EXCERPT FROM DEBATE OF S. 2630, DOD AUTHORIZATION FY87

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910001-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 7, 2011
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: August 7, 1986
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910001-9
August 7, 1 JS 6 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
AMENDMENT NO. 2617
(Purpose: To prohibit the sale, donation, or
other transfer of STINGER antiaircraft
missiles to democratic resistance forces
unless certain conditions are met)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Arizona.
Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, I
send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read
as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. DECON-
CINII proposes an amendment numbered
2617.
Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dis-
pensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert
the following new section:
RESTRICTION ON THE SALE OF STINGER
ANTIAIRCRAFT MISSILES
SEC. . Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of law, no STINGER antiaircraft mis-
siles may be sold, donated, or otherwise pro-
vided, directly or indirectly, to democratic
resistance forces unless the President certi-
fies to the Congress that the proposed recip-
ient has agreed to the following conditions:
(1) Physical security of such missiles shall
consist of the following:
(A) Magazines of reinforced concrete,
arch-type, and earth-covered whose con-
struction is at least equivalent in strength
to the requirements of the Chief of Engi-
neers (Department of the Army) drawings,
652-686 through 652-693, 27 Dec 1941 as re-
vised-14 Mar 42. shall be provided.
(B) Lighting shall be provided for exterior
doors and along perimeter barriers.
(C) Exterior doors shall be class 5 steel
vault doors secured by two-key operated
high security padlock and hasp (mil spec P-
43607), and keys shall be secured separately
to insure effective two-man control of
access.
(D) Fencing shall be 6-foot (minimum)
steel chain link on steel or reinforced con-
crete posts over firm base, and clear zones
shall be established inside and outside fenc-
ing.
(E) A full-time guard force or combination
guard force and intrusion detection system
shall be provided.
(2) Such missiles shall be accounted for as
follows:
(A) A 100 percent physical count shall be
taken monthly with two-man verification,
and records shall be available for United
States inspection.
(B) A United States Military Training
Mission shall conduct the United States in-
spection and inventory annually, and weap-
ons expended outside of hostilities shall be
accounted for.
(C) When missiles are deployed and as-
sembled, the recipient shall be responsible
for a daily accounting of such missiles.
Records shall be maintained by the recipi-
ent and, upon request, shall be available for
United States Government review, United
States representatives, shall have the right.
upon request, to inspect the missiles at the
deployed sites.
(3) Movements shall meet United States
standards for safeguarding classified materi-
al in transit.
(4) Access to such missiles and to classi-
fied information relating thereto shall be as
follows:
(A) Access to hardware and related classi-
fied information shall be limited to military
and civilian personnel who have the proper
security clearance and who have an estab-
lished need-to-know. Information released
shall be limited to that necessary for as-
signed functions or operational responsibil-
ity and, where possible, shall be oral or
visual only.
(B) No maintenance shall be authorized
which required access to the interior of the
operational system. Such maintenance shall
be performed under United States con.
(5) The recipient shall reporttotrolthe
United States by the most expeditious
means any instance of compromise, loss, or
theft of any material or related Informa-
tion. This report shall be followed by
prompt investigation and the results provid-
ed to the United States.
(6) The recipient shall agree that no infor-
mation on Basic STINGER shall be released
to a third government or any other party
without United States approval.
(7) The security standards applied by the
recipient to protection of Basic STINGER
information and material shall be at least
equivalent to those of the United States at
the identified security classification.
(8) The recipient shall use the informa-
tion on Basic STINGER only for the pur-
pose for which it was given.
(9) United States officers shall be allowed
to Inspect and assess physicial security
measures and procedures established for im-
plementation of these security controls on
an announced random access basis.
(10) Damaged launcher shall be returned
to United States Armed Forces for repair or
demilitarization prior to disposal by United
states authorities.
(11) Two principal components of the
STINGER system, the gripstock and the
missile in its disposable launch tube, shall
be stored in separate locations. Each loca-
tion shall meet all physical security require-
ments applicable to the STINGER system
as a whole. The two locations shall be phys-
ically separated sufficiently so that a pene-
tration of the security at one site shall not
place the second at risk.
(12) The principle components of the
STINGER system, the gripstock, missile,
and launch tube, may be brought together
and assembled only under the following cir-
cumstances:
(A) In the event of hostilities or imminent
hostilities.
(B) For firing as part of regularly sched-
uled training (only those rounds intended to
be fired shall be withdrawn from storage
and assembled).
(C) For lot testing (only proof round(s)
shall be withdrawn and assembled).
(D) When STINGER systems are de-
ployed as part of the point of defenses of
high priority installations or activities.
(13) Field exercises or deployments
where-in the use of STINGER system is
simulated shall not create conditions for the
assembly of the system.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President,
parliamentary Inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Junior Senator from Arizona has the
floor.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I ask a parlia-
mentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state the parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Is there a time
agreement on this amendment?
S 10687
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There
is a time agreement on this amend-
ment of 40 minutes equally divided.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank the
Chair.
Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that I may
yield the floor to the senior Senator
from South Carolina to take up a rou-
tine matter and that time not be
charged on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
thank the distinguished Senator from
Arizona.
AMENDMENT NO. 2620
(Purpose: To provide funds for Air Force
One maintenance facilities to support
White House operations)
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
send to the desk an amendment that
has been agreed to on both sides and
ask the clerk to report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will have to ask unanimous
consent that the pending amendment
be temporarily laid aside. Does the
Senator make that request?
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the pend-
ing amendment be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amend-
ment.
The assistant legislative clerk read
as follows:
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr.
THURMOND) proposes an amendment No.
2620.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dis-
pensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 241, line 7, strike out
"$2,950,806,000" and insert in lieu thereof
"$2,949,746,000".
On page 241, line 24, strike out
"$131,640,000" and insert in lieu thereof
"$130,580,000".
On page 260, between lines 19 and 20,
insert the following new item:
Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland,
$25,000,000.
On page 263, strike out line 8.
On page 264, strike out "$12,800,000" and
insert in lieu thereof "$9,400,000".
On page 268, line 12, strike out
"$670,057,000" and insert in lieu thereof
"$695,057,000".
On page 268, line 15, strike out
$329,543,000" and Insert in lieu thereof
$321,243,000".
On page 268, line 17, strike out
"$218,320,000" and insert in lieu thereof
"$210,280,000".
On page 268, line 20, strike out
"$124,860,000" and insert in lieu thereof
"$117,260,000".
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
rise to offer an amendment in support
of a maintenance and support facility
at Andrews Air Force Base in Mary-
land. This facility is needed to support
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910001-9
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910001-9
S 10688
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 7, 1986
the wide-bodied 747 which the Air
Force has been authorized to procure
for use as the new Air Force One. Mr.
President, Members may recall that
last year we appropriated money to
purchase these new planes, subject to
authorization. Earlier this year, when
the Congress acted on the question of
a supplemental authorization, we ap-
proved the authorization.
The planes have been bought and
the first is scheduled for delivery in
November 1988. This amendment
would provide facilities to support
these aircraft. The current facilities at
Andrews are not large enough to sup-
port the 747 aircraft.
We need to provide the money now
in order to have the facility when the
aircraft arrives. When our committee
originally acted on this issue, the
design status of the project was too
low. It is now close to 35 percent. I am
advised that the Appropriations Com-
mittee has included $25 million to
fund the first phase of this $45 million
project. My amendment would author-
ize that same phase one.
This amendment will not add any
additional funds to the bill as the Air
Force has identified any equal amount
in offsets, which are included in the
amendment, and outlined in my state-
ment. Mr. President, I urge adoption
of the amendment.
Mr. President, the Defense Depart-
ment approves the amendment. The
Air Force approves the amendment. I
believe we have acquiescence on it.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President,
we have no objection to this amend-
ment.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, we have
talked to the Senator from South
Carolina about the amendment. We
urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there further debate on the amend-
ment? If not, the question is on agree-
ing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2620) was
agreed to.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I move to recon-
sider the vote by which the amend-
ment was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agree to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question recurs on the amendment of
the Senator from Arizona, who is rec-
ognized.
Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, I
thank the Chair.
Mr. President, the security measures
on arms control which we establish
today will determine the safety of
Western democracies into the next
century. My amendment seeks to pro-
tect, safeguard, and secure Stinger
missiles from falling into the hands of
terrorists. This amendment will hope-
fully prevent the Stinger from becom-
ing a readily available shopping item
on the black market. This legislation
will limit the likelihood that Stingers,
weapons of frightening power, could
paralyze American airports or shoot
down commercial and military air-
craft.
In the book "Terrorism: How the
West Can Win," Dr. Paul Johnson
writes about a concern affecting all
legislators, policymakers, and Ameri-
can citizens:
There is the danger, frighteningly obvious
to all of us, that terrorists will eventually
possess nuclear weapons. But a more imme-
diate risk is that they will secure-perhaps
already have secured-the devastating
modern equipment now moving into the in-
ventories of official armies: high speed ma-
chine pistols firing 1,200 rounds per minute
and almost soundless lightweight grenade
launchers and mortars, flamethrowers,
short-range portable anti-tank weapons,
shoulder-fired rocket launchers, and most
alarming of all, the new generation of porta-
ble missiles which have long ranges, are
highly accurate, and can be carried and
fired by one man or woman.
This is a thoughtful and careful man
not given to exaggeration. Yet he has
a way of concentrating one's mind-
and in this case, it is on the point that
we in the Western democracies do not
have forever to counter the problem of
terrorism. His voice is urgent. His ar-
gument is compelling. His facts are
conclusive.
Mr. President, the Stinger has been
accurately labeled as the ideal terror-
ist weapon. It is now considered to be
the crown jewel of democratic resist-
ance efforts. It seems nonchalant and
cavalier, almost automatic, that demo-
cratic resistance efforts ask for Sting-
ers-and we provide them. We provide
little thought as to safety and totally
neglect foreign policy goals. How will
these top-of-the-line items be protect-
ed from terrorists, Cubans, Libyans,
Russians, and fanatics? How do these
weapons influence regional politics;
the possibility of escalation and
heightened conflict; and do we then
provide even more sophisticated weap-
ons after the Stinger?
I take a back seat to no other
Member of this Senate Chamber or
any Congressman as to my tenacious
support for the Afghan rebel fighters.
I deplore and condemn the Soviet in-
vasion and their widespread combat
which cripples Afghan children. I
heartily endorse U.S. efforts to assist
the Afghans in their efforts to pre-
serve their religious safety and their
political freedom.
I have met in my office with several
Afghan people fighting in this effort.
The United States reportedly provides
close to $500 million in covert assist-
ance to those resistance fighters. They
already have sophisticated surface-to-
air SA-7's and have told me that they
would like the Stinger, but it will not
win or lose the war by itself. They
have told me that they would like our
best technology, but they will carry on
in their struggle and effectively use
the SA-7's.
Mr. President, I am all for resistance
efforts that sustain and promote free-
dom and safety for people of different
political struggles. But we cannot
afford to nonchalantly provide weap-
ons which subequently endanger
American freedom and safety. We
cannot afford to let Qadhafi's and
Khomeini's secure this weapon. We
cannot afford to give terrorists the
power to wipe out airplanes and para-
lyze airports. I do support resistance
efforts but by their very definition
they are meant to resist, retaliate, and
rebuff the aggressor. By supplying our
most sophisticated weapons cavalierly
we endanger our own citizens. Ameri-
cans traveling are not safe. Our allies'
military planes are not safe. American
airports are not safe. Reportedly,
Stingers have been delivered to Angola
and Afghanistan. This was leaked by a
source in the Reagan administration,
who was consequently fired.
The situation in Nicaragua might be
the next sight for Stinger missiles. Mr.
Calero, one of the Contra leaders, re-
cently said after the House passed the
administrations aid request, that all
they needed now were Stingers. Mr.
President, Stingers in Central America
will severely escalate the involvement
of all outside parties. Stingers could
easily end up disrupting the fragile
Central American democracies and
wrecking havoc on the regional
progress we have achieved. Stingers
could easily find their way up through
Mexico into California, Arizona, and
Texas. This would only contribute to
the drug and weapons running prob-
lem that already exists. Some of these
Contra leaders are closer in philoso-
phy to the drug runners and terrorists
than to American democratic ideals.
Some argue that this issue should
not be discussed on the Senate floor.
The Reagan administration, in decid-
ing recently to provide these missiles
to guerrilla fighters, made two key as-
sumptions. One, the news of the deci-
sion would not lead to the public and
secondly, that none of the Stingers
would fall into the hands of terrorists.
The first assumption has already
failed. It is with the second assump-
tion in mind that I seek to address this
issue. Ideally, I would not want to dis-
cuss this sensitive issue or legislate a
solution. But we have no choice, now
that the first assumption has failed,
we must seek to prevent the second
from happening.
President Reagan is very concerned
about the implications of the Stinger.
The administration removed the
Stinger from the Saudi Arabia arms
package due to congressional concern
and fear that these would fall into the
wrong hands. The President wrote to
Majority Leader ROBERT DOLE discuss-
ing "the particular sensitivity of Sting-
ers being transferred to any country."
This legislation seeks to safeguard
these missiles and prevent the terror-
ist scenario from happening. Supply-
ing our best technology without safe-
guards is not in the national interest.
As a colleague of mine stated when
the Stinger was to be transferred with
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910001-9
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910001-9
August 7, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE $10689
safe security conditions; if the Stinger . Mr. LUGAR. I thank the chairman. Mr. President, I think it is important
falls into the wrong hands, there will Mr. President, the amendment to settle this issue once and for all. Let
not be an airplane or airport in the before us is a foreign policy issue. It us simply defeat the amendment. Let
civilized world that will be safe. I urge has arisen in different contexts before, us get it back into the foreign policy
the adoption of this legislation to pro- but I simply say, once again, that it is arena, back into a discussion of what is
tect Americans and our allies. The a foreign policy issue and has to do useful in the foreign policy of our
rush of sophisticated technology with- with the success of our country in our country, without all the phobias usual-
out adequate safeguards, drastically ability to help freedom fighters. We ly attached, that somehow the Sting-
changes the rules and boundaries for are attempting to help freedom fight- er, unlike all the other types of weap-
terrorists. It escalates the war effort ers in a number of places. The Presi- ons we might provide people, is an ex-
on the part of outside parties, as it did dent of the United States and those ceptionally destructive weapon.
in Afghanistan and Angola. After the who are attempting to work with the Conflict is always destructive. If one
reported introduction in Angola, the 6- freedom fighters have to have the lati- is going to argue philosophically, one
year peace effort -^48 -4-A
t?d
t
i-.
t
-.v
by the
e
o g
e
he freed
In Afghanistan, the Pakistani's are
reportedly seeking to encourage a
Soviet withdrawal and consequently
prevent Stingers from exacerbating
this conflict. We need to prevent this
type of policy. Different support in-
cluding less sophisticated surface-to-
air weapons might be the answer. But
right now we need to clarify our policy
with wise and prudent safeguards.
Mr. President, imagine the scenario
with one of these weapons systems
that can be held on the shoulder, that
can be fired a distance of 3 to 5 miles.
And this is not classified information.
It has been reported in the press. It is
only 34 pounds in weight. It is only 5
feet long. It can be carried in a com-
pact sense. It has an infrared heating
device that homes on the target
0 1550
Put this scenario together. That it
falls into the hands of terrorists like
Qadhafi or Khomeini or Arafat and is
used at one of our major international
airports. What kind of chaos are we
going to have?
What if it developed that it was
given to the Contras, fighting the Nic-
araguan Sandinistas? How safe would
it be to have that weapon there? I
question that.
The purpose of this amendment is
not to outlaw by any means that these
weapons go to democratic resistance
groups. It only says that the President
certifies to Congress that the proposed
recipient has agreed to the following
conditions-and they are listed in this
amendment.
These conditions are the conditions
we place on this missile now, that we
have transferred to a number of coun-
tries, particularly Saudi Arabia. Why
should we not impose the same type of
conditions and ask the President to
certify that they are being upheld?
Mr. President, this is a serious
matter, and I hope the Senate will join
me in putting on some restrictions,
and yet not tying the hands of the
President to use these weapons where
he feels that certification can be
made. Failing to do this, we are invit-
ing the misuse of this weapon by inter-
national terrorists.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, will the
distinguished chairman of the Armed
Services Committee yield me 5 min-
utes?
Mr. GOLDWATER. I am very happy
to yield 5 minutes to my friend.
done.
Mr. President, I note the descrip-
tions from time to time of the Stinger
missile. There are even pictures of a
single individual of normal size carry-
ing the missile, with the thought that
almost any one of us-apart from such
unusual persons as Arafat or Kho-
meini or what have you-could use a
Stinger missile.
Mr. President, it is an effective
weapon. The country is proud of the
development of this kind of weapon.
But it requires an extraordinary
amount of training. The ordinary ter-
rorist carrying a Stinger missile is not
going to be any more effective than
you or I would, without tens of hours
of training and a very great deal of
support in the use of this particular
weapon.
The intent of this amendment is to
kill the use of the Stinger missile in
the foreign policy of our country, inso-
far as we help other countries. I say
that advisedly, because the drafters of
this amendment have listed an impos-
sible set of conditions that literally
render this particular option, the
Stinger missile, out of the question in
helping freedom fighters in Angola or
in the Nicaraguan situation and wher-
ever else we may be trying to help
people.
Mr. President, this is an option that
we ought not deny in the course of an
armed services authorization bill. This
is a foreign policy option we ought to
be able to retain in our country.
Beyond that, Mr. President, I sug-
gest that it would be useful, before we
got into these kinds of amendments-
this is the second time around the
track in this particular session. The
same amendment was defeated by a
vote of roughly 2 to 1, when it applies
to certain instances before, and not
what has been redrafted to apply to
all instances.
We really ought to have an opportu-
nity to discuss this in the Foreign Re-
lations Committee, in the Intelligence
Committee, and other forums which
have something to do with the foreign
policy of the country.
I know that the distinguished chair-
man of the Armed Services Commit-
tee, Senator GOLDWATER, has ad-
dressed himself pointedly to the sub-
ject. This is a foreign policy question,
and the chairman is weary of seeing
this appear again in this form, and so
am I.
anything to allies, whether they be
freedom fighters, members of NATO,
or what have you. There is always a
risk in doing that. But I submit that it
is no more with the Stinger than with
a half-dozen other objects.
This is the wrong time and the
wrong place to be discussing the issue.
Mr. DURENBERGER addressed the
Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. GOLDWATER. I yield the Sena-
tor 2 minutes.
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. Presi-
dent, I appreciate the opportunity to
speak on this issue and to speak in op-
position to the amendment, particular-
ly to speak in favor of the argument
made by my colleagues, the chairman
of the Senate Foreign Committee.
Basically, this is a foreign policy
issue. In which committee it is to be
resolved is not clear to me. I am con-
vinced that it is not to be resolved on
the Defense authorization bill, nor is
it the kind of issue that lends itself to
resolution on the floor of the Senate.
Sometime next week, we are going to
be debating another foreign policy
issue in which the elements of the im-
plementation of an element of foreign
policy are going to be openly debated
on the floor of the Senate.
Today, we are offered the opportuni-
ty, though, to vote for or against one
particular armament, committed to
one broad category of indigenous
forces. I urge my colleagues to consid-
er the fact that this really is not a
very good place for our country to
make foreign policy, regardless of how
we personally may feel about the
weapon involved or the application of
the weapons to a particular circum-
stance.
So I support the chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee and the
chairman of the Armed Services Com-
mittee in opposition to this amend-
ment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I
yield myself such time as I may re-
quire.
Mr. President, unfortunately, I must
rise in opposition to the amendment
being offered by my colleague from
Arizona. This subject was dealt with in
May when a similar amendment was
debated during the Senate's consider-
ation of the DOD reorganization bill.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910001-9
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910001-9
S,10690
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 7, 1986
At that time it was tabled by an
almost 2 to 1 margin. I am hopeful
that the pending amendment will also
be defeated.
This amendment deals with the
most sensitive of subjects-possible
U.S. covert operations. The questions
raised by this amendment can only be
thoroughly examined and debated in a
classified setting-most appropriately
in the Intelligence Committee. The
Senate floor is certainly not the
proper forum for such a debate.
However, I will try to outline my op-
position to this amendment as well as
I can in an unclassified context.
0 1400
First, and most importantly, the net
effect of this amendment would be to
prohibit even the possibility of our
providing this vital equipment to free-
dom fighters throughout the world
whose causes we have traditionally
supported. The stringent conditions
required by this amendment are clear-
ly incompatible with the nature of
guerrilla warfare and would be virtual-
ly impossible for rebel groups to meet.
Therefore, a vote for this amendment
is tantamount to a vote against free-
dom fighters throughout the world.
By adopting this amendment, we
would be placing severe restrictions on
the President's freedom of action in
this very important and volatile arena.
This is the type of micromanagement
that I believe the Congress should
avoid.
Second, one of the main goals of the
proponents of this amendment is to
prevent shoulder-fired antiaircraft
weapons such as the Stinger from fall-
ing into terrorist hands. While this is a
worthwhile goal, it will not be
achieved by this amendment. The fact
is that most terrorist organizations al-
ready have a wide variety of man-
transportable SAMs. Soviet SA-7's are
readily available on the world arms
market and have been acquired by the
vast majority of terrorist groups.
Mr. President, this type of weapon is
made by almost countless countries
and they can be purchased almost
every place. I cannot tell you where,
but you can buy them retail in the
United States.
I am not saying that this is reason to
let down our guard in the fight to
keep sophisticated weaponry out of
the reach of terrorists. But we should
acknowledge the situation as it is and
not get into the business of arbitrarily
choosing to severely restrict the possi-
ble supply of one weapon system to
specific groups.
I would suggest to my colleague
from Arizona that the best way to pro-
ceed on this issue is to introduce this
amendment as free-standing legisla-
tion and allow the relevant commit-
tees to fully examine its ramifications.
This is the only way, to insure that the
many important and complex issues
raised by this amendment are given
the careful and thorough consider-
ation that they deserve.
The chairman of the Intelligence
Committee and the chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee have
spoken against this amendment.
Mr. President, I yield to the Senator
from New Hampshire how much time
he needs.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Three minutes I
think will be sufficient.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Three minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President,
others opposing the amendment cov-
ered the point I intended to address.
Let me point out to my colleagues
before we have a vote on this matter
just explicitly what it is the Senator
from Arizona is proposing.
Let me just read from the amend-
ment what he would require of recipi-
ents of this kind of weapon and my
colleagues should think of this in the
context of these freedom movements
which are essentially guerrilla oper-
ations on whose mobility their survival
depends.
Here are the physical requirements
that the Senator from Arizona would
require before these groups could pos-
sibly receive these weapons. The
amendment reads:
Physical security of such missiles shall
consist of the following:
Magazines of reinforced concrete, arch-
type, and earth-covered whose construction
is at least equivalent in strength to the re-
quirements of the Chief of Engineers (De-
partment of the Army) drawings, 652-686
through 652-693, 27 Dec 1941 as revised 14
Mar 42, shall be provided.
Lighting shall be provided for exterior
doors and along perimeter barriers.
Exterior doors shall be class 5 steel vault
doors secured by two-key operated high se-
curity padlock and hasp (mil spec P-43607),
and keys shall be secured separately to
insure effective two-man control of access.
Fencing shall be 6-foot (minimum) steel
chain link on steel or reinforced concrete
posts over firm base, and clear zones shall
be established inside and outside fencing.
These requirements might be OK
and indeed are OK and necessary to
require of our established allies, but
for Heaven's sake, can you imagine the
freedom fighters in various countries
trying to produce these kinds of safe-
guards?
What the DeConcini amendment
means bottom line is that these free-
dom movements could never be consid-
ered for this kind of assistance from
the United States.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, I
would like to respond to some of the
arguments.
First, the distinguished chairman of
the Foreign Relations Committee indi-
cates that this affects foreign relations
policy. It seems to me that that argu-
ment is indeed very appropriate for
the defense authorization bill.
I do not know anybody who looks on
a close to $300 billion of defense au-
thorization that does not affect our
foreign policy.
In his committee, the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee, the last vote we had,
though, we were defeated in this
amendment. Nine members of the For-
eign Relations Committee voted in
support of this amendment, eight op-
posed it.
So there is already a good bellwether
right there that the Foreign Relations
Committee thinks something should
be done.
I hope the Senator from Indiana in-
tends to hold hearings. I think that is
very, very good.
The Senator from New Hampshire
just read the requirements. I am glad
he did. I did not want to take all the
time because of the limited time on
this subject matter to read the re-
quirements.
No better argument can be given
than those requirements that we
impose on allies, NATO allies, Saudi
Arabia, countries that we now share
this weapon with. Should we not re-
quire the same security for a guerrilla
group out in the jungle, in the desert,
in the mountains of Afghanistan?
It seems to me like that argument is
clear that if we do not do this, we are
asking for someone to abuse or lose or
sell to the black market some of these
weapons.
Our own military has great reserva-
tions about what we are doing, and I
think everybody here who is involved
in this argument, certainly the Intelli-
gence Committee, certainly the Armed
Services Committee, knows that so
well.
I want to quote Gen. John Wickhan,
who is the Army Chief of Staff, on
this subject matter of the Stinger mis-
siles.
Wickhan reported on June 21, in the
Washington Post, saying on the sub-
ject matter in an interview with the
Washington Post yesterday that "we
anguish over decisions of which allies
should get the weapon because of U.S.
concern that it will fall into the wrong
hands."
I am glad they anguish over it be-
cause they rightly should anguish.
What have they done? They have
imposed some very, very severe securi-
ty restrictions before we hand that
weapon over, and I am glad they have
done it.
The only thing that the amendment
of the Senator from Arizona says is
that those same restrictions be applied
if you hand those weapons over to a
democratic resistance group.
For the likes of me, I can see no
reason not to impose those same con-
ditions here because with failure to do
that we are asking and we are inviting
a disaster.
I am glad to yield to my colleague
from Kansas.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I
just briefly wish to comment why I am
supporting the Senator from Arizona's
[Mr. DECONCINI] amendment.
It has already been argued and de-
bated here before and, as has been
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910001-9
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910001-9
August 7, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
stated, I do not know whether this is
the right place to have it as an amend-
ment. Certainly before when it was of-
fered on the military reform, it was
not the right vehicle. Maybe the debt
ceiling extension is a better one. But I
think, frankly, it does fit Into the
whole question of defense.
It is to me and certainly in my mind
not a vote against freedom figthers. It
is in my mind a whole question of
really how we do account for our
highly sophisticated technologies.
We have taken such great precau-
tions in the transfer of our technol-
ogies, but today with the Stinger mis-
sile, which is highly effective and has
been a very successful antiaircraft mis-
sile, we more or less just say that we
are going to turn it over to be used by
those without the same conditions
that we impose on our allies.
I think that this is something that is
of importance for us to argue, whether
it is today, or tomorrow, and I think it
is something that for the success of
our future transfer of technologies
and our feeling of security in that
transfer of technologies we should be
willing to debate and be responsible in
those transfers.
Mr. President, I find the reports
about our Government's decision to
send Stingers to rebel forces a very
dangerous proposition. This decision
runs directly counter to our vigorous
efforts over the past several years to
control technology transfer and to
ensure that our advanced technology
whether military or civilian does not
fall into the hands of the Soviet
Union.
Even more importantly, supplying
Stingers to rebel forces also runs di-
rectly counter to our concern about
curtailing terrorism. This Chamber
has fully discussed the danger of send-
ing Stingers to sovereign nations.
Only just a couple of months ago,
there was overwhelming concern ex-
pressed on this floor about having
Stingers a part of the arms package to
Saudi Arabia, largely because of the
fear that these weapons would fall
into terrorists' hands.
Mr. President, the danger of this
weapon system falling into terrorist
hands or into the hands of unfriendly
nations is only escalated in the case of
sending these weapons to rebel groups.
There is no certainty that the Sting-
ers will remain in the hands of the
rebel forces. We have already seen
that captured Soviet surface-to-air
missiles have turned up in rebel hands
in Angola and Central America. And
we have also seen numerous reports
that any arms sent to Afghan rebels
end up in the black market in Paki-
stan.
Mr. President, it is paradoxical to me
that we would require sovereign na-
tions to have stringent security con-
trols on sophisticated weapon systems
such as the Stinger, and yet we would
just transfer these systems to rebel
forces with no precautions.
Mr. President, I believe that at a
minimum, if this sophisticated tech-
nology is going to be transferred, we
should require the same rigid security
requirements that we have imposed on
our sale and transfer of this technolo-
gy to sovereign nations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. GOLDWATER. How much time
does the Senator from Indiana want?
Mr. QUAYLE. Three minutes.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Go ahead.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Indiana.
Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. President, I want
to just very briefly state my opposition
to this amendment.
I think the chairman of the Armed
Services Committee, the chairman of
the Foreign Relations Committee, and
the chairman of the Senate Intelli-
gence Committee have all brought out
that this is a very sensitive matter. It
is a very sensitive matter because of
certain classifications. We are not even
going to be able to go into some of the
discussions about what in fact is going
on with any kind of these potential
transfers.
I believe that the junior Senator
from Arizona has a very valid concern,
and that valid concern is that he is
worried about, rightfully so, the Sting-
er missile being put into the hands of
terrorists. I think that a valid concern
and, believe me, everybody that deals
with this issue is certainly very sensi-
tive to that possibility and equally as
concerned as the junior Senator from
Arizona.
0 1610
Unfortunately, as the chairman of
the Senate Armed Services Committee
has already pointed out, terrorist orga-
nizations already have the SA-7. It is a
very comparable weapon to the Sting-
er missile.
What I believe that this amendment
would do, even though the sponsors of
the amendment do not want it to do
so, is It would place a disadvantage, a
great disadvantage on some of the
freedom fighters around the world.
Terrorist organizations and those
who would not like to see democracy
survive have a very comparable
weapon. If we place these restrictions,
and they are not unreasonable restric-
tions for Saudi Arabia, for all of our
allies who do not have the guerrilla-
type environment, but it is really an
unreasonable restriction in any kind of
guerrilla, freedom fighter resistance
type of movement. To have them
comply with certain military specifica-
tions, a certain amount of Army Corps
of Engineers specifications, is simply
inappropriate.
Therefore, it would be a disadvan-
tage out there. You have comparable
military weapons on both sides, unfor-
tunately. And the terrorists, the ones
that are against freedom, already have
the SA-7.
We need to put In some equilibrium
and allow the President the flexibility.
S 10691
I think, to do this at this time, even
though the sponsor of the amendment
does not want to do that, it would un-
fortunately tie the hands of the Presi-
dent.
This is a very sensitive matter, as
the chairman of the committees have
pointed out. I believe, in my good
judgment, that we should readily dis-
patch this amendment and go on to
other things. But I do think that the
junior Senator from Arizona has a le-
gitimate concern. I just think that the
amendment is way off base. I do not
think it is appropriate here and I hope
it is resoundly defeated.
Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President,
how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
EVANS). The junior Senator from Ari-
zona has 9 minutes and 7 seconds, and
the Senator from Arizona has 4 min-
utes and 47 seconds.
Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, let
me wind up by saying that I appreci-
ate the concern of the Senator from
Indiana that this is a sensitive matter.
We know that. There are subject mat-
ters that we cannot talk about on the
floor.
The so-called Stinger missile is not
sensitive. What is sensitive is where it
has been deployed and how many and
in what kind of action. That has al-
ready been disclosed, too, by Dr. Pills-
bury, by the way, who lost his job for
that disclosure in the Washington
Post.
The fact of the Stinger missile and
the requirements, that is not a sensi-
tive disclosure or nondisclosure
matter. What is really sensitive here
is: Do we want to risk this missile in
the hands of people who cannot pro-
vide the security?
My good friend just suggested-and
I wish I had thought of it-how would
you like to see, in equal size and pro-
portion, a foreign airplane like the
British Airways sitting right up here
in relation to where this weapon could
knock it down being in the hands of
some terrorist? That is what we are
talking about-at the Athens Airport,
2 or 3 miles from the airport; at the
Leonardo da Vinci Airport, 2 or 3 miles
from it, or one of our own airports, if
one of these weapons come up
through Mexico into Texas or Arizona
and somebody sits 2 or 3 miles away
and wants to take down an airplane.
That is what we are talking about.
That weapon now is not in the
hands, that we know of, of any terror-
ist. We do not think anybody has that
weapon yet. And there is a great dif-
ference, as I am sure my senior col-
league will agree, between this weapon
and the SA-7, a great deal of differ-
ence for the freedom fighters. They
want the advanced technology, but
they will tell you that is not going to
win or lose the war for them.
So I hope we will use some common
sense and apply the same security to
freedom fighters as we apply to other
allies. By the way, once those Stingers
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910001-9
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910001-9
S 10692
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 7, 1986
are deployed, then you have a differ-
ent set of security and you are not
bound by the ones that are listed in
this particular amendment. I think it
is paramount that we apply the same
standards here. I hope the Senate will
support this amendment.
I thank the Senator from Kansas for
her support.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by my distinguished colleague
from Arizona. The net effect of this
amendment would be to seriously
hamper implementation of the
Reagan doctrine. Without a doubt this
amendment should be defeated.
In the first place, the amendment we
are considering should not even be dis-
cussed in open session because it in-
volves possible U.S. covert activities.
The Senate floor is not the proper
forum for this discussion.
The conditions set forth in the
amendment are not compatible to
guerrilla warfare. Guerrillas do not
construct secure armories in the bush,
nor should they, given the mobile
nature of such conflicts. No rebel
group could meet these restrictions.
I must ask my colleagues what
would have happened to our forebears
in their struggle against England had
Lafayette's government imposed such
restrictions on the transfer of arms to
the colonists.
Mr. President, this amendment
should be addressed in the Intelligence
Committees and not here. The Senate
should oppose the amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I regret
that I cannot support Senator DECON-
cIHI, amendment to condition the sale
or transfer of Stinger antiaircraft mis-
siles to democratic resistance forces.
As I stated May 7, 1986, in the CON-
GRESSIONAL RECORD, I share Senator
DECONCINI's deep concern and fear that
Stinger missiles may end up in the
hands of terrorists and enemies of the
United States. However, the conditions
which would be established by this
amendment would require U.S. service-
men to enter areas of hostilities to in-
spect and repair these missiles, a most
unwelcome prospect. I also find this
language too broad and inflexible.
There may be circumstances where we
would want to allow these missiles to
be used where these stringent security
conditions could not be met. The con-
ditions for maintaining security over
Stinger missiles in the amendment
would be unachievable for virtually
every situation in the world except our
NATO allies, and therefore, the reach
of this amendment is overly broad and
I must oppose it.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President,
today I am pleased to support the
DeConcini amendment prohibiting the
sale, donation, or other transfer of
Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to demo-
cratic resistance forces until and
unless the President certifies in ad-
vance that the proposed recipient has
agreed to a specified set of security
conditions.
The Stinger has been called "the ul-
timate terrorist weapon," and rightly
so. Accurate and highly portable, it is
an ideal weapon for small, mobile
guerrilla bands. Unfortunately, it can
also be, in the wrong hands, an instru-
ment of wanton destruction, easily ca-
pable of :downing a civilian or military
aircraft.
Even the remotest possibility of such
a weapon falling into irresponsible
hands impels us to take exceptional
precautions. In making Stingers avail-
able to our NATO partners and to
Saudi Arabia, we have always insisted
on rigid security safeguards, including
steel vaults, 24-hour armed guards,
and separate storage of launchers and
missiles. We have also required the
right to conduct inspections of these
safeguards at any time.
It appears perfectly obvious that
comparable safeguards would not be
possible were we to supply Stingers to
the Afghan mujaheddin, Savimbils
UNITA forces, or the Contra rebels in
Nicaragua. It appears equally obvious
that in making Stinger missiles avail-
able to these or similar groups, we
would be giving up virtually all control
over these weapons. Lacking both ade-
quate security and close American su-
pervision, these weapons would then
be highly vulnerable to theft, capture,
or illegal diversion, and could end up
in the hands of individuals or groups
who might not hesitate to employ
them in ways contrary to American In-
terests. It is this concern that Impels
me to support the DeConcini amend-
ment.
Earlier this year, during Senate
debate on reorganization of the De-
fense Department, an amendment
very similar to this one was brought to
the floor. At that time I believed that
this issue was an important one and
deserved consideration on its own
merits, not as an afterthought to a
major bill on an altogether different
issue. As a consequence I voted then to
table the amendment, in the hope that
the matter could subsequently receive
full-scale committee hearings and be
considered on its own merits.
Since then, alarming reports have
surfaced to the effect that both
UNITA and the mujaheddin have re-
ceived covert Stinger shipments. As a
consequence I will now support the
DeConcini amendment, before further
Stingers are sent overseas.
In addition, this amendment differs
from the earlier one in that it also ap-
plies to the Contras. Keeping these
dangerous weapons out of the hands
of the Contras seems to me another
compelling reason for supporting this
amendment. I plan to do so and I urge
my colleagues to do so as well.
DR. MICHAEL PILLSBURY AND THE STINGER
MISSILE
(Later the following occurred:)
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President,
earlier this evening during the debate
on the DeConcini amendment relative
to the Stinger missile, a Washington
Post story, based on anonymous
sources was cited. In that -connection,
the name of Dr. Michael Pillsbury was
raised. Certainly without any criticism
intended for the Senator from Arizo-
na, I want to point out that the story
quoted was based on anonymous
sources. Dr. Pillsbury has denied dis-
closing the information cited in that
story. An investigation is under way to
determine who really did leak the in-
formation.
I want to point out further that Dr.
Pillsbury now works for four Senators,
one of which is the Senator from New
Hampshire. I would not like the com-
ment of the Senator based on the
Washington Post to pass without men-
tioning for the Record that there Is
another side of this story that is yet ,to
be fully told.
(Conclusion of later proceedings.)
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I
know of no other Senator on this side
Who cares to speak. I am perfectly
wMing to yield back my time, If my
colleague is, and we can proceed to a
vote.
Does the Senator want a yea or nay
vote?
Mr. DECONCINI. Yes.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I
yield back my time.
Mr. DECONCINI. I yield back my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All
time having been yielded back, the
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Arizona
[Mr. DECONCINI1. The yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will
call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called
the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are
there any other Senators in the Cham-
ber desiring to vote?
The result was announced-yeas 37,
nays 63, as follows:
IRoiicall Vote No. 185 Leg.]
YEAS-37
Biden
Hatfield
Mitchell
Biragaman
Hollings
Packwood
Bradley
Inouye
Pell
Burdick
Johnston
Proxmire
Chafee
Kassebaum
Pryor
Cranston
Kennedy
Riegle
D'Amato
Kerry
Sarbanes
DeConcini
Lautenberg
Sasser
Eagleton
Leahy
Simon
Ford
Mathias
Specter
Gore
Matsunaga
Weicker
Harkin
Melcher
Hart
Metzenbaum
NAYS-63
Abdnor
Cochran
Garn
Andrews
Cohen
Glenn
Armstrong
Danforth
Goldwater
Baucus
Denton
Gorton
Bentsen
Dixon
Gramm
Boren
Dodd
Grassley
Boschwitz
Dole
Hatch
Broyhill
Domenici
Hawkins
Bumpers
Durenberger
Hecht
Byrd
Evans
Heflin
'Chiles
Exon
Heinz
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910001-9
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910001-9
August 7, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Helms
h
oyni an
Stafford
Humphrey
Murkowski
Stennis
Kasten
Nickles
Stevens
Laxalt
Nunn
Symms
Levin
Pressler
Thurmond
Lunar
Quayle
Rockefeller
Walla
wallop
Mattingly
Roth
Warner
McClure
Rudman
Wilson
McConnell
Simpson
Zorinsky
OFFICER
.
The
Is the legislation before us not also
So thee amendment (No. 2617) was Senator is correct. subject to a point of order under sec-
rejected. Mr. HATFIELD. Now, Mr. President, tion 401(a) of the Budget Act?
^ 1630 the bill we are considering, S. 2638, the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
National Defense Authorization Act Senator is correct.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I for fiscal year 1987, has been reported Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President,
move to reconsider the vote by which by the Senate Armed Services Com- these are the points I wanted to raise
the amendment was rejected. mittee. It is my understanding that relating to the particular application
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to the bill, as reported and further of the Budget Act to the defense au-
lay that motion on the table. amended by the committee, provides thorization bill. As I indicated earlier,
The motion to lay on the table was new direct spending authority. having been a Member of this body
agreed to. ^ 1640 when the Budget Act passed and also
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The For example, when the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings
majority leader. section 1214 of the bill
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will just provides for an increase in capitaliza- provisions ryn tos , on
I have been that
tion of the special defense acquisition this floor trying to make certain that
take a moment. I have been having a fund and affects direct spending in every appropriations bill measured up
brief discussion with the chairman of to the Budget Act requirements. We
the Appropriations Committee. I Congressional Budget unctions 050 and 1g e according to the have gone through various exercises of
would like to yield to him for the pur- correct ein nOffice. Am I tabling, referring, and all the other
pose of his extending a parliamentary new saying that this bill provides
inquiry. new direct spending authority? procedural motions members are quite
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The familiar with. I merely want to point
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I Senator is correct. out that we are in violation here today
thank the majority leader. Mr. HATFIELD. Given this, along of the Budget Act. I would like to
I would like propound to the Chair a with the fact that the Senate Armed know what the Budget Committee's
series of parliamentary inquiries relat- Services Committee has not yet filed views are on this.
ing to the bill that is now pending its required report under 302(b) of the Also, if the majority leader would
before the body. Budget Act, this bill violates section permit me to do so, having yielded the
Mr. President, I do not intend to 302(c) of the Budget Act which pro- floor merely for a parliamentary in-
make a point of order if these are valid hibits consideration of such legislation quiry, the chairman of the Budget
points that could be made. I want to until the committee has filed its re- Committee has indicated that he has
make that clear statement from the quired 302(b) report. Am I correct that an amendment to correct one of this
beginning. I merely want to raise the this bill is subject to a point of order bill's provisions relating to contract
application of the Budget Act to the under section 302(c) of the Budget authority that violates the Budget
total legislative proceedings of this Act? Act. I wonder if there are any
body. I suppose being extraordinarily The PRESIDING OFFICER. The thoughts that could be expressed at
sensitive to the fact that appropria- Senator is correct. this moment or shared that could clar-
tions bills which have been frequently Mr. HATFIELD. To take this one ify the situation as to the other viola-
the target of points of order as they step further, Mr. President, section tions of the Budget Act this particular
may violate or appear to violate the 302(f) of the Budget Act say that it is bill represents.
Budget Act. not in order to consider any bill that Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank
I do want to make these inquiries of provides for budget outlays or new the distinguished Senator from
the Chair now, if I could. budget authority in excess of the ap- Oregon, the chairman of the Appro-
Under section 302(c) of the Budget propriate allocation of such outlays or priations Committee. I wonder if we
Act, as amended by Gramm-Rudman- authority reported by any committee might have an agreement that the
Hollings, it is not in order for this in its section 302(b) report in connec- Senator from New Mexico and the
body to consider legislation that pro- tion with the most recently agreed to Senator from Florida might be recog-
vides new direct spending authority or concurrent resolution on the budget nized for 5 minutes each if they desire,
new entitlement authority if reported for such fiscal year. Can the Chair not to exceed 5 minutes each.
by any committee which has received please advise this Senator how this The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
an allocation under 302(a) of the body is to know if such a point of there objection? Hearing no objection,
Budget Act with respect to the most order is available to its Members it is so ordered.
recently agreed to budget resolution under this provision of the Budget Act The Senator from New Mexico is
for the coming fiscal year and that if a committee has not yet filed its re- recognized.
committee has not filed the 302(b) quired 302(b) report under that act? Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distin-
report required by the Budget Act. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under guished majority leader. I do not need
That is, the committee's report subdi- those circumstances, the point of 5 minutes.
viding its allocation among its subcom- order would not lie under section I say to my friend from Oregon the
mittees or programs over which it has 302(f) because there is no way to meas- Senator from New Mexico is aware of
jurisdiction. ure whether any of the amounts pro- what I consider to be a very serious
Mr. President, is that correct? vided are in excess of the calculations. violation of the Budget Act with refer-
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Chair. ence to new spending authority as de-
correct. Can the Chair please advise this fined in section 401(c)(2) of the Con-
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, is it body which of the 16 Senate commit- gresssional Budget Act.
not true that the Senate Armed Serv- tees receiving a section 302(a) Budget I am aware of the fact that provi-
ices Committee has received an alloca- Act allocation with respect to the sions of the bill are out of order if
tion pursuant to section 302(a) of the fiscal year 1987 budget resolution have indeed they are construed to be enti-
Congressional Budget Act with respect not filed their section 302(g) reports? tlements, contract authority, or direct
to the budget resolution for fiscal year The PRESIDING OFFICER. The spending. I have an amendment pend-
1987, Senate Concurrent Resolution Chair announces the Chair does not ing at the desk that I filed 2 days ago.
120? have any such list. I have not called it up because I would
S 10693
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Chair.
QIIpyr E). The Senator is correct.
Mr. President, another provision of
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, is it the Budget Act, as amended-section
also correct to say that the Senate 401(a)-prohibits the consideration of
Armed Services has not
yet filed the any measure providing new contract
report required by section 302(b) of authority or new borrowing authority
the Budget Act? Is that correct? which is not limited by appropriations.
The PRESIDING
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910001-9
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910001-9
91,0694
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 7, 1.986
like to see more of thebillevolve, but
basically, I have checked it through
with the manager and the ranking mi-
nority member. I Intend to offer it.
They said they did not intend to
object to it.
Basically, ft provides that any new
spending authority, as defined in sec-
tion 40l(e) 2) of the Budget Act, pro-
vided by specified sections of this bill,
shall be effective for any fiscal year
only to such extent or in such
amounts as are provided in appropria-
tion acts. My amendment lists the var-
ious sections of the bill which the
amendment applies to--411., 1625, 631,
635, 336('f;), 931 1906, 1214, 2175, and
2163. Those are the sections where
this Senator has found in this bill
either direct spending authority or
contract authority ,or entitlements.
If not amended, they would be con-
strued to be direct expenditures in vio-
lation of the Budget Act. I am pre-
pared to offer the amendment. The
managers know it. I will furnish my
friend, the chairman, with a ,copy of it.
As to the section 302(c) contention
he made, it is true there are no cross-
walks filed by this committee. I
assuage if :someone desires to make a
point of order under section 302(c)
they could. I hope the committee
would file a 302(b) allocation. I do not
believe it is very difficult, not like the
appropriations crasswaUL
I will assist the committee if they
desire to comply on the technical mat-
ters. If they do not, I will consult with
them. If it appears to the Senator
from New Mexico as one Senator and
chairman of the Budget Committee
that they violate the Budget Act as it
operates to get things under control, I
shall raise appropriate points of order.
Mr. HATFIELD. I state again, Mr.
President, that I raise these points at
this time as the bill is under consider-
ation so there will be opportunity to
correct them. I wanted to make cer-
tain that, again, we do not go through
the whole exercise up to third reading
without some kind of action.
Again, 1 think if we are going to ob-
serve the Budget Act in any one area
of legislation, it ,ought to 'be observed
in all areas. Usually, the Budget Com-
mittee has been very helpful in re-
minding the rest of us where we have
been in violation or potential violation
of the Budget Act. I am glad to know
the chairman has taken action on at
least one of these violations. I am
hopeful the committee will comply
enough so that when we get to third
reading, we will not have any
technicalities on violations of the
Budget Act.
If I had to vote for a question of
waiving the Budget Act In order too get
to this bill, I would even consider that.
I want to point out that the Budget
Act ought to be applied to every bit of
legislation we enact, not just the ap-
propriations bill where the Budget Act
has had so much careful scrutiny. I
just wanted to ,paint out there are also
questions here.
Mr. DOMENICL Let me add that I
am prepared, at a point in time when I
an !informed by managers that we are
getting close to the end of amend-
ments that have real significance in
point of dollars, to engage in an ex-
change with the managers with refer-
ence to the level of authorization In
this bill versus the limitations on
budget authority and outlays that are
imposed under the appropriations
process. Clearly., this is an authorizing
bill and we will discuss thoroughly
with the 'Senate before we leave the
floor the fact that if those who are
proponents of this bill expect that ev-
erything within -it will indeed be
funded by the appropriators in its
present form-it has not gone to con-
ference yet and we are not finished
yet, but if it did, clearly there is more
authority and more outlays than we
can accommodate in the appropriation
process.
0 1650
But everyone knows that that is the
case. The Armed Services Committee
has discussed it with me and we will
discuss it in detail so that everyone
knows how much it is over. But that
does not make it subject to a point of
order. That merely means you can
expect the appropriators to fund this
much.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I am
trying to understand here whether we
are talking about something really
substantive or whether we are talking
about a technicality. In either event, I
think we ought to comply with the
budget. I hope the Senator from New
Mexico and the Senator from Oregon
could give us a little more guidance on
this. It is my arm,dersrtanding we have
been working :all week with the staffs
of the Senator from New Mexico and
the Senator from Florida to get the
entitlement quesstion, which I under-
stand and believe is a substantive ques-
tion, worked out.
Mr. DOMENICL It is.
Mr. NUNN. My understanding is
that that was one of the points of
order that the Senator from Oregon
pointed out. Is it not true that we had
already basically agreed to accept that
amendment? Will the Senator correct
that?
Mr. DOMENICL I indeed indicated
and I will r+epeat, the floor managers
indicated their willingness to accept
an amendment which makes the enti-
tlement and direct spending that is in
this bill subject to appropriations.
They had agreed to that.
Mr. NUNN. The second question I
would ask on the 302(b)., is that the
form 302(b)?
Mr. DOMENICI. They are more
than B's. He is referring to some
others and I believe we can help the
floor managers with that and we will
do that before the day is out.
Mr. NUNN. I 'would be delighted
from our side to do everything we
could to make sure we are in technical
compliance, but I have to raise the
question, we brought our bill out, 'it
was already out of committee long
before we had a budget resolution.
That meant that we had already gone
through the subcommittee markups,
the subcommittees had already report-
ed to the full committee. The full com-
mittee had already acted. The full
committee reported to the Senate.
The bill is pending on the Senate
floor. Now, what substantive sense
would it make to go back after we got
a budget resolution and give subcom-
mittees direction when we had already
gone through the whale process?'That
would have been a useless exercise.
And again I want to comply, technical-
ly, but I see that as no substantive
meaning at all.
Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator
yield at this point? The .Senator is
enunciating the very frustration that
beset the Appropriations Committee
from the very beginning .and I am glad
to welcome the frustration.
Let me just say we cannot draw a
distinction between technical and sub-
stantive violations for the simple
reason we had to go through the proc-
ess--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under
the unanimous-consent agreement,
the time of the Senator from New
Mexico has expired. The :`Senator from
Florida is now recognised for 5 min-
utes.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr.,CHILES. I yield back any time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Florida yields back his
time?
Mr. GOLDWATER addressed the
Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Under section
300 of the Budget Act, on what 'date is
the action on the concurrent resolu-
tion due to be completed?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. April
15.
Mr. 'GOLDWATER. April 15. One
more question, Mr. President. Let me
write that down before I forget it.
Under the, Congressional Budget Act,
what effect upon the points of order
discussed here today does the failure
to complete the concurrent resolution
on the budget on April 15 of this year
have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has
no effect.
Mr. GOLDWATER. It has what?
'The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has
no effect.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Well, Mr. Presi-
dent, I raise those points because I am
getting a little bit tired, as the 'chair-
man of the committee, of year after
year after year completing our work
when we are supposed to complete it
and the Budget Committee never is
ready.
Now, I think we ought to change the
budget setup because we are not get-
ting anything done under It. We have
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910001-9