Replies

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEAR 1991--CONFERENCE REPORT (Senate - October 26, 1986)

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am opposing the Department of Defense authorization and appropriations conference reports on the grounds that they do not represent sound budgetary policy.

At this time of extreme budget austerity and with the dramatic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe that have occurred, we can, and should, make larger reductions in defense. Larger reductions can be made without jeopardizing our Nation's security.

These bills afforded the Congress an opportunity to do more than just talk about reducing the deficit over the next 5 years. Unfortunately, we have failed that test, particularly since we have continued funding for wasteful programs and programs for which there is not any rational justification from a national security standpoint.

The B-2 Stealth Bomber Program is a case in point. This is one of the most costly, waste-ridden programs in a long history of waste, fraud and abuse scandals that have plagued Pentagon spending, particularly over the past decade.

The primary contractor for the B-2's, Northrop Corp., is currently the subject of 7 grand jury probes and 11 criminal investigations stemming from problems associated with defense contracts it has received in recent years.

Even top U.S. Air Force officials have taken the unprecedented step of charging publicly that Northrop is so poorly managed that it cannot account for the cost of many programs, and has suffered major breakdowns in the production of every weapon the Pentagon reviewed. Yet, we are still funding this program to the tune of nearly $900 million per plane.

The bills also contain funds for the continuation of the strategic defense initiative. Along with the B-2, the SDI is a product of the cold war era. And as the crisis in the Persian Gulf should demonstrate, we need to spend money on defense requirements to meet real threats, rather theoretical threats of the past. We can only undermine our legitimate defense needs.

But most of all, these bills undermine our ability to come to grips, in a meaningful way, with the serious deficit problem facing this country. The deficit-reduction package with which we have been struggling has to be fair. It is time for the Pentagon to take its fair share of cuts, rather than pressing for billions of dollars for programs that are fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse and which do nothing to contribute to the strong defense of our Nation. The time is long overdue for us to end the military-industrial corporate welfare complex that has relentlessly chewed up taxpayers' dollars for far too long.

I support strongly our critical military mission in the Persian Gulf. And I will continue to support all reasonable costs necessary to maintain the effectiveness of this effort. However, it is a bit much to ask the American taxpayers to continue investing their hard-earned dollars in wasteful program that only serve to undermine our legitimate defense needs.

I think this is what Hannity was just talking about.
101st congress 1st session S1798

IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY FOR THE TERRORIST MURDER OF UNITED STATES NATIONALS ABROAD (Senate - October 26, 1989)

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, anyone who intentionally murders an American citizen in cold blood as a political killing has committed a crime that deserves the most terrible punishment that any civilized country can impose.

The great irony of the Specter legislation is that by imposing the death penalty on terrorists who murder Americans abroad, is that we are doing the one thing that would make it most likely that they would never face justice in the United States.

As Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Gregorie told me in testimony before the subcommittee I Chair, the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Narcotics, the death penalty would be counterproductive.

Gregorie, who brought the indictments against General Noriega, Jorge Ochoa and other members of the Medellin cartel, and who devoted a career to prosecuting the most terrible narcotics traffickers and terrorists, told the subcommittee that the death penalty would only hurt U.S. law enforcement.

Let me quote directly the testimony he gave on July 12, 1989:

[Page: S14230]
Most countries in Europe and in Latin America will not extradite anyone if the death penalty is a possible penalty as a result of that extradition, so that if we are trying to get the Colombians to send us drug lords, and we are trying to get the Germans or French to send them to us, they won't do it if they believe that the death penalty is a possibility.

I was a prosecutor. I put people behind bars for committing terrible crimes, and a lot of them are still there, which is where they should be. When a terrorist kills an American citizen, he should be tried, convicted, and put in prison for the rest of his life without any possibility of getting out. We should literally, throw away the key.

Because, in fact, I believe that there is a punishment that is worse than the death penalty--life imprisonment, at hard labor, with no possibility of parole or furlough. We should be that tough for those who commit these deplorable acts of terrorism. They should know--for certain--that every single day, for as long as they live, they will be punished and suffer for their crime. They should know every morning that they will work at hard labor, that they will have no freedom, and that every single morning they will face the same misery for as long as they are alive.

But what is the point of imposing the death penalty on terrorists if the result is the terrorist will never face trial in the United States?

This amendment would frustrate law enforcement, and interfere with the prosecution of terrorists. It would damage the very cause of prosecuting terrorists that it purports to advance. In this case, the emotional appeal of an eye-for-eye should not be permitted to obscure that fact that in passing this amendment we would actually be helping terrorists avoid the one thing they fear most--extradition to the United States to face justice.

Moreover, Mr. President, given the nature of international terrorism that we see in the world today is it not likely that inflicting the death penalty on terrorists would simply fan the flames of passion that are the spawning places of terrorism in the first place? Would not foreign terrorists put to death in America, quickly become the martyrs whose deaths would be avenged with untold additional atrocities? Do we really believe that imposing the death penalty on a terrorist will not simply multiply the killing and maiming on all sides?

In addition, won't terrorist organizations whipped into a frenzy by a U.S.-imposed death penalty, or one of the faithful, thirsts for revenge until it is quenched? Americans are far more likely to be targets of expanded terrorism if we impose a death penalty than if we do not.

Mr. President, we should make life a living hell for any terrorist who kills an American. Ironically, this legislation may instead cause the terrorist and those who share his cause, whatever it might be, to be seen as a martyr and that is certainly not in America's interest, the interest of humanity, or the interest of the victim.

Accordingly, I will vote against the Specter amendment.