National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 -- (Senate - July 22, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments. We would disagree on this, but he is a skilled person in the defense of our country, and I respect his comments.
Three weeks ago, this Senate voted 53 to 43 on this amendment. I am glad we are having this debate. Some have said there is not enough time to have a debate on these issues, to bring up and highlight points that the other side may want to raise. But we just voted on it 3 weeks ago. We voted on this twice last year. This amendment to strike this language was defeated; the language was kept in the bill. Overwhelmingly, the Senate has maintained its view that a study of this robust nuclear earth penetrator is valid and needed and the Defense Department and the Energy Department have certified to that and we ought to go forward with it. But it is perfectly legitimate that we talk about it.
I would just say this for emphasis, to follow up on Chairman Warner's comments: The way this language is placed in this legislation, it mandates explicitly that the Department of Energy or Department of Defense cannot go forward to commence development engineering without the specific approval of Congress.
This robust nuclear earth penetrator issue began being discussed by the military in 1985, and when the need was recognized, it was supported by the Clinton administration Defense and Energy Departments. Secretary O'Leary specifically supported this. There were no limitations of the kind I just mentioned in the language that came forward during the Clinton administration to decide to conduct this study. But now we are putting that in there to allay the concerns that any might have, that somehow authorizing a study would result in development and deployment of a weapons system. We know that cannot happen without Congress's approval, but this really clamps it down to say there would have to be an affirmative legislative act by Congress before the Energy Department could go forward with developing any such weapon as this.
I think that ought to allay the concerns. I will suggest that is why there has been so much support for it on a bipartisan basis.
A couple of years ago, Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote Chairman Warner in support of the RNEP. He asked us to fund a feasibility and cost study of it, and noted that:
I do not believe that these legislative steps will complicate our ongoing efforts with North Korea, inasmuch as the work was funded and authorized in last year's Defense bill. I believe that North Korea has already factored RNEP into its calculations. It is important for you to work on these issues and please do not hesitate to call on me. .....
Secretary Powell supported it and said it basically furthered our foreign policy. So, again, this would be a multiyear feasibility study, and we are talking about $4 million being spent on it. In the scheme of our huge budget, I would say that is not excessive.
Suggestions have been made that somehow this indicates that we are indifferent to nuclear weapons, the powers that they contain, the danger that they represent, and that somehow this administration is not sensitive to the need to reduce the threat from nuclear weapons in the world. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Let me mention a few things about what this Nation is doing with regard to its nuclear arsenal. We have already done more than any other nation in the world to reduce our nuclear arsenal. We are committed to huge reductions in our nuclear weapons. In the last 15 years, the number of U.S. deployed strategic warheads has declined from 10,000 to less than 6,000. Under the treaty we signed, the Moscow Treaty, we will reduce our strategic nuclear warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012--from over 10,000. That is a huge reduction. In fact, we have already dismantled more than 13,000 nuclear weapons since 1988 and eliminated nearly 90 percent of U.S. nonstrategic nuclear weapons.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Allard for his leadership in the Senate and for his leadership on nuclear issues. There is no one who understands the issue more. No one has been more committed to effectively and efficiently eliminating the difficulties at Rocky Flats than he has, and the Nation is in his debt. That I say with certainty.
At one time in my life, I was a U.S. attorney and am aware that Federal officials are limited in certain of their powers. Somebody might say they have earned something, but maybe they have not legally earned it. And if they have not legally earned it, they cannot be paid for it.
I don't know where we will come out with this amendment the Senator has offered. I know how committed Senator Allard and Senator Salazar are to helping these employees, but I note that as I understand it, these are not governmental employees but employees of a private contractor. That complicates matters, to say the least.
We are talking about providing benefits to employees of a private contractor over and above the collective bargaining agreement they had. Since this program has been scheduled to be completed, they did have benefits in the agreement for them for early termination and early generous payments when this contract ended.
I say to my friend how much I respect him. I am telling you, Madam President, he is working. He has almost shut down the Senate over this issue, but I am not sure we can ask the Department of Energy and I am not sure this Congress can take this step. We are closing BRAC sites around the country. We have a chemical weapons facility in my State destroying poison gases. I hope it finishes early. I am not sure we can give every private contractor employee a bonus. Presumably the company had that in their contract.
Those are the problems with which we are dealing. It is not a lack of concern. It is real difficulties that exist. I salute both Senators from Colorado for their interest in these employees. I share those concerns.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/