8 May 2001 Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aaces002.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- [Congressional Record: February 13, 2001 (Senate)] [Page S1271-S1347] From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:cr13fe01-152] STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS [Excerpt] By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire: S. 305. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to remove the reduction in the amount of Survivor Benefit Plan annuities at age 62; to the Committee on Armed Services. Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am delighted today to rise to discuss President Bush's commitment to strengthening America's national security. I know this is a matter that is very close to the heart of my colleague in the Chair, the Senator from Oklahoma. President Bush often said during the campaign to the military that ``help is on the way.'' It is nice to know that help has arrived. The President is spending this week traveling to military installations to see and hear, for the first time since assuming office, the needs of the military. The United States has a strong economy and a great open society. Unfortunately, it is the only remaining superpower in the world. That also makes us a target for those who oppose our values of life and our liberties. The world is not a friendly place. We see violence and unrest every night on the news. I do not know if people realize it, but when you go and talk to the men and women out there, their lives are on the line every day. I stood on the bridge of the U.S.S. Nassau in Malta and watched a small Maltese Navy gunboat circling around that ship 24 hours a day to keep guard so that no terrorists could get to that ship. Oftentimes, as we found with the U.S.S. Cole, we didn't have that kind of security from the host country. So weapons of mass destruction--nuclear, chemical, and biological-- continue to proliferate around the world into the hands of dictators and demagogues who might, in desperation, choose to oppose us and, worst of all, fall into the hands of terrorists. We face new threats, such as cyberattacks on our command and control networks and our vulnerable civil infrastructure. Our military needs to think through these new defense challenges and architect the right force for our Nation for the new century. I will give the administration the time it needs to work through these issues as they present a new budget. As a member of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee and Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I fully appreciate the challenges that President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld face as they try to rebuild our military and simultaneously set us on the right course for this new century. It is not going to be an easy job. There are a lot of needs. We have a lot of ground to make up and a lot of new things to do. In the meantime, like Chairman Warner, I expect a new administration will be requesting a supplemental. But that is not my decision to make. I am hopeful that will be the case. In addition to some of the readiness problems and personnel issues we are dealing with now in the military, I think one of the biggest challenges Secretary Rumsfeld is going to face is space and how we utilize space. Of course, Secretary Rumsfeld understands that as well as anybody. He chaired the space commission, so-called, that was created in our Armed Services defense bill. I was proud to be the author of that language. One of the plain reasons is the U.S. economy is so strong that we should use our satellite capabilities to fuel our new information-based science. Satellites support Americans every day. I don't think we realize how important they are. They support our weather, help hunters and boaters navigate; they provide pagers and telephones to communicate with travelers anywhere on the surface of the Earth. But we cannot stop there, however. We must also keep our promises to those who have already given a lifetime of service to this country. Just as our soldiers, sailors, and airmen were there for us, protecting us--we must be there for our veterans and military retirees. Therefore, I am introducing legislation today to eliminate the military survivor's benefit penalty. Mr. President, this legislation will repeal the existing reduction in the Survivor Benefit Plan spouses currently suffer when they reach the age of 62. Today, after years of paying heavy premiums for this optional benefit, survivors of military retirees receive 55 percent of their spouses service pay prior to age 62. However, once these spouses reach age 62, their benefits are drastically reduced to only 35 percent. The overwhelming majority of these beneficiaries are women. This reduction in benefits will have a devastating effect on their quality of life. In addition to eliminating this reduction in benefits which retired military spouses incur when they turn 62, [[Page S1323]] spouses whose loved one passed away after their 62nd birthday will also receive full 55 percent. Passage of this important legislation will bring the military Survivor Benefits Plan more in line with other Federal and civil servants employee health plans. After a lifetime of sacrifice, we owe it to our military retirees to provide them with peace of mind that their spouse will be taken care of after their death. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support our retirees and pass this legislation immediately. One of the many important defense challenges President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld face is protecting America's lead in space activities. One of the main reasons the U.S. economy is so strong is our use of satellite capabilities to fuel our new information-based society. Satellites support Americans every day. For example, they support our weather forecasts, help hunters and boaters navigate, provide pagers and phones that can communicate with travelers anywhere on the surface of the earth, and allow farmers to check on the health of their fields. Our soldiers, sailors, and airmen also rely on space assets. Accordingly, the utilization of space will also be at the forefront of our national security agenda during this century, and I will work to ensure that America expands its leadership in this military arena. To help the nation better posture for that future challenge, I authored the provision in the FY2000 Defense Authorization Act that created a commission 2 years ago called the ``Commission to Assess National Security Space Management and Organization,'' more commonly known today as the Space Commission. Coincidentally, the chairman chosen last year to lead that commission became our new Secretary of Defense--Donald Rumsfeld. Last month, they finished their work, and I commend Secretary Rumsfeld, the commissioners, and the staff for their outstanding work, and for thoroughly pulling together a great deal of research and data. The Commission's findings confirm my long-held view of the growing importance of space to the nation and my belief that space management and organization reforms are urgently needed as America's commercial, civil, and military reliance on space assets expands. The Commission's recommendations lay the foundations for what I have often maintained--military space activities should evolve to the eventual creation of a separate Space Force. The United States has shown the world the value of space in providing information superiority on the modern battlefield. As we move into the new century, we need to: Defend our current space-based information superiority; be able to deny our adversaries that same capability (thorough programs I have long supported like KE- SAT and Clementine); and leverage the uniqueness of space to be able to rapidly project military force around the world (thorough programs I have long supported like Space Plane). We need a strong advocate for space to fight for and justify these new space programs needed for the 21st century in competition with many other pressing military investment requirements. Near-term management and organization reforms recommended by the Commission will begin to put in place the leadership and advocacy for space programs that have long been lacking. Another of the many defense challenges President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld face is protecting America from missile attack. I salute the administration's commitment to deploying a robust missile defense for this nation. Many Americans don't realize that the United States does not have a defense against a missile attack today. Meanwhile, for years, Russia has deployed various missile defenses around Moscow and other sites which has been ignored by ABM Treaty proponents. These missiles could carry weapons of mass destruction--a nuclear, chemical, or biological warhead that could wreak havoc on a U.S. city. We have a constitutional responsibility to defend America. Homeland defense from missile attack is essential. With such a threat hanging over our leader's head, it is impossible to contemplate engaging globally in the best interest of the United States--no President would risk a U.S. city to come to the aid of an ally. Worst yet, countries like China and North Korea continue to proliferate missile technology to rogue nations. I am pleased that the President and his Cabinet have been so pro- active in explaining this important issue to our allies. A U.S. missile defense system, both theater and national is not intended as a threat to any nation. It is intended to defend America, and we have a duty to deploy such a defense. While I salute the military's efforts to develop a near-term missile- defense capability, I want to work with the administration to ensure we have a robust, multilayered architecture that includes the current land-based concept with sea-, air-, and space-based systems to eliminate this threat to U.S. cities and our deployed forces. Today, President Bush visited the only NATO facility on U.S. soil at the Joint Forces Command at Norfolk, VA. President Bush watched an allied U.S.-NATO coordinated response to a simulated missile attack. I understand the President commented ``Pretty exciting technology, and it's only going to get better.`` I agree that this technology is only going to get better. America needs to make a commitment to protect it's citizens from threats that come on a missile, including biological and chemical weapons. I look forward to working with the new administration, President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, to rebuild our military and set the nation on the right course for the new century. Let me assure the military, help has arrived. Finally, continuing on the area of missile defense, this is a very important challenge faced by President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld in protecting the United States. Over the last several years, I have been involved in so many debates on the floor, so many discussions. I know the Senator from Oklahoma has as well. We are trying to save a national missile defense program only to have it put off with some wordsmithing or delay. I salute President Bush's commitment to deploying a robust missile defense for this Nation. It is immoral not to do it. I also salute, because it was his birthday a few days ago, President Reagan on his 90th birthday for being the visionary he was on this issue. It was Ronald Reagan who really convinced Gorbachev that we could have built that thing 20 years ago when, in fact, we couldn't. Because he convinced Gorbachev that we could and that it might be a threat to him, the Soviet Union essentially folded as the threat that it was to the world in the cold war for so long. Ronald Reagan knew this could be done. He was laughed at, still is to some extent on that issue. But 10, 15, 20 years from now, when we have this thing up and going and it is protecting our troops in the field, protecting our allies and protecting our own homeland, Ronald Reagan will get the credit he deserves so richly for coming up with that visionary promise of a missile defense system. Russia has deployed various missile defenses around Moscow and other sites which have been ignored by the ABM Treaty proponents. These missiles could carry weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological, that could wreak havoc on a U.S. city, and we have basically ignored it. We have a constitutional responsibility to defend America. I can remember seeing little tapes of so-called focus groups where they would ask 15 or 20 people in a room what would happen if another nation, such as China or Iran or Iraq, fired a missile at the United States of America. All of them answered: We would shoot it down. All of them were wrong. We do not have the capability to shoot down such a missile, but we need that capability. We need the capability to shoot it down over the aggressor's homeland, not over ourselves. So that is where this missile defense system is so important. I hear the criticisms: It won't work; it is too expensive; we don't need it. The bottom line is, if we can defend America from any missile attack, whether it be accidental or deliberate [[Page S1324]] or whatever, we need to do it. That is our obligation. We have a constitutional responsibility to defend America. Homeland defense from missile attack is the moral thing to do. With such a threat hanging over our leader's head, it is impossible to contemplate engaging globally in the best interests of the United States. No President should risk a U.S. city to come to the aid of an ally. And worst yet, China, North Korea, and other nations continue to proliferate missile technology. There is some really shocking documentation, both public as well as classified, that will tell us that this is a serious matter. I am pleased the President and Secretary of Defense and his Cabinet have been so proactive in explaining this important issue to our allies. I understand that Secretary Rumsfeld went to Europe, was very forceful to our allies, saying: You are free nations. You have the right to your views, but our view is we need to protect ourselves and to defend this system and build this system, and we are going to do it. In closing, I will just say I look forward to working with President Bush, working with my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to improve our readiness, to improve pay for our military and benefits, to cut all of the excessive operations throughout the world that are not really related to defense and get our military morale back. It is going to be exciting, and I look forward to being a part of it. ___________________