do. No, we are going to reward those who have already been richly blessed. And we are going to further abuse those at the bottom of the ladder. Indeed, we will step on their hands if they happen to be reaching for the first rung. We have become so cynical and indifferent. So we have to put firewalls around defense to make sure none of it ever gets out of the Pentagon into the hands of some poor soul who might need it for an education. Senator Kohl is going to offer an amendment later today which would cut the $7 billion which was added on to this bill. Even if he were to prevail, which he will not even come close to doing, you could not take that money and use it for any other purpose. Mr. President, how much time is remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 minutes and 50 seconds remaining. [[Page S 11379]] Mr. BUMPERS. Will you kindly notify me when I have used a total of 20 minutes. Mr. President, here is a chart which shows what is going to happen from 1995 to the year 2002, in defense. We go from $264 billion in 1995 to $280 billion in 2002. What do we do with everything else--what is known as domestic discretionary spending--education, health care, you name it, medical research, law enforcement? What happens to that? It goes from $241 to $218 billion over 7 years. Of the spending cuts that are projected to be made over the next 7 years to reduce the deficit and pay for the Republican tax cut for the wealthy, domestic spending, the things that make us great will absorb 43 percent of all the cuts. What in the name of God are we thinking about? We will spend $400 billion more for defense spending than domestic programs over the next 7 years. Mr. President, $400 billion less to take care of the real needs of the people of this country, that we are going to spend on defense. How much are we spending on defense? Are we looking for two wars, as the Bottom-Up Review said? Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield? Mr. BUMPERS. Not until I finish this statement. This chart demonstrates what we spend for defense in comparison to our eight or nine most likely adversaries, Russia, China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Cuba--name somebody else. I do not care who you name. Our defense budget is twice as big as all nine of them put together. If you add NATO, twice as much as the rest of the world. What are the proponents of the bill we are considering today proposing? That we add $7 billion to the defense budget. We get so hairy chested around here when defense comes up. Everybody favors a strong defense. Nobody wants to ever be vulnerable. This is what you call piling on. You just cannot pile on enough money. Even the Pentagon is trying to shovel it back to us, and we will not take it. I appreciate the Defense Department. When we have a crisis, I am glad we have aircraft carriers. I am glad we have all the sophisticated weaponry. All I am saying is, there ought to be some kind of balance, because it is not going to make any difference how much we spend on defense if we are not careful about what we are doing back home. Mr. President, I saw a poll of high school seniors about 5 years ago. Who are your heroes? About the only one I can remember is Tom Cruise. I think Mr. T was on the list. It was a list of rock stars. Michael Jackson was high on the list. That is who the high school seniors revere in this country. Mother Theresa did not make it. The Pope did not make it. Poor old George Bush did not make it. Not even mom and pop. Senators, can you imagine somebody asking you that question when you were in high school, who were your heroes? I would have popped out my father so fast it would make your head swim. You talk about a hero. I worshipped the ground he walked on. Mom and pop did not make this list. If we keep going the way we have gone this year in the U.S. Congress, Tim McVeigh and David Koresh will be on the list next year. I am not trying to take the money away from the Pentagon with this amendment. I am simply saying the people of this body ought to be more thoughtful about where the real strengths of the Nation are. We ought to be more thoughtful about people who have not had the luck we have had. I know a woman who is very wealthy and she is always saying, ``Can't everybody be rich and beautiful like me?'' The truth of the matter is, most people who have made it, and especially if you come from a town during the Depression with a population of 851, have had a lot of help. I did not become a Senator just because I am such a great person. I tell you why I did it. I did it because this same Congress, back when they were a little more sensitive about things like this, gave me a free education. That is right. My brother went to Harvard. I went to Northwestern. My father was a poor man. He could no more have afforded that than he could fly to the Moon. I was fortunate and received a little Government help after World War II, and had a teacher who taught me to speak and read well, did something for my self-esteem. The main thing I did, and what most people that make it did, is choose my parents well. Mr. President, I just want to say I am not trying to move money out of the Defense Department into any of these other programs. I am saying as a psychological thing we ought not to be sitting here and saying you cannot touch defense for anything, no matter how critical it may be. If we continue the way we have started this year, and especially that Contract With America, this country is in for a terrible shock. That is not what the people were voting for, they wanted change, but this is not the change they were voting for, I do not think. When they begin to feel the pain, they are going to begin to wonder what they voted for. I am telling you, if we keep going the way we are going now, trying to tinker with the Constitution, spending every extra dime we can get our hands on on defense, that age of know-nothingism back in the middle of the 19th century will be known as the age of enlightenment. As you know I have such a reverence for the freedom of religion in this country, but there is a great quote of Isaiah, admonishing the Israelites when they got sort of cynical about all their people. He said to them: Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Maybe that is just good for the Senate prayer breakfast or on Sunday morning. It does not seem to be terribly relevant here. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Mexico. Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator will yield 6 minutes? Mr. THURMOND. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do we have in opposition? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 minutes. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first let me suggest to my good friend, Senator Bumpers, he has given a very great speech about what he thinks we ought to be doing in the United States. But I must tell those who are listening, very little of it has to do with the amendment he is talking about. The amendment he is talking about is very, very simple. In 1990 I was privileged to have an idea--that I had been thinking about and worrying about--become the law. In that year, 1990, and 3 years thereafter, we decided that once the Congress of the United States voted in an amount of money that they wanted spent on the defense of the United States, that during that year they only had two options regarding defense: First, if they did not want to spend all of the defense money, they applied what was saved on the deficit; and, second, if they want to spend defense money on anything else, they had to get 60 votes to do it. That is a pretty reasonable approach, when you consider the propensity of legislators to want more and more for programs that they love, or that they need, or that they want for their constituents. And you put it up against a big defense budget and everybody can say, ``Oh, take a little bit away for this. Take a little bit

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
(Senate - August 04, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S11372-S11437] NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill. Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Exon amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. DOLE. Can we get the yeas and nays on all the amendments? Mr. EXON. I will be glad to incorporate that. I ask for the yeas and nays on all of the amendments with reference to the matter that we have been debating. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. DOLE. So there will be the yeas and nays on four amendments. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield back any time remaining, and I am going to move to table the Exon amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? Mr. EXON. I make an inquiry of the Chair. I thought that the yeas and nays on the Exon amendment had been ordered. Is that not correct? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. EXON. Then a tabling motion would not be in order at this time, would it? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is advised by the Parliamentarian that a tabling motion would be in order. Is there a sufficient second on the tabling motion? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Exon amendment is set aside. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] is recognized to offer an amendment, on which Senator Reid will control 40 minutes and Senator Thurmond will control 20 minutes. The Senator from Nevada. Amendment No. 2113 to Amendment No. 2111 (Purpose: To strike the provision designating the location of the new tritium production facility of the Department of Energy) Mr. REID. I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself and Mr. Bryan, proposes an amendment numbered 2113 to amendment No. 2111: On page 29 of the amendment, strike lines 18 through 21. Mr. REID. The record should read as on the amendment that this is offered on behalf of both Senators from Nevada. Mr. President, I object to the section of this amendment that directs the Department of Energy to site its new tritium production facility at Savannah River. For Members of the Senate, let me explain briefly what we are talking about. Tritium is an element that is critical to all modern nuclear weapons. However, it is radioactive and decays. Our weapons will cease to work if we do not periodically replace the tritium. We do not now in the United States have the ability, the capability to produce tritium. We must develop a new tritium source. We are, in this amendment, striking from this Thurmond amendment the specification that this new producer of tritium shall be in Savannah River. This is not an appropriate action and certainly it is not an appropriate issue for legislative action. Decisions like this belong with the administrative branch of our Government. Decisions like this must be based on a complete analysis of many complex technical and economic decisions. A fair and impartial assessment of alternatives for different techniques and sites is what is called for. To think that we, as a Senate, can step in without hearings, without any procedures at all to indicate what would be the proper site for this production facility would be absolutely wrong. It is clear the reason that this is in the bill is because of the chairman of the committee being from South Carolina. There is no other reason. The fact is there are a number of sites that the Department of Energy and this administration generally are looking at to determine where would be the best place to put it. One of the sites, of course, is at the Nevada test site. If there were a vote taken today with the people in the Department of Defense, people in the Department of Energy who are making the decision, Nevada would probably win, but that is not how these decisions are made. It is not by a vote. It is by people who are administrators, who listen to the experts who work under them and for them and with them to determine where would be the best place to site this production facility. It certainly should not be done in a site specific amendment as we are now asked to consider. Why does South Carolina feel that they must legislate the outcome of this issue? Why should not South Carolina and the Members of this Senate be willing to take their chances that their site is the best site? The junior Senator from New Mexico earlier today in his remarks on the underlying Thurmond amendment indicated that he would not approve of the site specific section of the bill. He said that he would support the Reid amendment, and I think that is the way it should be. This is not some small project that you can put any place you want. This is a multibillion-dollar project. This is not a project that costs a few million dollars, a few hundred million dollars. This is a project that costs a few billion, and it is simply wrong to site it as has been done by the committee in this bill. This is a multibillion-dollar [[Page S 11373]] project upon which our nuclear deterrent critically depends. As we all know, funds for all Federal projects are limited. We should not be taking such a large and significant project and turning it into a local jobs project. I have already stated that Nevada is one of the places that is being considered for this project, and I say ``considered'' because I do not know what ultimately, when all the merits are added up, where this project would go. Nevada has a shot at it, of course. But we certainly cannot eliminate good science and good administration and in this bill simply say it is going to South Carolina. It is wrong. This is one of the types of things that gives Congress the name it has now. If there were ever an example of congressional pork, this certainly would be a good example. I also realize that Nevada's chances are eliminated if we do not pass this amendment that is now before the body. So, Mr. President, this is not a parochial issue, it is an issue of good Government. We all agree that we have to balance the budget. We have a different method of doing that. We have priorities that seem to be bantered around here which would be the best way to go to balance the budget. We all agree it should be balanced. But one of the things we have to stop doing is legislating as we are doing in this manner. We simply cannot put a multibillion dollar project in a certain State or district because the chairman of the committee is from that State or district. That is wrong. This is an issue for all of us who care about spending our limited dollars wisely. This is not an appropriate way to spend our money. The amendment that I have offered to preclude the earmarking of the site for this new tritium project is an amendment for good Government and saving the Government money. I ask all Senators to join me in defeating this attempt to bypass the ongoing process to choose a technology and a site for our Nation's future tritium production. The language from the bill, that is from the Thurmond amendment, says, ``* * * shall locate the new tritium production facility of the Department of Energy at the Savannah River site, South Carolina,'' before we know the technology, before we know the cost, before we know the suitability of the Savannah River site for the project. It is regardless of NEPA reviews; that is, the environmental impact that it would have on that part of the country. It is regardless of the cost of alternatives. What if we find an alternative that will save 10 percent? That is hundreds of millions of dollars. What if we find an alternative that will save us 5 or 3 or 20 percent? Should we not be given the latitude, should our administration not be given the latitude of looking at what would be best environmentally, what would be best from a cost basis? What about the ability of the facility to start producing tritium? What if one site, that is, the one in South Carolina, would take 8 or 9 years to develop this production capability? And let us assume another one would take 2 years. Should the administration not look at which would come on line the quickest? Of course. But what we are doing, we are citing it in this amendment, regardless of the environmental impact, regardless of the cost, and regardless of when it will be able to come on board, when we will be able to start producing tritium. Does this mean we are forgoing the option of using a commercial reactor for tritium production? It appears that way. Mr. President, we have no tritium production today. Any production facility will therefore be a new facility. It seems that we have just precluded the commercial reactor option; that is, are we going to use some of the commercial reactors that are now available for tritium, and we would buy it from the commercial producer? That is an alternative. Should we not be able to take a look at that to see if that is most appropriate way to get our tritium for our nuclear weapons? Why are we forcing a decision now? Mr. President, the question is the answer. We all know why the decision is now being forced. We are needlessly constraining the decision process for what? Again, the question assumes the answer. It is very obvious. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Who yields time? Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina. Mr. THURMOND. I move to table the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the motion to table the amendment, is there a sufficient second? Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is a unanimous consent request that has been---- Mr. THURMOND. After we vote on the Exon amendment, not now. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion would not be in order until after all the time is expired or yielded back. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina. Mr. THURMOND. I will make it after the time expires. I rise to oppose the Reid amendment and point out to my colleagues that the Savannah River site has had the tritium production mission for over 40 years. Why change? The U.S. Government has invested heavily in a unique infrastructure at the site for handling that naturally decaying radioactive gas and for recycling tritium throughout the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. For this reason, it would not be cost effective for the new tritium source to be placed at any other location regardless of the technology used for production. The taxpayer, who is frequently mentioned here on the floor, would have to duplicate the recycling infrastructure required to handle the radioactive tritium and the gas bottles which contain it in our nuclear weapons. Additionally, transporting this radioactive gas across the land from separated production and recycling sites does not make sense either. The colocation of tritium recycling facilities and the new tritium production facility is the only solution that makes economic sense for the American taxpayer. I wish to point out to the Senate that the Savannah River site is located on the border between the States of Georgia and South Carolina. The people of both States have, after the land was condemned for this facility, supported this mission of the site for the past 45 years and cooperated fully with the Government in every way possible in its important mission to sustain the nuclear stockpile. Mr. President, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. REID addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada. Mr. REID. I say to my friend from South Carolina, if all these arguments are valid, then why should we have this in the bill? If all his arguments are valid, then the people who are making the decision, the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense, I am sure, will take all those facts into consideration. If he is right, South Carolina would wind up getting it. I will yield whatever time the Senator from Nevada may consume. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized. Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank my senior colleague for his leadership in providing this amendment, which I strongly support. Mr. President, as Senator Reid has indicated, he and I clearly have a vested interest in the outcome of this amendment. The Nevada test site is also being considered as the location for a new tritium source. Frankly, our view is it is far superior to any other location that is being considered. But I hope, Mr. President, my colleagues will understand that this is not just a battle between two States that seek to acquire a new major project which Senator Reid has indicated is of the magnitude of several billions of dollars. The Department of Energy's efforts to build a new tritium supply is probably one of the most important current programs to ensure our continued confidence in our nuclear stockpile. The tritium supply program is absolutely essential to our national security program. Senator Reid alluded to it, but I would like to embellish on it a little bit. Tritium is a radioactive gas and tritium is used in almost all of our nuclear weapons to achieve a so-called booster effect; that is, to magnify or to amplify the full impact of the nuclear yields. And our national defense planners, strategists, have come to rely [[Page S 11374]] upon those projections. So the premise undergirding our national defense strategic deterrence is predicated upon yields that can be achieved only with the use of tritium. Tritium, however, has a relatively short half life, a little over 12 years, which means that it decays at a rate of about 5 percent a year and needs to be replenished on a regular basis. Recent reductions in our nuclear weapons stockpile have allowed us during this interim period of time to recycle tritium from retired weapons and has reduced the pressure to build a new tritium supply somewhat. But the need in terms of a long-range supply is still quite critical. Even if we take advantage of the tritium made available by retiring weapons, if we do not have a new tritium supply on line by the year 2011--that is just 16 years away--we will need to start to dip into our tritium reserve. By 2016, even using the reserve, it will not be adequate to meet our needs. Mr. President, since I think most everybody acknowledges it will take about 15 years or more to get a tritium supply facility up and operational, we need to act now to make sure we will have a viable nuclear deterrent capability after the year 2011. There are two ways, as I understand it, that you can produce tritium. There is the traditional way that we have produced it in the past with a nuclear reactor, and there is a new way which offers considerable hope and promise. It is a linear accelerator. Scientists tell us that either way is feasible, and the Department of Energy is in the process of evaluating these two options, including an evaluation of numerous options within the nuclear reactor category. A decision on which technology will provide us the most confidence and will be the most fiscally responsible is to be announced soon by the Department of Energy. In addition to evaluating the technology options, the Department is going to decide where to site this new tritium facility. Several sites are considered including one in Idaho, Savannah River, Oak Ridge, Pantex, and the Nevada test site. This will be primarily research oriented. I do not consider the naming of the site at this time an urgent matter. Nevertheless, the Secretary of Energy is committed to the announcing of a preferred site for the tritium supply technology in the near future. The Department recognizes the seriousness of this decision and has devoted a considerable amount of time and a great many resources to ensuring that the final decision will result in a viable cost-effective tritium supply program. Mr. President, this is not the time for Congress to meddle in what is essentially a technical and scientific decision process. I realize that some of my colleagues may be frustrated with what they perceive to be delays in moving forward with the tritium supply decision, and given the Department's track record in a number of programs, it is all too easy to place the blame for delays in a program on the Department of Energy. In this instance, however, I simply do not believe the criticism is justified. Since 1988, when the New Production Reactor Office was established to develop a new supply for tritium, there have been incredible changes in the environment in which the Department is acting: The Soviet Union has imploded. The cold war is over, and President Bush's three announcements during 1991 and 1992 of significant reductions in the nuclear weapons stockpile program has dramatically changed the picture with regard to a new tritium supply. When the Bush administration, under Secretary of Energy Watkins, decided not to pursue the new production reactor, an entire new plan had to be developed for the production of a tritium resource. The Secretary of Energy was required under the fiscal year 1994 Defense Authorization Act to issue a programmatic environmental impact statement by March 1, 1995. This draft PEIS for tritium supply and recycling issued by the Department last February complied with the requirement and is the latest product of a 7-year process to develop a rational, cost-effective, scientifically based program to ensure the capability of our nuclear weapons well into the next century. No preferred site or technology was identified by the February 1995 document, nor is one required under the NEPA process. At that point, the Secretary of Energy committed to executing a record of decision by November of this year. By Government standards, that is a reasonably quick turnaround. The Secretary also made it clear that a decision on the preferred technology or site may be announced prior to the November record of decision. That is where we stand today, Mr. President. The PEIS is on the street and the Secretary is committed to a decision by November of this year. The Secretary, clearly feeling she did not have sufficient basis to make a decision on site or technology prior to March 1, is currently evaluating the technical and scientific evidence gathered through the NEPA process. That is as it should be. To give you some indication of the magnitude of the PEIS, this indicates the voluminous nature of the information that is being compiled, that is currently being reviewed and analyzed by the Department. These are two volumes entitled ``The Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Tritium Supply and Recycling.'' It is my view that the Secretary ought to be permitted to move forward in that evaluating process. It is hard to understand how Congress, on a matter of such importance to our national defense, could even consider substituting its judgment on a parochial basis for the scientific and technical expertise that is being considered by the Department of Energy. I realize that the language our amendment seeks to strike only specifies the site for the new tritium source. The language presumes to leave the technology choice to the Secretary of Energy and only identifies the site for the new facility. Unfortunately, Mr. President, it is not quite that simple. In order to obtain the most reliable and cost-effective results, the Department of Energy must maintain the flexibility it needs to determine both the site and the technology for the new tritium resource. As the draft PEIS makes abundantly clear, each of the sites being considered for the new tritium source has its own advantages and disadvantages. Should the DOE decide to build a new reactor, whether it is a so- called triple-play reactor, advocated by the senior Senator from South Carolina, or any other type of reactor, Savannah River appears to be the most likely site. The Nevada test site is less suitable and, parenthetically, I would oppose building a reactor anywhere in Nevada. On the other hand, given the freedom to make the most rational decision, the Nevada test site would be the preferred alternate, if the chosen technology turns out to be an accelerator. Others would disagree, and I acknowledge this is a debatable proposition, but at this point, the best course we in Congress can pursue is simply let the NEPA process run its course. In supporting the Reid-Bryan amendment, that is what the Senate is pursuing: To allow the course which the Congress set in motion in 1994 by directing that a programmatic EIS be developed to make the determination as to site and technology for the new tritium supply. That is what we allow to occur. By leaving the language in the bill as it currently is, we preempt that process, and in the interest of a parochial decisionmaking process, foreclose the Department from making a determination both, in my view, on technology as well as site. Mr. President, I yield my time back to the distinguished senior Senator from Nevada. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia. Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I will make brief remarks on this amendment. I support the Senator from South Carolina and his position. Savannah River has been the tritium production complex since the dawn of the nuclear age. It has the infrastructure, it has the trained work force, it has the experience, it is a logical place for the new tritium facility, whatever technology is being chosen. [[Page S 11375]] We do not have in this bill now, as I understand this amendment--I have not been a part of working on this amendment--but as I understand it, there is nothing in the bill now, after this amendment is adopted, that would tell the Secretary of Energy what kind of reactor to have. She still has that choice--the light-water reactor, the gas reactor, the multipurpose reactor, heavy water or even the accelerator. All of those technologies are available. The Secretary of Energy said she is going to make this decision sometime in late summer or early fall. That means that this bill is bound to be in conference in September, and if the Secretary of Energy makes any other decision, other than Savannah River, then certainly we will have a time to study that carefully and to react to that in conference. So I support the Senator from South Carolina on this. I urge the defeat of the second-degree amendment. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina. Mr. THURMOND. I yield the able junior Senator from Georgia such time as he may require. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia. Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, as my good colleague from Georgia noted, the Savannah River site has been the site for weapons tritium production for nearly half a century--specifically 40 years. Obviously, given the importance of the production of that plant in terms of our nuclear policy, a very large capital investment has already been made by the taxpayers of the United States on the Savannah River site's unique, extensive tritium handling, tritium bottle recycling and production infrastructure--a huge capital investment. If the new tritium production facility which DOE was planning were to be located at another site other than Savannah River, the large tritium bottle recycling facilities and the tritium production handling facilities would have to be replicated, rebuilt at a new site. This would be very expensive, cost-ineffective, and not wise. Another alternative, I guess, would be to transport radioactive tritium to the Savannah River site bottle recycling from a distant new production site. This would require expensive, unique transportation, and would be perceived as a potential negative public health risk in the States transversed. On this basis, it is both logical and cost- effective for the Congress to designate this longstanding facility, a facility uniquely prepared to deal with this production as the location for the tritium production facility. The bottom line here is, if you are talking about a change, you are talking about spending millions and millions of dollars, and you are talking about breaking the continuity chain of preparedness that the Savannah River site represents. Mr. President, I yield back my time to the Senator from South Carolina. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, how much time is left on each side? The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 13 minutes remaining for the Senator from South Carolina, and the Senator from Nevada has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining. Mr. REID addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized. Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend, the ranking member, the former chairman of the committee, said the only question is what kind of facility. Well, that really is not the only question. But, in fact, if that were the only question, why in the world would you want to site in South Carolina, no matter what kind of facility, a reactor accelerator? If the Secretary of Energy is going to make this decision late summer/early fall, why would Congress want to meddle with what is already in the process of being decided? If there were ever an example of congressional meddling, this certainly would be it. Mr. President, this is a big project. I am reading from one newspaper: The new tritium production facility would be the Nation's first since the 1960's. Cost estimates range as high as $10 billion, and the project could create more than 2,000 jobs. In the other body, something like this was tried and, again, I read from the Energy Daily of June 1995, where over there it was referred to as ``radioactive pork.'' Well, thank goodness the House in its wisdom got rid of that radioactive pork, and that was deleted from their legislation. If the Savannah River site is so good, why do they not let it compete on its merits? If the threat that I heard--namely, if the Department of Energy sites it someplace else, we will take a look at it in conference. This is a threat to the Secretary to site it on the Savannah River, or we will take care of it in conference. That is wrong. My amendment lets the system of Government work the way it should, not with ``radioactive pork.'' It would be with the orderly process of Government. Let me repeat, Mr. President, the language in the underlying amendment of the Senator from South Carolina that I and Senator Bryan are attempting to delete States, ``shall locate the new tritium production facility * * * at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina.'' We are subverting, standing on its head, making a mockery of the system of Government that we have, where the Director of the Department of Energy--the Secretary--will make a determination after due consultation with the Department of Defense, with the people that work for and with her, as to where it should go. But in this Thurmond amendment, we are going to site it in South Carolina before we know the technology that will be used, the cost, or the suitability of the Savannah River site for the project. There may be technology that should only go to Savannah River that the Secretary will decide on. Or she may find that that is technology that they want to use and should not go to Savannah River for many reasons. Maybe the cost of the Savannah River, because of all the pollution from the failed reactor, for over 45 years, makes that site so expensive, so unreliable, that it should go someplace else. This language sites it in South Carolina, regardless of the environmental concerns, regardless of the need for reviews, regardless of the cost alternatives, and, of course, as I have mentioned before, regardless of the impact on the schedule to produce tritium. What if we need to get tritium produced quickly. Does this mean that we are foregoing the option of using an existing commercial reactor for tritium production? Yes, it does. That may be the decision the Secretary will make, saving the taxpayers of this country billions of dollars. We have no tritium production today. Any production facility will therefore be a new facility. It seems that we have just precluded the commercial reactor option. That is wrong, and that is not what we should want or what this Congress should be up to. We have certain budget constraints that we have all been working under. This flies in the face of that. Why are we forcing a decision now when we know, as indicated by the senior Senator from Georgia, that the Secretary is going to make this decision in late summer? Late summer is upon us. This decision could come within a matter of weeks. We are needlessly constraining the decision process. For what? We are doing it for ``radioactive pork,'' and that is wrong. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to take a minute or two more. I want to just recall that in 1946, when I was Governor of South Carolina, the project was announced to build this plant in Aiken, SC, on the Savannah River between Georgia and South Carolina. I moved to Aiken to practice law. I guess I represented over 90 percent of the landowners down there. They had the land condemned and taken away, whether they wanted to or not. The Government said, ``We need this land for this plant.'' The Government needed it. They sacrificed a lot. They underwent many hardships. The plant was built. Why now do we want to take away the opportunity for those people who sacrificed like they did to help the Government to build this plant for the good of our country? We are not asking that they use any particular kind of technology. They can use the accelerator or they can use the reactor, or whatever they want to. We are merely saying it should not be taken away from these people who [[Page S 11376]] sacrificed so much in their lifetime for this plant and for the Government. We feel it should not be moved, regardless of what the technology is. It ought to remain at this site. It has been there for 45 years. Why take it away? They have done a good job. They have the infrastructure. They have the workers. They have everything to make a success. I do hope that this amendment will be defeated. Mr. REID. Mr. President, the proponents of sight infrastructure costs as their main argument, but this facility will produce training for 50 years. I say, what is the lowest life cycle cost of 50 years? Do we care? We should care, Mr. President. I yield to my colleague from Nevada whatever time he desires. Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague. It seems to me, Mr. President, that we have heard what essentially are three arguments by the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. One is that it has been there for 45 years, and therefore it should continue in perpetuity for 45 years. Mr. President, I think the answer to that question is self-evident. We are considering prospectively what is the best location for the tritium production facility in the future. That is the entire purpose of the problematic environmental impact statement. Indeed, they may make and come to the same conclusion that our friend, the senior Senator from South Carolina made. But that is not an analytical or rational argument for a policy that has always been there, always been that way, and therefore we should continue that way forever in the future. The second argument that my friend made was to suggest that somehow the recycling operation has been at Savannah River and that by colocating the new production facility, somehow we would ease or eliminate the transportation of tritium. Mr. President, that is simply not true. As my colleagues, I am sure, know, we do not move nuclear bombs around the country, to have the tritium components of them added in second. When we are talking about retrofitting or adding the tritium component, you are talking about doing that at a facility that has the capability of doing that. That is, first and foremost, the facility at Pantex. No one should have the impression that by having a recycling and production facility in South Carolina that we eliminate the necessity of transporting that new tritium product to either Pantex, or there is a facility at the Nevada test site that could handle the disassembly. My friend makes the argument of sacrifice. While I am sure he recites the history, nobody quarrels with the senior Senator from South Carolina when he describes the history of the state that he has represented so long and so ably, and which I know he has great personal affection. If we are talking about sacrifice, he is talking about the few thousand acres at Savannah River. Nevada is the mother of all sacrifices--the mother of all sacrifices. The Nevada test site alone is larger than the entire State of Rhode Island. Just the Nevada test site. If you want to talk about Federal sacrifice, 87 percent of the entire land mass of the State of Nevada is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, either the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, the Bureau of Land Management, or the Forest Service. I must say that I do not think any of those three arguments are compelling. Finally, I return very briefly to, I think, the argument that my senior colleague makes so ably. That is, we started the process in 1994. We said, ``Let's look, see how we should handle future tritium production. Let's have a problematic EIS.'' Added into that mix is the fact there is a new technology we want to take a look at, the linear accelerator technology. There are different types of reactor technologies that we want to consider, as well, some four technologies within the rubric of the reactor option, which is the other option other than the accelerator. All of those ought to be considered rationally as part of an evaluation process and ought not to be the subject of micromanagement by the Congress. Let this process work its course. We in Nevada have a vested interest. We would like to see it in Nevada. I would like to see the linear accelerator, but I am willing to take my chance. I think that is the best policy. I urge the Congress and this Senate to allow that course to work its way, as well, and let the experts make the decision. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2114 to Amendment No. 2111 Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to make certain technical amendments to the Thurmond-Domenici amendment. These have been agreed to by both sides. I send them to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] proposes an amendment numbered 2114 to amendment No. 2111. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: Page 8, line 17 strike out ``$2,341,596,000 and substitute in lieu thereof $2,386,596,000''. Page 8, line 20 strike out ``$2,121,226,000 and substitute in lieu thereof ``$2,151,266,000''. Page 9, line 1 strike out ``$220,330,000'' and substitute in lieu thereof ``$235,330,000''. Page 9, line 25 strike out ``$26,000,000'' and substitute in lieu thereof ``$41,000,000''. Page 13, line 6 strike out ``$550,510,000'' and substitute in lieu thereof ``$505,510,000''. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back? Mr. REID. I yield back. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The amendment (No. 2114) was agreed to. Amendment No. 2113 Mr. THURMOND. I move to table the Reid amendment 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. Mr. REID. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Could the Presiding Officer indicate what the parliamentary status is now. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first vote will occur in relation to the motion to table the Exon amendment. Mr. THURMOND. I am informed Senator McCain is not going to offer an amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote on the motion to table the Exon amendment can occur now. Mr. REID. Immediately following that will be the Reid-Bryan amendment. Mr. BRYAN. 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. Mr. EXON. 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 question is on the motion to table. Mr. EXON. Yes. If I understand the agreement right, the Senator from Nebraska has 2 minutes, as does the Senator from South Carolina. I ask unanimous consent, as previously agreed to, that immediately preceding the vote on the Exon amendment, 2 minutes be allocated to the Senator from Nebraska and 2 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment No. 2112 Mr. EXON. Mr. President, there can be no question that we are about to cast a critically important vote. We will send a signal that will resonate around the world and have far-reaching implications on mankind's chances of moving further away from a reliance on nuclear weapons and a possible nuclear holocaust, or we can reverse course, abruptly and shamefully. As the world's leading nuclear superpower, we can send a signal loud and clear that, notwithstanding our protestations about the spread of nuclear devices, notwithstanding our supposed commitment to a nuclear test ban treaty, we are going to reverse course. [[Page S 11377]] The Exon-Hatfield amendment assures a constructive policy of gradual and very deliberate thought processes, and offers the nuclear olive branch, if you will, to potential friend and potential foe alike, that the United States of America offers a hand of nuclear understanding. If we vote down, if we table the Exon-Hatfield amendment, it is going to be a significant step backward for which we will not forgive ourselves, I suggest, for centuries to come. It is the time we reemphasize our restraint, our vigilance, and agree to the Exon- Hatfield amendment as we have explained in great detail during debate this morning. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I just want to say that every weapons system, indeed every machine in our technological society, requires testing. The hydronuclear testing is the only tool left to assess our confidence in the safety and reliability of the shrinking nuclear stockpile. Mr. President, we need to do this. We are living in a dangerous world. It is important that we be informed as to the reliability and safety of our weapons. They may have to be used. I do not need to cite the situations that could be dangerous in various parts of the world. We know about North Korea. We do not know what Russia is going to do, what China is going to do. We do not know what certain nations like Iran or Iraq and Libya will do, the terrorist nations. We must be prepared. And to be prepared we have to know what our weapons will do. We have to know they will be safe and reliable, and that is the purpose of this amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion to table the Exon amendment. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote? The result was announced, yeas 56, nays 44, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 359 Leg.] YEAS--56 Abraham Ashcroft Bennett Bond Breaux Brown Bryan Burns Coats Cochran Cohen Coverdell Craig D'Amato DeWine Dole Domenici Faircloth Frist Gorton Gramm Grams Grassley Gregg Hatch Heflin Helms Hollings Hutchison Inhofe Johnston Kempthorne Kyl Lott Lugar Mack McCain McConnell Mikulski Murkowski Nickles Packwood Pressler Reid Roth Santorum Shelby Simpson Smith Snowe Specter Stevens Thomas Thompson Thurmond Warner NAYS--44 Akaka Baucus Biden Bingaman Boxer Bradley Bumpers Byrd Campbell Chafee Conrad Daschle Dodd Dorgan Exon Feingold Feinstein Ford Glenn Graham Harkin Hatfield Inouye Jeffords Kassebaum Kennedy Kerrey Kerry Kohl Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lieberman Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murray Nunn Pell Pryor Robb Rockefeller Sarbanes Simon Wellstone So, the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2112) was agreed to. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote on Amendment No. 2113 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business is amendment No. 2113, and under the previous order there are now 4 minutes of debate equally divided between the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond]---- Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from South Carolina and I have agreed to yield back our time. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I agree to yield back the time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back? All time is yielded back. The question is now on agreeing to the motion to table the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk called the roll. The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 43, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 360 Leg.] YEAS--57 Abraham Ashcroft Bennett Biden Bond Breaux Brown Byrd Campbell Chafee Coats Cochran Cohen Coverdell D'Amato DeWine Dole Domenici Faircloth Frist Gramm Grams Grassley Gregg Hatch Hatfield Heflin Helms Hollings Hutchison Inhofe Johnston Kassebaum Kyl Lott Lugar Mack McCain McConnell Mikulski Murkowski Nickles Nunn Packwood Pressler Roth Santorum Shelby Simpson Smith Snowe Specter Stevens Thomas Thompson Thurmond Warner NAYS--43 Akaka Baucus Bingaman Boxer Bradley Bryan Bumpers Burns Conrad Craig Daschle Dodd Dorgan Exon Feingold Feinstein Ford Glenn Gorton Graham Harkin Inouye Jeffords Kempthorne Kennedy Kerrey Kerry Kohl Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lieberman Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murray Pell Pryor Reid Robb Rockefeller Sarbanes Simon Wellstone So the motion to table the amendment (No. 2113) was agreed to. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to. Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business is the vote on amendment No. 2111. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated on amendment No. 2111. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Do all Senators yield back their time? Mr. THURMOND. I ask for a voice vote on that amendment. Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, is all time yielded back? Mr. THURMOND. We yield back all time. Vote on Amendment No. 2111 The PRESIDING OFFICER. With all time yielded back, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2111. The amendment (No. 2111) was agreed to. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to. Mr. COHEN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business is an amendment to be offered by the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], dealing with defense firewalls, with 1 hour of debate equally divided. Who yields time? Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I hope the time will not start running until we have order in the Senate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas directs that the time not begin until the Senate is in order. The Senate will be in order, please. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized to offer his amendment. Amendment No. 2115 (Purpose: To restore a common sense approach to the appropriations process by repealing the defense firewalls established in the FY96 Budget Resolution) Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself, Mr. Simon, Mr. Wellstone, and Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes an amendment numbered 2115. Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new section: SEC. REPEAL OF DEFENSE FIREWALL. (A) Strike Section 201(a) through 201(b)(1)(B) of H. Con. Res. 67, as passed by [[Page S 11378]] both Houses of Congress and insert in lieu thereof the following: SEC. 201. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS. (A) DEFINITION.--As used in this section and for the purposes of allocations made pursuant to section 302(a) or 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, for the discretionary category, the term `discretionary spending limit' means-- (1) with respect to fiscal year 1996, for the discretionary category $485,074,000,000 in new budget authority and $531,768,000,000 in outlays; (2) with respect to fiscal year 1997, for the discretionary category $482,430,000,000 in new budget authority and $520,295,000,000 in outlays; (3) with respect to fiscal year 1998, for the discretionary category $490,692,000,000 in new budget authority and $512,632,000,000 in outlays; (4) with respect to fiscal year 1999, for the discretionary category $482,207,000,000 in new budget authority and $510,482,000,000 in outlays; (5) with respect to fiscal year 2000, for the discretionary category $489,379,000,000 in new budget authority and $514,234,000,000 in outlays; (6) with respect to fiscal year 2001, for the discretionary category $496,601,000,000 in new budget authority and $516,403,000,000 in outlays; (7) with respect to fiscal year 2002, for the discretionary category $498,837,000,000 in new budget authority and $515,075,000,000 in outlays; as adjusted for changes in concepts and definitions and emergency appropriations. (b) Point of Order in the Senate.-- (1) In General.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider-- (A) any concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002 (or amendment, motion, or conference report on such a resolution) that provides discretionary spending in excess of the discretionary spending limit for such fiscal year; or (B) Within 30 days of the date of enactment of this Act, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees shall meet to consider the reallocation of the fiscal year 1996 suballocations made pursuant to section 602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I know this psychologically is a terrible way to open a debate, but I have no delusions about the possibility of winning on this amendment. Given the makeup of the Senate right now, it is going to be several years before an amendment like this will take root, but it will take root when the American people focus not only on their misery but what caused it. Everybody here is aware of the fact that we treat defense as not only the highest priority but everything else is secondary to it. Not to be trite, but the truth of the matter is that we, like so many civilizations, from the Israelites on, may very well find that the strength of this Nation is not all in planes, tanks, and guns. How we treat our people, the kind of health care they get, the kind of education they get, the kind of environment they live in, those things determine what a powerful nation is, too. It usually takes me about an hour or two after I read the Washington Post in the morning to get enthused sufficiently enough to come to work. This morning it was especially depressing. Here were three front page stories: House votes to prohibit States from paying for an abortion in cases of rape or incest. Mr. President, to me, that is a form of barbarism, to say that a child who may be pregnant by her father, or the most innocent housewife who is raped, if she has the money, no problem. If she is poor, she will birth that child. You remember the beatitude, ``Blessed are those who are persecuted.'' If that is not a form of persecution, I do not know what is. The second story was: Senate votes to abrogate antiballistic missile treaty. That is not entirely true, but figuratively and, down the road, literally it is true. We will decide the interpretation of the treaty; we will decide whether it is abrogated or not, and if the Russians happen to disagree, so be it. The language of the bill itself said the Senate, not the President, will decide whether the ABM Treaty is in our interest or not. We will decide whether we want to live by it or not. And that solemn document that we put our names on in 1972 will be for naught. Who else wants to sign a treaty with us knowing that that is the way we treat our treaties? We simply cannot give up on the cold war. We just love it too much. Dr. Strangelove. Another beatitude is, ``Blessed are the peacemakers.'' Not too many people are blessed in this body. The third story was: House cuts $9 billion in education, health care, and food for the poor. ``Blessed are the poor,'' unless one of them happens to get pregnant at the age of 17. What do we do in the Senate? We add $7 billion more than the Secretary of Defense and our chiefs of staff want. Can you imagine that? We are adding $7 billion more than our defense authorization asked for. It was depressing. And as I read those three stories, I pondered on what else. Medicare? No firewalls around Medicare, health care for the elderly; there are no firewalls there. We are going to cut $270 billion over the next 7 years. We are going to give the States block grants on Medicaid and AFDC, not necessarily because we think it is more efficient, but because we are going to cut back on Medicaid. All that is health care for the poorest of the poor. We are going to cut PBS, which is one of the few things that provide a little enrichment for our children. ``Sesame Street'' and Big Bird, adios. ``All Things Considered,'' which every Member of the Senate listens to going to and from work on NPR, adios. No commercials. We need to privatize this so we can get some commercials on PBS and NPR. I want to see, right in the middle of the Civil War series, a bunch of youngsters running down the beach with a Budweiser in their hands. That is what I call cultural enrichment. And the arts--how I wish that guy Mapplethorpe had never received a grant. You see, he does not have anything to do with the repertory theater in my State. But we will be lucky to make it in my State with our symphony without some help from the National Endowment. Food stamps. We did not develop food stamp programs willy-nilly. We did it because we made a conscious decision that we did not want anybody in this country to go hungry. Everybody acts as though it was some sort of a Communist conspiracy that should have never been put in place. We are going to cut that. If you do not happen to have a PAC or a $1,000 check, you are not getting anything out of this crowd. Eliminate affirmative action. I have heard so many anecdotes on affirmative action that make my blood boil, and some of them are true. It has been an abused program. But do not say that the time has come when we have a level playing field when 14 percent of the black males in this country are unemployed, and 40 percent of the black teenagers are unemployed, compared to about 5 percent white. You know, if we were to eliminate this famous tax cut I hear so much about--that is what the Medicare cut is, $270 billion; and $250 billion of that--virtually all--is for a tax cut, 70 percent of which goes to people who make over $100,000 a year. When I was a young practicing lawyer, I yearned for the day when I would make $100,000 a year. So now I am going to get a nice healthy tax cut. Every Senator gets $133,000 or $135,000 a year, a big fat pension, a health care plan second to none, and we are going to get a tax cut when 50 percent of the people in this country over 65 cannot sleep at night because they are in abject terror of getting sick and not being able to pay their bills. If we just cut Medicare by half that amount and eliminate the tax cut and spend the other $135 billion on education and things that make us a great nation, we can still balance the budget in the year 2002 and do what we know we ought to do. No, we are going to reward those who have already been richly blessed. And we are going to further abuse those at the bottom of the ladder. Indeed, we will step on their hands if they happen to be reaching for the first rung. We have become so cynical and indifferent. So we have to put firewalls around defense to make sure none of it ever gets out of the Pentagon into the hands of some poor soul who might need it for an education. Senator Kohl is going to offer an amendment later today which would cut the $7 billion which was added on to this bill. Even if he were to prevail, which he will not even come close to doing, you could not take that money and use it for any other purpose. Mr. President, how much time is remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 minutes and 50 seconds remaining. [[Page S 11379]] Mr. BUMPERS. Will you kindly notify me when I have used a total of 20 minutes. Mr. President, here is a chart which shows what is going to happen from 1995 to the year 2002, in defense. We go from $264 billion in 1995 to $280 billion in 2002. What do we do with everything else--what is known as domestic discretionary spending--education, health care, you name it, medical research, law enforcement? What happens to that? It goes from $241 to $218 billion over 7 years. Of the spending cuts that are projected to be made over the next 7 years to reduce the deficit and pay for the Republican tax cut for the wealthy, domestic spending, the things that make us great will absorb 43 percent of all the cuts. What in the name of God are we thinking about? We will spend $400 billion more for defense spending than domestic programs over the next 7 years. Mr. President, $400 billion less to take care of the real needs of the people of this country, that we are going to spend on defense. How much are we spending on defense? Are we looking for two wars, as the Bottom-Up Review said? Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield? Mr. BUMPERS. Not until I finish this statement. This chart demonstrates what we spend for defense in comparison to our eight or nine most likely adversaries, Russia, China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Cuba--name somebody else. I do not care who you name. Our defense budget is twice as big as all nine of them put together. If you add NATO, twice as much as the rest of the world. What are the proponents of the bill we are considering today proposing? That we add $7 billion to the defense budget. We get so hairy chested around here when defense comes up. Everybody favors a strong defense. Nobody wants to ever be vulnerable. This is what you call piling on. You just cannot pile on enough money. Even the Pentagon is trying to shovel it back to us, and we will not take it. I appreciate the Defense Department. When we have a crisis, I am glad we have aircraft carriers. I am glad we have all the sophisticated weaponry. All I am saying is, there ought to be some kind of balance, because it is not going to make any difference how much we spend on defense if we are not careful about what we are doing back home. Mr. President, I saw a poll of high school seniors about 5 years ago. Who are your heroes? About the only one I can remember is Tom Cruise. I think Mr. T was on the list. It was a list of rock stars. Michael Jackson was high on the list. That is who the high school seniors revere in this country. Mother Theresa did not make it. The Pope did not make it. Poor old George Bush did not make it. Not even mom and pop. Senators, can you imagine somebody asking you that question when you were in high school, who were your heroes? I would have popped out my father so fast it would make your head swim. You talk about a hero. I worshipped the ground he walked on. Mom and pop did not make this list. If we keep going the way we have gone this year in the U.S. Congress, Tim McVeigh and David Koresh will be on the list next year. I am not trying to take the money away from the Pentagon with this amendment. I am simply saying the people of this body ought to be more thoughtful about where the real strengths of the Nation are. We ought to be more thoughtful about people who have not had the luck we have had. I know a woman who is very wealthy and she is always saying, ``Can't everybody be rich and beautiful like me?'' The truth of the matter is, most people who have made it, and especially if you come from a town during the Depression with a population of 851, have had a lot of help. I did not become a Senator just because I am such a great person. I tell you why I did it. I did it because this same Congress, back when they were a little more sensitive about things like this, gave me a free education. That is right. My brother went to Harvard. I went to Northwestern. My father was a poor man. He could no more have afforded that than he could fly to the Moon. I was fortunate and received a little Government help after World War II, and had a teacher who taught me to speak and read well, did something for my self-esteem. The main thing I did, and what most people that make it did, is choose my parents well. Mr. President, I just want to say I am not trying to move money out of the Defense Department into any of these other programs. I am saying as a psychological thing we ought not to be sitting here and saying you cannot touch defense for anything, no matter how critical it may be. If we continue the way we have started this year, and especially that Contract With America, this country is in for a terrible shock. That is not what the people were voting for, they wanted change, but this is not the change they were voting for, I do not think. When they begin to feel the pain, they are going to begin to wonder what they voted for. I am telling you, if we keep going the way we are going now, trying to tinker with the Constitution, spending every extra dime we can get our hands on on defense, that age of know-nothingism back in the middle of the 19th century will be known as the age of enlightenment. As you know I have such a reverence for the freedom of religion in this country, but there is a great quote of Isaiah, admonishing the Israelites when they got sort of cynical about all their people. He said to them: Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Maybe that is just good for the Senate prayer breakfast or on Sunday morning. It does not seem to be terribly relevant here. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Mexico. Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator will yield 6 minutes? Mr. THURMOND. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do we have in opposition? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 minutes. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first let me suggest to my good friend, Senator Bumpers, he has given a very great speech about what he thinks we ought to be doing in the United States. But I must tell those who are listening, very little of it has to do with the amendment he is talking about. The amendment he is talking about is very, very simple. In 1990 I was privileged to have an idea--that I had been thinking about and worrying about--become the law. In that year, 1990, and 3 years thereafter, we decided that once the Congress of the United States voted in an amount of money that they wanted spent on the defense of the United States, that during that year they only had two options regarding defense: First, if they did not want to spend all of the defense money, they applied what was saved on the deficit; and, second, if they want to spend defense money on anything else, they had to get 60 votes to do it. That is a pretty reasonable approach, when you consider the propensity of legislators to want more and more for programs that they love, or that they need, or that they want for their constituents. And you put it up against a big defense budget and everybody can say, ``Oh, take a little bit away for this. Take a little bit away for

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
(Senate - August 04, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S11372-S11437] NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill. Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Exon amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. DOLE. Can we get the yeas and nays on all the amendments? Mr. EXON. I will be glad to incorporate that. I ask for the yeas and nays on all of the amendments with reference to the matter that we have been debating. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. DOLE. So there will be the yeas and nays on four amendments. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield back any time remaining, and I am going to move to table the Exon amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? Mr. EXON. I make an inquiry of the Chair. I thought that the yeas and nays on the Exon amendment had been ordered. Is that not correct? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. EXON. Then a tabling motion would not be in order at this time, would it? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is advised by the Parliamentarian that a tabling motion would be in order. Is there a sufficient second on the tabling motion? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Exon amendment is set aside. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] is recognized to offer an amendment, on which Senator Reid will control 40 minutes and Senator Thurmond will control 20 minutes. The Senator from Nevada. Amendment No. 2113 to Amendment No. 2111 (Purpose: To strike the provision designating the location of the new tritium production facility of the Department of Energy) Mr. REID. I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself and Mr. Bryan, proposes an amendment numbered 2113 to amendment No. 2111: On page 29 of the amendment, strike lines 18 through 21. Mr. REID. The record should read as on the amendment that this is offered on behalf of both Senators from Nevada. Mr. President, I object to the section of this amendment that directs the Department of Energy to site its new tritium production facility at Savannah River. For Members of the Senate, let me explain briefly what we are talking about. Tritium is an element that is critical to all modern nuclear weapons. However, it is radioactive and decays. Our weapons will cease to work if we do not periodically replace the tritium. We do not now in the United States have the ability, the capability to produce tritium. We must develop a new tritium source. We are, in this amendment, striking from this Thurmond amendment the specification that this new producer of tritium shall be in Savannah River. This is not an appropriate action and certainly it is not an appropriate issue for legislative action. Decisions like this belong with the administrative branch of our Government. Decisions like this must be based on a complete analysis of many complex technical and economic decisions. A fair and impartial assessment of alternatives for different techniques and sites is what is called for. To think that we, as a Senate, can step in without hearings, without any procedures at all to indicate what would be the proper site for this production facility would be absolutely wrong. It is clear the reason that this is in the bill is because of the chairman of the committee being from South Carolina. There is no other reason. The fact is there are a number of sites that the Department of Energy and this administration generally are looking at to determine where would be the best place to put it. One of the sites, of course, is at the Nevada test site. If there were a vote taken today with the people in the Department of Defense, people in the Department of Energy who are making the decision, Nevada would probably win, but that is not how these decisions are made. It is not by a vote. It is by people who are administrators, who listen to the experts who work under them and for them and with them to determine where would be the best place to site this production facility. It certainly should not be done in a site specific amendment as we are now asked to consider. Why does South Carolina feel that they must legislate the outcome of this issue? Why should not South Carolina and the Members of this Senate be willing to take their chances that their site is the best site? The junior Senator from New Mexico earlier today in his remarks on the underlying Thurmond amendment indicated that he would not approve of the site specific section of the bill. He said that he would support the Reid amendment, and I think that is the way it should be. This is not some small project that you can put any place you want. This is a multibillion-dollar project. This is not a project that costs a few million dollars, a few hundred million dollars. This is a project that costs a few billion, and it is simply wrong to site it as has been done by the committee in this bill. This is a multibillion-dollar [[Page S 11373]] project upon which our nuclear deterrent critically depends. As we all know, funds for all Federal projects are limited. We should not be taking such a large and significant project and turning it into a local jobs project. I have already stated that Nevada is one of the places that is being considered for this project, and I say ``considered'' because I do not know what ultimately, when all the merits are added up, where this project would go. Nevada has a shot at it, of course. But we certainly cannot eliminate good science and good administration and in this bill simply say it is going to South Carolina. It is wrong. This is one of the types of things that gives Congress the name it has now. If there were ever an example of congressional pork, this certainly would be a good example. I also realize that Nevada's chances are eliminated if we do not pass this amendment that is now before the body. So, Mr. President, this is not a parochial issue, it is an issue of good Government. We all agree that we have to balance the budget. We have a different method of doing that. We have priorities that seem to be bantered around here which would be the best way to go to balance the budget. We all agree it should be balanced. But one of the things we have to stop doing is legislating as we are doing in this manner. We simply cannot put a multibillion dollar project in a certain State or district because the chairman of the committee is from that State or district. That is wrong. This is an issue for all of us who care about spending our limited dollars wisely. This is not an appropriate way to spend our money. The amendment that I have offered to preclude the earmarking of the site for this new tritium project is an amendment for good Government and saving the Government money. I ask all Senators to join me in defeating this attempt to bypass the ongoing process to choose a technology and a site for our Nation's future tritium production. The language from the bill, that is from the Thurmond amendment, says, ``* * * shall locate the new tritium production facility of the Department of Energy at the Savannah River site, South Carolina,'' before we know the technology, before we know the cost, before we know the suitability of the Savannah River site for the project. It is regardless of NEPA reviews; that is, the environmental impact that it would have on that part of the country. It is regardless of the cost of alternatives. What if we find an alternative that will save 10 percent? That is hundreds of millions of dollars. What if we find an alternative that will save us 5 or 3 or 20 percent? Should we not be given the latitude, should our administration not be given the latitude of looking at what would be best environmentally, what would be best from a cost basis? What about the ability of the facility to start producing tritium? What if one site, that is, the one in South Carolina, would take 8 or 9 years to develop this production capability? And let us assume another one would take 2 years. Should the administration not look at which would come on line the quickest? Of course. But what we are doing, we are citing it in this amendment, regardless of the environmental impact, regardless of the cost, and regardless of when it will be able to come on board, when we will be able to start producing tritium. Does this mean we are forgoing the option of using a commercial reactor for tritium production? It appears that way. Mr. President, we have no tritium production today. Any production facility will therefore be a new facility. It seems that we have just precluded the commercial reactor option; that is, are we going to use some of the commercial reactors that are now available for tritium, and we would buy it from the commercial producer? That is an alternative. Should we not be able to take a look at that to see if that is most appropriate way to get our tritium for our nuclear weapons? Why are we forcing a decision now? Mr. President, the question is the answer. We all know why the decision is now being forced. We are needlessly constraining the decision process for what? Again, the question assumes the answer. It is very obvious. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Who yields time? Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina. Mr. THURMOND. I move to table the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the motion to table the amendment, is there a sufficient second? Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is a unanimous consent request that has been---- Mr. THURMOND. After we vote on the Exon amendment, not now. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion would not be in order until after all the time is expired or yielded back. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina. Mr. THURMOND. I will make it after the time expires. I rise to oppose the Reid amendment and point out to my colleagues that the Savannah River site has had the tritium production mission for over 40 years. Why change? The U.S. Government has invested heavily in a unique infrastructure at the site for handling that naturally decaying radioactive gas and for recycling tritium throughout the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. For this reason, it would not be cost effective for the new tritium source to be placed at any other location regardless of the technology used for production. The taxpayer, who is frequently mentioned here on the floor, would have to duplicate the recycling infrastructure required to handle the radioactive tritium and the gas bottles which contain it in our nuclear weapons. Additionally, transporting this radioactive gas across the land from separated production and recycling sites does not make sense either. The colocation of tritium recycling facilities and the new tritium production facility is the only solution that makes economic sense for the American taxpayer. I wish to point out to the Senate that the Savannah River site is located on the border between the States of Georgia and South Carolina. The people of both States have, after the land was condemned for this facility, supported this mission of the site for the past 45 years and cooperated fully with the Government in every way possible in its important mission to sustain the nuclear stockpile. Mr. President, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. REID addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada. Mr. REID. I say to my friend from South Carolina, if all these arguments are valid, then why should we have this in the bill? If all his arguments are valid, then the people who are making the decision, the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense, I am sure, will take all those facts into consideration. If he is right, South Carolina would wind up getting it. I will yield whatever time the Senator from Nevada may consume. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized. Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank my senior colleague for his leadership in providing this amendment, which I strongly support. Mr. President, as Senator Reid has indicated, he and I clearly have a vested interest in the outcome of this amendment. The Nevada test site is also being considered as the location for a new tritium source. Frankly, our view is it is far superior to any other location that is being considered. But I hope, Mr. President, my colleagues will understand that this is not just a battle between two States that seek to acquire a new major project which Senator Reid has indicated is of the magnitude of several billions of dollars. The Department of Energy's efforts to build a new tritium supply is probably one of the most important current programs to ensure our continued confidence in our nuclear stockpile. The tritium supply program is absolutely essential to our national security program. Senator Reid alluded to it, but I would like to embellish on it a little bit. Tritium is a radioactive gas and tritium is used in almost all of our nuclear weapons to achieve a so-called booster effect; that is, to magnify or to amplify the full impact of the nuclear yields. And our national defense planners, strategists, have come to rely [[Page S 11374]] upon those projections. So the premise undergirding our national defense strategic deterrence is predicated upon yields that can be achieved only with the use of tritium. Tritium, however, has a relatively short half life, a little over 12 years, which means that it decays at a rate of about 5 percent a year and needs to be replenished on a regular basis. Recent reductions in our nuclear weapons stockpile have allowed us during this interim period of time to recycle tritium from retired weapons and has reduced the pressure to build a new tritium supply somewhat. But the need in terms of a long-range supply is still quite critical. Even if we take advantage of the tritium made available by retiring weapons, if we do not have a new tritium supply on line by the year 2011--that is just 16 years away--we will need to start to dip into our tritium reserve. By 2016, even using the reserve, it will not be adequate to meet our needs. Mr. President, since I think most everybody acknowledges it will take about 15 years or more to get a tritium supply facility up and operational, we need to act now to make sure we will have a viable nuclear deterrent capability after the year 2011. There are two ways, as I understand it, that you can produce tritium. There is the traditional way that we have produced it in the past with a nuclear reactor, and there is a new way which offers considerable hope and promise. It is a linear accelerator. Scientists tell us that either way is feasible, and the Department of Energy is in the process of evaluating these two options, including an evaluation of numerous options within the nuclear reactor category. A decision on which technology will provide us the most confidence and will be the most fiscally responsible is to be announced soon by the Department of Energy. In addition to evaluating the technology options, the Department is going to decide where to site this new tritium facility. Several sites are considered including one in Idaho, Savannah River, Oak Ridge, Pantex, and the Nevada test site. This will be primarily research oriented. I do not consider the naming of the site at this time an urgent matter. Nevertheless, the Secretary of Energy is committed to the announcing of a preferred site for the tritium supply technology in the near future. The Department recognizes the seriousness of this decision and has devoted a considerable amount of time and a great many resources to ensuring that the final decision will result in a viable cost-effective tritium supply program. Mr. President, this is not the time for Congress to meddle in what is essentially a technical and scientific decision process. I realize that some of my colleagues may be frustrated with what they perceive to be delays in moving forward with the tritium supply decision, and given the Department's track record in a number of programs, it is all too easy to place the blame for delays in a program on the Department of Energy. In this instance, however, I simply do not believe the criticism is justified. Since 1988, when the New Production Reactor Office was established to develop a new supply for tritium, there have been incredible changes in the environment in which the Department is acting: The Soviet Union has imploded. The cold war is over, and President Bush's three announcements during 1991 and 1992 of significant reductions in the nuclear weapons stockpile program has dramatically changed the picture with regard to a new tritium supply. When the Bush administration, under Secretary of Energy Watkins, decided not to pursue the new production reactor, an entire new plan had to be developed for the production of a tritium resource. The Secretary of Energy was required under the fiscal year 1994 Defense Authorization Act to issue a programmatic environmental impact statement by March 1, 1995. This draft PEIS for tritium supply and recycling issued by the Department last February complied with the requirement and is the latest product of a 7-year process to develop a rational, cost-effective, scientifically based program to ensure the capability of our nuclear weapons well into the next century. No preferred site or technology was identified by the February 1995 document, nor is one required under the NEPA process. At that point, the Secretary of Energy committed to executing a record of decision by November of this year. By Government standards, that is a reasonably quick turnaround. The Secretary also made it clear that a decision on the preferred technology or site may be announced prior to the November record of decision. That is where we stand today, Mr. President. The PEIS is on the street and the Secretary is committed to a decision by November of this year. The Secretary, clearly feeling she did not have sufficient basis to make a decision on site or technology prior to March 1, is currently evaluating the technical and scientific evidence gathered through the NEPA process. That is as it should be. To give you some indication of the magnitude of the PEIS, this indicates the voluminous nature of the information that is being compiled, that is currently being reviewed and analyzed by the Department. These are two volumes entitled ``The Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Tritium Supply and Recycling.'' It is my view that the Secretary ought to be permitted to move forward in that evaluating process. It is hard to understand how Congress, on a matter of such importance to our national defense, could even consider substituting its judgment on a parochial basis for the scientific and technical expertise that is being considered by the Department of Energy. I realize that the language our amendment seeks to strike only specifies the site for the new tritium source. The language presumes to leave the technology choice to the Secretary of Energy and only identifies the site for the new facility. Unfortunately, Mr. President, it is not quite that simple. In order to obtain the most reliable and cost-effective results, the Department of Energy must maintain the flexibility it needs to determine both the site and the technology for the new tritium resource. As the draft PEIS makes abundantly clear, each of the sites being considered for the new tritium source has its own advantages and disadvantages. Should the DOE decide to build a new reactor, whether it is a so- called triple-play reactor, advocated by the senior Senator from South Carolina, or any other type of reactor, Savannah River appears to be the most likely site. The Nevada test site is less suitable and, parenthetically, I would oppose building a reactor anywhere in Nevada. On the other hand, given the freedom to make the most rational decision, the Nevada test site would be the preferred alternate, if the chosen technology turns out to be an accelerator. Others would disagree, and I acknowledge this is a debatable proposition, but at this point, the best course we in Congress can pursue is simply let the NEPA process run its course. In supporting the Reid-Bryan amendment, that is what the Senate is pursuing: To allow the course which the Congress set in motion in 1994 by directing that a programmatic EIS be developed to make the determination as to site and technology for the new tritium supply. That is what we allow to occur. By leaving the language in the bill as it currently is, we preempt that process, and in the interest of a parochial decisionmaking process, foreclose the Department from making a determination both, in my view, on technology as well as site. Mr. President, I yield my time back to the distinguished senior Senator from Nevada. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia. Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I will make brief remarks on this amendment. I support the Senator from South Carolina and his position. Savannah River has been the tritium production complex since the dawn of the nuclear age. It has the infrastructure, it has the trained work force, it has the experience, it is a logical place for the new tritium facility, whatever technology is being chosen. [[Page S 11375]] We do not have in this bill now, as I understand this amendment--I have not been a part of working on this amendment--but as I understand it, there is nothing in the bill now, after this amendment is adopted, that would tell the Secretary of Energy what kind of reactor to have. She still has that choice--the light-water reactor, the gas reactor, the multipurpose reactor, heavy water or even the accelerator. All of those technologies are available. The Secretary of Energy said she is going to make this decision sometime in late summer or early fall. That means that this bill is bound to be in conference in September, and if the Secretary of Energy makes any other decision, other than Savannah River, then certainly we will have a time to study that carefully and to react to that in conference. So I support the Senator from South Carolina on this. I urge the defeat of the second-degree amendment. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina. Mr. THURMOND. I yield the able junior Senator from Georgia such time as he may require. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia. Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, as my good colleague from Georgia noted, the Savannah River site has been the site for weapons tritium production for nearly half a century--specifically 40 years. Obviously, given the importance of the production of that plant in terms of our nuclear policy, a very large capital investment has already been made by the taxpayers of the United States on the Savannah River site's unique, extensive tritium handling, tritium bottle recycling and production infrastructure--a huge capital investment. If the new tritium production facility which DOE was planning were to be located at another site other than Savannah River, the large tritium bottle recycling facilities and the tritium production handling facilities would have to be replicated, rebuilt at a new site. This would be very expensive, cost-ineffective, and not wise. Another alternative, I guess, would be to transport radioactive tritium to the Savannah River site bottle recycling from a distant new production site. This would require expensive, unique transportation, and would be perceived as a potential negative public health risk in the States transversed. On this basis, it is both logical and cost- effective for the Congress to designate this longstanding facility, a facility uniquely prepared to deal with this production as the location for the tritium production facility. The bottom line here is, if you are talking about a change, you are talking about spending millions and millions of dollars, and you are talking about breaking the continuity chain of preparedness that the Savannah River site represents. Mr. President, I yield back my time to the Senator from South Carolina. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, how much time is left on each side? The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 13 minutes remaining for the Senator from South Carolina, and the Senator from Nevada has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining. Mr. REID addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized. Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend, the ranking member, the former chairman of the committee, said the only question is what kind of facility. Well, that really is not the only question. But, in fact, if that were the only question, why in the world would you want to site in South Carolina, no matter what kind of facility, a reactor accelerator? If the Secretary of Energy is going to make this decision late summer/early fall, why would Congress want to meddle with what is already in the process of being decided? If there were ever an example of congressional meddling, this certainly would be it. Mr. President, this is a big project. I am reading from one newspaper: The new tritium production facility would be the Nation's first since the 1960's. Cost estimates range as high as $10 billion, and the project could create more than 2,000 jobs. In the other body, something like this was tried and, again, I read from the Energy Daily of June 1995, where over there it was referred to as ``radioactive pork.'' Well, thank goodness the House in its wisdom got rid of that radioactive pork, and that was deleted from their legislation. If the Savannah River site is so good, why do they not let it compete on its merits? If the threat that I heard--namely, if the Department of Energy sites it someplace else, we will take a look at it in conference. This is a threat to the Secretary to site it on the Savannah River, or we will take care of it in conference. That is wrong. My amendment lets the system of Government work the way it should, not with ``radioactive pork.'' It would be with the orderly process of Government. Let me repeat, Mr. President, the language in the underlying amendment of the Senator from South Carolina that I and Senator Bryan are attempting to delete States, ``shall locate the new tritium production facility * * * at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina.'' We are subverting, standing on its head, making a mockery of the system of Government that we have, where the Director of the Department of Energy--the Secretary--will make a determination after due consultation with the Department of Defense, with the people that work for and with her, as to where it should go. But in this Thurmond amendment, we are going to site it in South Carolina before we know the technology that will be used, the cost, or the suitability of the Savannah River site for the project. There may be technology that should only go to Savannah River that the Secretary will decide on. Or she may find that that is technology that they want to use and should not go to Savannah River for many reasons. Maybe the cost of the Savannah River, because of all the pollution from the failed reactor, for over 45 years, makes that site so expensive, so unreliable, that it should go someplace else. This language sites it in South Carolina, regardless of the environmental concerns, regardless of the need for reviews, regardless of the cost alternatives, and, of course, as I have mentioned before, regardless of the impact on the schedule to produce tritium. What if we need to get tritium produced quickly. Does this mean that we are foregoing the option of using an existing commercial reactor for tritium production? Yes, it does. That may be the decision the Secretary will make, saving the taxpayers of this country billions of dollars. We have no tritium production today. Any production facility will therefore be a new facility. It seems that we have just precluded the commercial reactor option. That is wrong, and that is not what we should want or what this Congress should be up to. We have certain budget constraints that we have all been working under. This flies in the face of that. Why are we forcing a decision now when we know, as indicated by the senior Senator from Georgia, that the Secretary is going to make this decision in late summer? Late summer is upon us. This decision could come within a matter of weeks. We are needlessly constraining the decision process. For what? We are doing it for ``radioactive pork,'' and that is wrong. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to take a minute or two more. I want to just recall that in 1946, when I was Governor of South Carolina, the project was announced to build this plant in Aiken, SC, on the Savannah River between Georgia and South Carolina. I moved to Aiken to practice law. I guess I represented over 90 percent of the landowners down there. They had the land condemned and taken away, whether they wanted to or not. The Government said, ``We need this land for this plant.'' The Government needed it. They sacrificed a lot. They underwent many hardships. The plant was built. Why now do we want to take away the opportunity for those people who sacrificed like they did to help the Government to build this plant for the good of our country? We are not asking that they use any particular kind of technology. They can use the accelerator or they can use the reactor, or whatever they want to. We are merely saying it should not be taken away from these people who [[Page S 11376]] sacrificed so much in their lifetime for this plant and for the Government. We feel it should not be moved, regardless of what the technology is. It ought to remain at this site. It has been there for 45 years. Why take it away? They have done a good job. They have the infrastructure. They have the workers. They have everything to make a success. I do hope that this amendment will be defeated. Mr. REID. Mr. President, the proponents of sight infrastructure costs as their main argument, but this facility will produce training for 50 years. I say, what is the lowest life cycle cost of 50 years? Do we care? We should care, Mr. President. I yield to my colleague from Nevada whatever time he desires. Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague. It seems to me, Mr. President, that we have heard what essentially are three arguments by the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. One is that it has been there for 45 years, and therefore it should continue in perpetuity for 45 years. Mr. President, I think the answer to that question is self-evident. We are considering prospectively what is the best location for the tritium production facility in the future. That is the entire purpose of the problematic environmental impact statement. Indeed, they may make and come to the same conclusion that our friend, the senior Senator from South Carolina made. But that is not an analytical or rational argument for a policy that has always been there, always been that way, and therefore we should continue that way forever in the future. The second argument that my friend made was to suggest that somehow the recycling operation has been at Savannah River and that by colocating the new production facility, somehow we would ease or eliminate the transportation of tritium. Mr. President, that is simply not true. As my colleagues, I am sure, know, we do not move nuclear bombs around the country, to have the tritium components of them added in second. When we are talking about retrofitting or adding the tritium component, you are talking about doing that at a facility that has the capability of doing that. That is, first and foremost, the facility at Pantex. No one should have the impression that by having a recycling and production facility in South Carolina that we eliminate the necessity of transporting that new tritium product to either Pantex, or there is a facility at the Nevada test site that could handle the disassembly. My friend makes the argument of sacrifice. While I am sure he recites the history, nobody quarrels with the senior Senator from South Carolina when he describes the history of the state that he has represented so long and so ably, and which I know he has great personal affection. If we are talking about sacrifice, he is talking about the few thousand acres at Savannah River. Nevada is the mother of all sacrifices--the mother of all sacrifices. The Nevada test site alone is larger than the entire State of Rhode Island. Just the Nevada test site. If you want to talk about Federal sacrifice, 87 percent of the entire land mass of the State of Nevada is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, either the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, the Bureau of Land Management, or the Forest Service. I must say that I do not think any of those three arguments are compelling. Finally, I return very briefly to, I think, the argument that my senior colleague makes so ably. That is, we started the process in 1994. We said, ``Let's look, see how we should handle future tritium production. Let's have a problematic EIS.'' Added into that mix is the fact there is a new technology we want to take a look at, the linear accelerator technology. There are different types of reactor technologies that we want to consider, as well, some four technologies within the rubric of the reactor option, which is the other option other than the accelerator. All of those ought to be considered rationally as part of an evaluation process and ought not to be the subject of micromanagement by the Congress. Let this process work its course. We in Nevada have a vested interest. We would like to see it in Nevada. I would like to see the linear accelerator, but I am willing to take my chance. I think that is the best policy. I urge the Congress and this Senate to allow that course to work its way, as well, and let the experts make the decision. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2114 to Amendment No. 2111 Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to make certain technical amendments to the Thurmond-Domenici amendment. These have been agreed to by both sides. I send them to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] proposes an amendment numbered 2114 to amendment No. 2111. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: Page 8, line 17 strike out ``$2,341,596,000 and substitute in lieu thereof $2,386,596,000''. Page 8, line 20 strike out ``$2,121,226,000 and substitute in lieu thereof ``$2,151,266,000''. Page 9, line 1 strike out ``$220,330,000'' and substitute in lieu thereof ``$235,330,000''. Page 9, line 25 strike out ``$26,000,000'' and substitute in lieu thereof ``$41,000,000''. Page 13, line 6 strike out ``$550,510,000'' and substitute in lieu thereof ``$505,510,000''. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back? Mr. REID. I yield back. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The amendment (No. 2114) was agreed to. Amendment No. 2113 Mr. THURMOND. I move to table the Reid amendment 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. Mr. REID. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Could the Presiding Officer indicate what the parliamentary status is now. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first vote will occur in relation to the motion to table the Exon amendment. Mr. THURMOND. I am informed Senator McCain is not going to offer an amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote on the motion to table the Exon amendment can occur now. Mr. REID. Immediately following that will be the Reid-Bryan amendment. Mr. BRYAN. 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. Mr. EXON. 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 question is on the motion to table. Mr. EXON. Yes. If I understand the agreement right, the Senator from Nebraska has 2 minutes, as does the Senator from South Carolina. I ask unanimous consent, as previously agreed to, that immediately preceding the vote on the Exon amendment, 2 minutes be allocated to the Senator from Nebraska and 2 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment No. 2112 Mr. EXON. Mr. President, there can be no question that we are about to cast a critically important vote. We will send a signal that will resonate around the world and have far-reaching implications on mankind's chances of moving further away from a reliance on nuclear weapons and a possible nuclear holocaust, or we can reverse course, abruptly and shamefully. As the world's leading nuclear superpower, we can send a signal loud and clear that, notwithstanding our protestations about the spread of nuclear devices, notwithstanding our supposed commitment to a nuclear test ban treaty, we are going to reverse course. [[Page S 11377]] The Exon-Hatfield amendment assures a constructive policy of gradual and very deliberate thought processes, and offers the nuclear olive branch, if you will, to potential friend and potential foe alike, that the United States of America offers a hand of nuclear understanding. If we vote down, if we table the Exon-Hatfield amendment, it is going to be a significant step backward for which we will not forgive ourselves, I suggest, for centuries to come. It is the time we reemphasize our restraint, our vigilance, and agree to the Exon- Hatfield amendment as we have explained in great detail during debate this morning. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I just want to say that every weapons system, indeed every machine in our technological society, requires testing. The hydronuclear testing is the only tool left to assess our confidence in the safety and reliability of the shrinking nuclear stockpile. Mr. President, we need to do this. We are living in a dangerous world. It is important that we be informed as to the reliability and safety of our weapons. They may have to be used. I do not need to cite the situations that could be dangerous in various parts of the world. We know about North Korea. We do not know what Russia is going to do, what China is going to do. We do not know what certain nations like Iran or Iraq and Libya will do, the terrorist nations. We must be prepared. And to be prepared we have to know what our weapons will do. We have to know they will be safe and reliable, and that is the purpose of this amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion to table the Exon amendment. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote? The result was announced, yeas 56, nays 44, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 359 Leg.] YEAS--56 Abraham Ashcroft Bennett Bond Breaux Brown Bryan Burns Coats Cochran Cohen Coverdell Craig D'Amato DeWine Dole Domenici Faircloth Frist Gorton Gramm Grams Grassley Gregg Hatch Heflin Helms Hollings Hutchison Inhofe Johnston Kempthorne Kyl Lott Lugar Mack McCain McConnell Mikulski Murkowski Nickles Packwood Pressler Reid Roth Santorum Shelby Simpson Smith Snowe Specter Stevens Thomas Thompson Thurmond Warner NAYS--44 Akaka Baucus Biden Bingaman Boxer Bradley Bumpers Byrd Campbell Chafee Conrad Daschle Dodd Dorgan Exon Feingold Feinstein Ford Glenn Graham Harkin Hatfield Inouye Jeffords Kassebaum Kennedy Kerrey Kerry Kohl Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lieberman Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murray Nunn Pell Pryor Robb Rockefeller Sarbanes Simon Wellstone So, the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2112) was agreed to. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote on Amendment No. 2113 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business is amendment No. 2113, and under the previous order there are now 4 minutes of debate equally divided between the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond]---- Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from South Carolina and I have agreed to yield back our time. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I agree to yield back the time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back? All time is yielded back. The question is now on agreeing to the motion to table the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk called the roll. The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 43, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 360 Leg.] YEAS--57 Abraham Ashcroft Bennett Biden Bond Breaux Brown Byrd Campbell Chafee Coats Cochran Cohen Coverdell D'Amato DeWine Dole Domenici Faircloth Frist Gramm Grams Grassley Gregg Hatch Hatfield Heflin Helms Hollings Hutchison Inhofe Johnston Kassebaum Kyl Lott Lugar Mack McCain McConnell Mikulski Murkowski Nickles Nunn Packwood Pressler Roth Santorum Shelby Simpson Smith Snowe Specter Stevens Thomas Thompson Thurmond Warner NAYS--43 Akaka Baucus Bingaman Boxer Bradley Bryan Bumpers Burns Conrad Craig Daschle Dodd Dorgan Exon Feingold Feinstein Ford Glenn Gorton Graham Harkin Inouye Jeffords Kempthorne Kennedy Kerrey Kerry Kohl Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lieberman Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murray Pell Pryor Reid Robb Rockefeller Sarbanes Simon Wellstone So the motion to table the amendment (No. 2113) was agreed to. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to. Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business is the vote on amendment No. 2111. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated on amendment No. 2111. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Do all Senators yield back their time? Mr. THURMOND. I ask for a voice vote on that amendment. Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, is all time yielded back? Mr. THURMOND. We yield back all time. Vote on Amendment No. 2111 The PRESIDING OFFICER. With all time yielded back, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2111. The amendment (No. 2111) was agreed to. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to. Mr. COHEN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business is an amendment to be offered by the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], dealing with defense firewalls, with 1 hour of debate equally divided. Who yields time? Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I hope the time will not start running until we have order in the Senate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas directs that the time not begin until the Senate is in order. The Senate will be in order, please. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized to offer his amendment. Amendment No. 2115 (Purpose: To restore a common sense approach to the appropriations process by repealing the defense firewalls established in the FY96 Budget Resolution) Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself, Mr. Simon, Mr. Wellstone, and Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes an amendment numbered 2115. Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new section: SEC. REPEAL OF DEFENSE FIREWALL. (A) Strike Section 201(a) through 201(b)(1)(B) of H. Con. Res. 67, as passed by [[Page S 11378]] both Houses of Congress and insert in lieu thereof the following: SEC. 201. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS. (A) DEFINITION.--As used in this section and for the purposes of allocations made pursuant to section 302(a) or 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, for the discretionary category, the term `discretionary spending limit' means-- (1) with respect to fiscal year 1996, for the discretionary category $485,074,000,000 in new budget authority and $531,768,000,000 in outlays; (2) with respect to fiscal year 1997, for the discretionary category $482,430,000,000 in new budget authority and $520,295,000,000 in outlays; (3) with respect to fiscal year 1998, for the discretionary category $490,692,000,000 in new budget authority and $512,632,000,000 in outlays; (4) with respect to fiscal year 1999, for the discretionary category $482,207,000,000 in new budget authority and $510,482,000,000 in outlays; (5) with respect to fiscal year 2000, for the discretionary category $489,379,000,000 in new budget authority and $514,234,000,000 in outlays; (6) with respect to fiscal year 2001, for the discretionary category $496,601,000,000 in new budget authority and $516,403,000,000 in outlays; (7) with respect to fiscal year 2002, for the discretionary category $498,837,000,000 in new budget authority and $515,075,000,000 in outlays; as adjusted for changes in concepts and definitions and emergency appropriations. (b) Point of Order in the Senate.-- (1) In General.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider-- (A) any concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002 (or amendment, motion, or conference report on such a resolution) that provides discretionary spending in excess of the discretionary spending limit for such fiscal year; or (B) Within 30 days of the date of enactment of this Act, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees shall meet to consider the reallocation of the fiscal year 1996 suballocations made pursuant to section 602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I know this psychologically is a terrible way to open a debate, but I have no delusions about the possibility of winning on this amendment. Given the makeup of the Senate right now, it is going to be several years before an amendment like this will take root, but it will take root when the American people focus not only on their misery but what caused it. Everybody here is aware of the fact that we treat defense as not only the highest priority but everything else is secondary to it. Not to be trite, but the truth of the matter is that we, like so many civilizations, from the Israelites on, may very well find that the strength of this Nation is not all in planes, tanks, and guns. How we treat our people, the kind of health care they get, the kind of education they get, the kind of environment they live in, those things determine what a powerful nation is, too. It usually takes me about an hour or two after I read the Washington Post in the morning to get enthused sufficiently enough to come to work. This morning it was especially depressing. Here were three front page stories: House votes to prohibit States from paying for an abortion in cases of rape or incest. Mr. President, to me, that is a form of barbarism, to say that a child who may be pregnant by her father, or the most innocent housewife who is raped, if she has the money, no problem. If she is poor, she will birth that child. You remember the beatitude, ``Blessed are those who are persecuted.'' If that is not a form of persecution, I do not know what is. The second story was: Senate votes to abrogate antiballistic missile treaty. That is not entirely true, but figuratively and, down the road, literally it is true. We will decide the interpretation of the treaty; we will decide whether it is abrogated or not, and if the Russians happen to disagree, so be it. The language of the bill itself said the Senate, not the President, will decide whether the ABM Treaty is in our interest or not. We will decide whether we want to live by it or not. And that solemn document that we put our names on in 1972 will be for naught. Who else wants to sign a treaty with us knowing that that is the way we treat our treaties? We simply cannot give up on the cold war. We just love it too much. Dr. Strangelove. Another beatitude is, ``Blessed are the peacemakers.'' Not too many people are blessed in this body. The third story was: House cuts $9 billion in education, health care, and food for the poor. ``Blessed are the poor,'' unless one of them happens to get pregnant at the age of 17. What do we do in the Senate? We add $7 billion more than the Secretary of Defense and our chiefs of staff want. Can you imagine that? We are adding $7 billion more than our defense authorization asked for. It was depressing. And as I read those three stories, I pondered on what else. Medicare? No firewalls around Medicare, health care for the elderly; there are no firewalls there. We are going to cut $270 billion over the next 7 years. We are going to give the States block grants on Medicaid and AFDC, not necessarily because we think it is more efficient, but because we are going to cut back on Medicaid. All that is health care for the poorest of the poor. We are going to cut PBS, which is one of the few things that provide a little enrichment for our children. ``Sesame Street'' and Big Bird, adios. ``All Things Considered,'' which every Member of the Senate listens to going to and from work on NPR, adios. No commercials. We need to privatize this so we can get some commercials on PBS and NPR. I want to see, right in the middle of the Civil War series, a bunch of youngsters running down the beach with a Budweiser in their hands. That is what I call cultural enrichment. And the arts--how I wish that guy Mapplethorpe had never received a grant. You see, he does not have anything to do with the repertory theater in my State. But we will be lucky to make it in my State with our symphony without some help from the National Endowment. Food stamps. We did not develop food stamp programs willy-nilly. We did it because we made a conscious decision that we did not want anybody in this country to go hungry. Everybody acts as though it was some sort of a Communist conspiracy that should have never been put in place. We are going to cut that. If you do not happen to have a PAC or a $1,000 check, you are not getting anything out of this crowd. Eliminate affirmative action. I have heard so many anecdotes on affirmative action that make my blood boil, and some of them are true. It has been an abused program. But do not say that the time has come when we have a level playing field when 14 percent of the black males in this country are unemployed, and 40 percent of the black teenagers are unemployed, compared to about 5 percent white. You know, if we were to eliminate this famous tax cut I hear so much about--that is what the Medicare cut is, $270 billion; and $250 billion of that--virtually all--is for a tax cut, 70 percent of which goes to people who make over $100,000 a year. When I was a young practicing lawyer, I yearned for the day when I would make $100,000 a year. So now I am going to get a nice healthy tax cut. Every Senator gets $133,000 or $135,000 a year, a big fat pension, a health care plan second to none, and we are going to get a tax cut when 50 percent of the people in this country over 65 cannot sleep at night because they are in abject terror of getting sick and not being able to pay their bills. If we just cut Medicare by half that amount and eliminate the tax cut and spend the other $135 billion on education and things that make us a great nation, we can still balance the budget in the year 2002 and do what we know we ought to do. No, we are going to reward those who have already been richly blessed. And we are going to further abuse those at the bottom of the ladder. Indeed, we will step on their hands if they happen to be reaching for the first rung. We have become so cynical and indifferent. So we have to put firewalls around defense to make sure none of it ever gets out of the Pentagon into the hands of some poor soul who might need it for an education. Senator Kohl is going to offer an amendment later today which would cut the $7 billion which was added on to this bill. Even if he were to prevail, which he will not even come close to doing, you could not take that money and use it for any other purpose. Mr. President, how much time is remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 minutes and 50 seconds remaining. [[Page S 11379]] Mr. BUMPERS. Will you kindly notify me when I have used a total of 20 minutes. Mr. President, here is a chart which shows what is going to happen from 1995 to the year 2002, in defense. We go from $264 billion in 1995 to $280 billion in 2002. What do we do with everything else--what is known as domestic discretionary spending--education, health care, you name it, medical research, law enforcement? What happens to that? It goes from $241 to $218 billion over 7 years. Of the spending cuts that are projected to be made over the next 7 years to reduce the deficit and pay for the Republican tax cut for the wealthy, domestic spending, the things that make us great will absorb 43 percent of all the cuts. What in the name of God are we thinking about? We will spend $400 billion more for defense spending than domestic programs over the next 7 years. Mr. President, $400 billion less to take care of the real needs of the people of this country, that we are going to spend on defense. How much are we spending on defense? Are we looking for two wars, as the Bottom-Up Review said? Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield? Mr. BUMPERS. Not until I finish this statement. This chart demonstrates what we spend for defense in comparison to our eight or nine most likely adversaries, Russia, China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Cuba--name somebody else. I do not care who you name. Our defense budget is twice as big as all nine of them put together. If you add NATO, twice as much as the rest of the world. What are the proponents of the bill we are considering today proposing? That we add $7 billion to the defense budget. We get so hairy chested around here when defense comes up. Everybody favors a strong defense. Nobody wants to ever be vulnerable. This is what you call piling on. You just cannot pile on enough money. Even the Pentagon is trying to shovel it back to us, and we will not take it. I appreciate the Defense Department. When we have a crisis, I am glad we have aircraft carriers. I am glad we have all the sophisticated weaponry. All I am saying is, there ought to be some kind of balance, because it is not going to make any difference how much we spend on defense if we are not careful about what we are doing back home. Mr. President, I saw a poll of high school seniors about 5 years ago. Who are your heroes? About the only one I can remember is Tom Cruise. I think Mr. T was on the list. It was a list of rock stars. Michael Jackson was high on the list. That is who the high school seniors revere in this country. Mother Theresa did not make it. The Pope did not make it. Poor old George Bush did not make it. Not even mom and pop. Senators, can you imagine somebody asking you that question when you were in high school, who were your heroes? I would have popped out my father so fast it would make your head swim. You talk about a hero. I worshipped the ground he walked on. Mom and pop did not make this list. If we keep going the way we have gone this year in the U.S. Congress, Tim McVeigh and David Koresh will be on the list next year. I am not trying to take the money away from the Pentagon with this amendment. I am simply saying the people of this body ought to be more thoughtful about where the real strengths of the Nation are. We ought to be more thoughtful about people who have not had the luck we have had. I know a woman who is very wealthy and she is always saying, ``Can't everybody be rich and beautiful like me?'' The truth of the matter is, most people who have made it, and especially if you come from a town during the Depression with a population of 851, have had a lot of help. I did not become a Senator just because I am such a great person. I tell you why I did it. I did it because this same Congress, back when they were a little more sensitive about things like this, gave me a free education. That is right. My brother went to Harvard. I went to Northwestern. My father was a poor man. He could no more have afforded that than he could fly to the Moon. I was fortunate and received a little Government help after World War II, and had a teacher who taught me to speak and read well, did something for my self-esteem. The main thing I did, and what most people that make it did, is choose my parents well. Mr. President, I just want to say I am not trying to move money out of the Defense Department into any of these other programs. I am saying as a psychological thing we ought not to be sitting here and saying you cannot touch defense for anything, no matter how critical it may be. If we continue the way we have started this year, and especially that Contract With America, this country is in for a terrible shock. That is not what the people were voting for, they wanted change, but this is not the change they were voting for, I do not think. When they begin to feel the pain, they are going to begin to wonder what they voted for. I am telling you, if we keep going the way we are going now, trying to tinker with the Constitution, spending every extra dime we can get our hands on on defense, that age of know-nothingism back in the middle of the 19th century will be known as the age of enlightenment. As you know I have such a reverence for the freedom of religion in this country, but there is a great quote of Isaiah, admonishing the Israelites when they got sort of cynical about all their people. He said to them: Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Maybe that is just good for the Senate prayer breakfast or on Sunday morning. It does not seem to be terribly relevant here. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Mexico. Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator will yield 6 minutes? Mr. THURMOND. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do we have in opposition? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 minutes. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first let me suggest to my good friend, Senator Bumpers, he has given a very great speech about what he thinks we ought to be doing in the United States. But I must tell those who are listening, very little of it has to do with the amendment he is talking about. The amendment he is talking about is very, very simple. In 1990 I was privileged to have an idea--that I had been thinking about and worrying about--become the law. In that year, 1990, and 3 years thereafter, we decided that once the Congress of the United States voted in an amount of money that they wanted spent on the defense of the United States, that during that year they only had two options regarding defense: First, if they did not want to spend all of the defense money, they applied what was saved on the deficit; and, second, if they want to spend defense money on anything else, they had to get 60 votes to do it. That is a pretty reasonable approach, when you consider the propensity of legislators to want more and more for programs that they love, or that they need, or that they want for their constituents. And you put it up against a big defense budget and everybody can say, ``Oh, take a little bit away for this. Take a little bit