[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 81 (Thursday, June 23, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
       NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I hope we can get this amendment up. Senator 
Kempthorne will be able to present it. I appreciate him coming over.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman providing 
the opportunity so I can present the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment, 
Johnston amendment, will be temporarily laid aside.


                           Amendment No. 1849

 (Purpose: To redirect funds authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 
  year 1995 for the Contributions for International Peacekeeping and 
                   Peace Enforcement Activities Fund)

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself, Senator McCain, Senator Smith, and Senator Coats and 
ask for its immediate consideration
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kemp- thorne], for himself, Mr. 
     McCain, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Coats, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1849.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 219, after line 19, insert the following:
       (d) Purposes for Which Funds Available.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (g) of section 403 of title 10, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (b)(1), funds appropriated 
     pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 
     301(20) may not be expended for paying assessments for United 
     Nations peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations 
     (including any arrearages under such assessments). The funds 
     so appropriated shall be credited, in equal amounts, to 
     appropriations for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine 
     Corps for fiscal year 1995 for operation and maintenance in 
     order to enhance training and readiness of the Armed Forces 
     and to offset any expenditure of training funds for such 
     fiscal year for incremental costs incurred by the United 
     States for support of peacekeeping operations for such fiscal 
     year.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, the amendment now before the Senate 
would alter the defense authorization bill's language regarding the use 
of DOD to pay for part of our U.N. peacekeeping assessment. Under the 
bill's current language, $300 million in DOD funds are authorized to 
reimburse ourselves when our troops support U.N. peacekeeping 
operations and to pay the U.S. share of the U.N. peacekeeping 
assessment in cases where our troops participate.
  My amendment would alter this provision and direct that this $300 
million be used to augment the Department of Defense's training and 
readiness accounts. Specifically, the $300 million authorized by this 
act would be made available to enhance the training and readiness of 
our Armed Forces. In addition, my amendment would prohibit the 
Department of Defense from using these funds to pay the U.S. share of 
the U.N. peacekeeping assessment and arrearages. My amendment would 
do nothing to alter the existing procedures that allow State Department 
funds from the foreign operations appropriations bill from being used 
to pay our U.N. peacekeeping assessment. Instead, my amendment would 
stop the effort to shift a portion of this significant responsibility 
to the Department of Defense.

  My amendment is an effort to direct DOD funds away from the United 
Nations and focus our limited resources on the training and readiness 
of our Armed Forces. As the newspapers demonstrate every morning, we 
still live in a dangerous world and the men and women who wear the 
uniform of the United States troops may be sent to North Korea, Haiti 
or Bosnia and Herzegovina on any given day. Enhanced training and 
readiness means more of these American men and women will come back 
from those types of conflict.
  My amendment also has two other objectives. First, we need to draw a 
line in the sand and say from now on defense dollars will be used for 
actual defense capabilities. No more using defense funds to pay for 
everyone's favorite project which cannot be funded in its own account.
  Second, my amendment will put the United Nations on notice that 
America is paying more than its fair share for peacekeeping and we need 
to address this inequity.
  Since the end of the cold war, the United Nations and the United 
States have embarked on an increasing number of peacekeeping 
operations. While we have participated in traditional peacekeeping 
operations for decades, with the end of the cold war peacekeeping and 
peace-enforcement operations seem to be assuming a greater and greater 
role in U.S. national security policy. The U.S. involvement in 
``peacemaking'' operations raises serious questions about the criteria 
used to determine when we should participate in these operations and 
how these operations should be funded.
  The administration has adopted a new peacekeeping policy, 
Presidential Decision Directive 25, which seeks to address these and 
other seminal questions. The fiscal year 1995 Defense Authorization Act 
seeks to implement this policy by establishing an account at the 
Department of Defense to pay a portion of the U.S. peacekeeping bill 
from the United Nations.
  The fiscal year 1995 defense authorization bill now before the Senate 
represents, as has been stated repeatedly, the 10th straight year of 
reductions in defense spending, and I do not believe, given all of the 
tough choices the Armed Services Committee and the Senate must make 
regarding defense spending, that we should add the U.N. peacekeeping 
bill to the Department of Defense's responsibilities.
  As I stated to Ambassador Albright earlier this year, I strongly 
oppose the proposal to force the Department of Defense to pay for U.N. 
peacekeeping operations. As I see it, someone determined that the 
Congress would not support increasing the foreign aid budget so the 
administration has targeted DOD funds to pay for its multilateral 
policies.
  I suspect that the proposed $300 million installment in fiscal year 
1995 will be the foot in the door and next year the administration will 
come back to us to request more DOD funds to pay our U.N. peacekeeping 
bill. In fact, I am told the administration was actually hoping the 
Congress would provide $600 million in DOD funds in fiscal year 1995 to 
pay for the U.S. share of U.N. peacekeeping operations.
  Opponents of my amendment will say that we need DOD funds going to 
the U.N. so that DOD can take the lead on peacekeeping operations, a 
question of jurisdiction. Now I understand the concept of shared 
responsibility but I do not believe DOD funds must be contributed 
before the Department's military expertise can be brought to bear on 
U.N. and U.S. peacekeeping operations.
  More importantly, I do not believe the rest of the world is paying 
its fair share of the world peacekeeping burden. I applaud the 
administration's effort to reduce our U.N. peacekeeping assessment from 
31.7 percent to 25 percent but I believe this figure grossly 
underestimates the cost, to the American taxpayer, of the U.S. 
contribution to U.N. peacekeeping operations. Let me recite a few 
facts. In fiscal year 1994, the United Nations expects to spend about 
$3.5 billion on peacekeeping operations. Of this $3.5 billion, the 
United States will get a bill or ``assessment'' for over $1 billion. At 
the same time, United States military forces are supporting U.N. 
peacekeeping operations, humanitarian missions and Security Council 
resolutions in Iraq, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Haiti. Yet as I 
understand it, because we have wisely decided not to put our troops 
under the command of the United Nations, these military actions must be 
``donated'' or ``volunteered'' by the United States. As a result, we 
will receive almost no compensation or credit for these deployments.
  As members of this committee recall, earlier this year the 
administration requested, and the Congress approved, a $1.2 billion 
supplemental appropriation to cover the incremental costs of these 
donated peacekeeping operations. Officials from the DOD comptroller 
office tell my staff that we might get about $100 million back from the 
United Nations for these $1.2 billion expenses. So as I see, the United 
States is scheduled to pay about $2.1 billion of a total world 
peacekeeping bill of $4.7 billion. That is over 44 percent of the bill 
paid by the American taxpayer and that is too much and I believe that 
is wrong.
  I want to urge my colleagues to support my amendment and help bring 
some equity and balance to the payment of the U.N. peacekeeping bill. I 
hope a majority of my colleagues will support this amendment because I 
believe that American people will not stand for a policy that asks them 
to pay for almost half of the world peacekeeping operations, and at the 
same time to take it from the DOD budget, where we are already seeing 
our 10th year of declining amounts in the Department of Defense 
budgets.

  We have a chance here today to put pressure on the United Nations to 
fix its burden-sharing equation for international peacekeeping 
operations so that the other nations of the world pay their fair share. 
I hope that we do not miss this opportunity.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, could I propose to Senator Kempthorne a 
unanimous consent agreement that there be a total of 40 minutes debate 
on this amendment, equally divided from this point on; that the time be 
equally divided and controlled in the usual form, with no amendment 
thereto, no amendment in order to the amendment, or any language which 
may be stricken; and that when the time is used or yielded back, the 
Senate, without any intervening action or debate, vote on or in 
relation to the amendment.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I will be happy to agree to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the request is agreed to.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
allocated to the quorum call be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I am going to say a few words about this 
amendment. I know there are people who have been very involved in this, 
Senator Levin from Michigan and others, who may want to come over to 
speak.
  Mr. President, I oppose this amendment.
  We did substantially alter the administration's request in the 
peacekeeping area. The specific nature of the amendment, basically, as 
I understand it, takes $300 million that is in the bill that would pay 
for peacekeeping operations where U.S. combat forces are involved, and 
would be able to use $300 million to make sure those assessments are 
paid only where U.S. combat forces are involved and shifts that to the 
overall readiness accounts; am I correct in that interpretation?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Yes.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, section 1032 of the bill before us 
established up to $300 million in contributions to international 
peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations, so-called CIPA funds, to 
pay the United Nations assessment for U.N. operations in which U.S. 
combat forces participate.
  The administration had originally requested that CIPA funds be used 
to fund assessments for those U.N. peacekeeping operations in which 
U.S. combat forces participate, as well as all U.N. peace enforcement 
operations. Our bill did not agree with the administration's request on 
the broader purposes and limited the use of CIPA funds to U.N. 
peacekeeping operations in which U.S. combat forces participate, since 
we believe that such operations are the ones in which we have an 
overriding interest to assure that they are properly funded.
  Mr. President, if this amendment passes, the paradoxical result of it 
will be that because the United States is so far in arrears on our 
overall United Nations participation--and this bill does not catch up 
in any way on that--we could be in a position of having U.S. forces 
participating in a U.N. operation, but the other people who are asked 
to participate not having enough confidence that they are going to be 
reimbursed for their participation to be willing to commit.
  I know that is not the Senator's intention. But it seems to me it is 
in our interest, when U.S. combat forces are sent to a U.N. 
peacekeeping operation, to assure that there is enough funding, enough 
robust funding so that all the United Nations kinds of reimbursements 
can be made and so that the other countries that we want to participate 
alongside of will be willing to commit their military forces.
  We are reaching a point where the United Nations is so hard up for 
cash that we are going to have increasing difficulty getting other 
countries to participate. The last thing we want is the U.S. forces to 
be participating alone.
  So I understand, based on some of the past actions of the United 
Nations, why there would be people who are skeptical about any 
commitment of U.S. forces. But this amendment, if it passes, does not 
prevent U.S. forces from being engaged in those operations. It simply 
prevents DOD funds from being used to pay for our part of those 
operations.
  If that is the case, then we would have to look to the State 
Department budget, and all of us know that that budget itself is 
woefully short of the ability to pay for these kinds of operations.
  I hope, at some point in the future, the State Department will be 
properly funded. But, in the meantime, I think it is in the United 
States interests for U.S. combat forces to be assured that, when they 
are called on to participate in U.N. peacekeeping, that they will have 
allies fighting alongside them and that the United Nations itself will 
be in a financial position to carry out the kind of contingency 
peacekeeping operations with effectiveness and efficiency.
  So, for those reasons, I oppose the Kempthorne amendment.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the chairman yield for a question?
  Mr. NUNN. I have yielded the floor. It is on the Senator's time. I am 
going to be short of time.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I will make it a short question.
  I ask the chairman, would he agree that in order for the United 
States to be reimbursed, we have to put our troops under U.N. command, 
based on the requirements of current policy?
  Mr. NUNN. I think the Senator is correct in that.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I see that as a very important element. We know that 
we have the finest fighting forces in the world. Therefore, why should 
we put them under U.N. command?
  I think in Somalia we saw, unfortunately, the demonstration that the 
United Nations is not prepared for that type of command. We should not 
subject our troops to that same sort of situation. But in order to 
receive reimbursement we have to put them under U.N. command and I 
reject that.
  Then the chairman made the point that we may be in arrears, and we 
will be paying off those assessments so we are equal with the other 
countries. But I will quote a statement that Ambassador Madeleine 
Albright made to a subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee on May 
12.
  ``Successful U.N. peacekeeping operations serve our interests.'' And 
I do not disagree. ``But they will more likely succeed if we have met 
fully our obligation to help pay for them, and if we encourage other 
member states who have fallen behind in their payments to do the 
same.''
  There are a number of countries who have not paid their assessments, 
yet the United States, both through its assessment and through the 
supplemental--and through the operations we have undertaken in Haiti 
and Bosnia and Iraq--we are not getting credit for that. So we are 
paying far more than our fair share. This helps us to correct that.
  And, Mr. President, I make this point, too. I think we are very 
fortunate, I will say, to have Chairman Nunn as chairman of Armed 
Services and Senator Thurmond as the ranking member. I think we have 
great leadership of the Armed Services Committee. I am proud to be a 
member of that committee. I know the number of projects we are not able 
to pay for that I think we should be paying for both in readiness and 
equipment, so we can support the men and women in uniform. And now here 
is $300 million more that is being taken out of that account so we 
cannot cover those essential needs, the needs at home, first, with 
leadership that would direct it to the appropriate needs.
  That $300 million is now taken away from us for that sort of use. 
That is why I believe we should adopt this amendment. We know best 
where that money can be spent in the Department of Defense.
  I reserve the remainder of my time, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on the subject of U.N. command, I hope our 
colleague will take a look at our provision, legislative provision in 
the bill where we state, in paragraph 7 of page 212 here, ``United 
States combat forces should not be under the command and control of 
foreign commanders in peace enforcement operations conducted by the 
United Nations except in the most extraordinary circumstances.''
  So our intent here is that there be a U.S. commander but that U.S. 
commander would, in many cases, have a U.N. hat. The U.N. commander can 
be an American, and in many cases will be an American.
  For instance, in Mogadishu the commander of forces is a U.N. 
commander, but is also an American commander. We have operated that way 
for a long time. We did that in Korea. The whole Korean war was fought 
under U.N. command, but America was in charge.
  I think most people would acknowledge it is in our interests to have 
other countries in the world fighting with us. Under those 
circumstances it almost inevitably has to be a U.N. commander to 
basically get them to participate. But that commander will usually, 
except in extraordinary circumstances, be an American.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no Senator yields time, 
time will be deducted equally from both sides.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would like to respond to what the 
chairman has stated. I agree with the provision he just read. But I 
also go back to what the policy states, and that is, in order for the 
United States to be reimbursed American troops have to be under U.N. 
command. It may be American command but it may not be. And I do not 
believe United States troops should be under U.N. command.
  Again, we have seen in Somalia that that was not successful.
  I know the chairman of the Armed Services Committee could present to 
us now a long list of items that we could more appropriately and 
effectively be spending $300 million on in our Department of Defense 
than giving this money to the United Nations. And that is the intent of 
this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, if I could just take 30 more seconds and 
then I will yield the floor. In Somalia we went through those hearings 
very carefully. We had commanders, both Montgomery and Garrison, before 
us. It is clear, very clear from the record, our forces there during 
that period of time where there was the real trouble, the combat forces 
were not under U.N. command. They were under U.S. commanders. The 
record is abundantly clear on that. We had certain logistics forces 
under U.N. command, but the forces in the Somalia raid which ended up 
as a tragedy with so many Americans killed were under United States 
command. We had clear and abundant testimony on that. They were not 
under U.N. command. It was a tragedy and the overall--some of the 
overall policy was U.N. policy. U.N. policy was developed by the 
Security Council, that we voted on.
  So whatever mistakes were made at the United Nations, we were fully 
in participation in those, as tragic as those results may have been. 
But the U.S. command, the combat command on the ground--it was not 
U.N., it was U.S.--General Montgomery was the overall commander, and 
then we had American commanders under him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, in January of this year I went to 
Mogadishu and I met with General Montgomery. I also met with General 
Bier, who was the U.N. commander, the general from Turkey. Both 
gentlemen expressed their frustration with the structure that was in 
place--and I say both men because they were dealing with the structure 
from different aspects.
  The important point I would like to make is that the support troops, 
to support our U.S. troops, were under General Bier, the United 
Nations. And that was a problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I yield time to the Senator from South Carolina. Mr. 
President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has 14 minutes and 35 
seconds remaining; the Senator from Georgia has 11 minutes, 16 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has 8 minutes.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by the able Senator from Idaho. In the short time he 
has been in the Senate, Senator Kempthorne has proved to be a most 
effective member of the Armed Services Committee. I commend him for 
bringing this amendment to the floor.
  The Kempthorne amendment would reallocate the $300 million currently 
in the defense authorization bill for United Nations peacekeeping 
assessments to the Defense Department's operation and maintenance 
account. It would be used primarily to cover training shortfalls.
  I believe the Defense budget should not have been burdened with $300 
million for U.N. peacekeeping in the first place. If the peacekeeping 
account remains in the bill, the Defense budget will bear direct 
responsibility for payment of U.N. peacekeeping efforts for the first 
time. This is a major step--one that I believe is not in the best 
interests of the Nation or the armed services.
  I am not opposed to U.N. peacekeeping in principle, nor is the 
Senator from Idaho. There are times when the United States should 
participate in such activities. But I feel strongly that our first 
priority is to be able to act unilaterally in our national interests 
when necessary.
  In authorizing the peacekeeping account, the committee bill puts the 
seal of approval on the administration's expanded new policy for U.N. 
peace operations, as embodied in Presidential Decision Directive 25 
[PDD-25]. But many members on both sides are not aware of the full 
implications of this new policy. PDD-25 and its doctrine of ``assertive 
multilateralism'' represent a quiet but significant revolution in U.S. 
security policy. The result of this policy may turn out to be increased 
subordination of American military forces and U.S. foreign policy to 
the United Nations. Before we embark upon such a sweeping new policy, 
we ought to examine its potential impact upon the Nation's interests 
and in particular on U.S. military capabilities.
  I also believe that in the future there will be pressure to eliminate 
the restrictions placed by the committee on the peacekeeping account. 
Once the defense budget becomes a legitimate source of U.N. 
peacekeeping funds, there will be no principled argument in the future 
not to remove the restrictions on its use, or raise the amount. The 
result will be the expanding use of defense funds for U.N. activities, 
and a corresponding decrease in congressional accountability and 
control.

  We need more congressional control and oversight of peacekeeping, not 
less. I hope that the peacekeeping account in the bill will not make it 
easier for the administration to embark upon dubious U.N. ventures, 
with possibly even more tragic results than those we suffered in 
Somalia.
  To summarize the arguments in favor of the amendment:
  Without the amendment, the Senate will appear to be giving tacit 
approval to PDD-25 without full knowledge of its provisions.
  Without the amendment, the Department of Defense, for the first time, 
will be using its appropriations to pay the United Nations directly for 
a peacekeeping effort.
  Some $300 million would be of substantial benefit to the forces in 
the area of training.
  Without the amendment, there is a temptation to involve U.S. forces 
in peacekeeping efforts in order to recoup some of the funds sent to 
the United Nations.
  We are already doing our share for peacekeeping. We will pay roughly 
$1 billion for peacekeeping for fiscal year 1994.
  The United Nations has a questionable method of accounting for funds 
to include the accounting for peacekeeping funds.
  Having crossed the threshold of putting peacekeeping funds directly 
in the DOD budget, the $300 million could grow from year to year, 
adding to pressure on the DOD budget.
  Mr. President, for these reasons I favor the amendment and hope it 
will be adopted. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 11 minutes 15 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. NUNN. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 6 
minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I thank the chairman for yielding 
some time to me.
  We have received a very significant letter from General Shalikashvili 
and Secretary of Defense Perry. It is a letter which is addressed 
actually not to us but to the Vice President as President of the 
Senate. I want to read from this letter as it relates to this amendment 
because it seems to me it makes the critical point which should be made 
against the pending amendment.

       We write to express our support for the language in the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995 
     relating to international peacekeeping and peace enforcement 
     activities.

  Then General Shalikashvili and Secretary Perry go on to say the 
following:

       The President's peacekeeping policy makes disciplined 
     choices concerning which peace operations to support, reduces 
     U.S. costs for U.N. operations, clearly defines the command 
     and control arrangements for U.S. forces participating in 
     U.N. peace operations, reforms the U.N.'s ability to manage 
     peace operations, improves the way the U.S. Government 
     manages and funds peace operations and establishes more 
     effective cooperation between the executive branch, the 
     Congress and the American public on peace operations.
       Pursuant to the President's policy directive, the 
     Department of Defense has proposed the creation of a special 
     Department of Defense account for international peacekeeping 
     and peace enforcement activities, which includes a budget 
     request of $300 million for fiscal year 1995 to fund U.S. 
     assessed contributions for those operations in which the 
     Department of Defense has the lead management responsibility 
     for the United States Government. The Senate Armed Services 
     Committee's legislative recommendation authorizes the 
     creation of this account at the level requested by the 
     President for U.N. operations in which we participate, either 
     with forces or with logistics support and is an important 
     step toward implementing the President's policy to reform 
     U.N. peace operations.

  And the bottom line, they say--again, we are talking about the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense:

       We urge you to support the language as reported by the 
     Armed Services Committee and to oppose any amendments which 
     seek to restrict the committee's proposed language.

  The amendment before us does exactly that; it restricts the 
committee's proposed language. And that is why General Shalikashvili 
and Secretary Perry so strongly oppose it, for the reasons that they 
gave earlier.
  We had General Zinni before us recently. He was the nominee to be 
commanding general of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. I think he 
was just confirmed this week. I think actually just 2 days ago. He has 
been involved in operations in Bangladesh, Iraq and Somalia. He has a 
lot of direct experience when it comes to peacekeeping and peace 
enforcement. He is, frankly, critical of many aspects of the United 
Nations recent performance running peace operations in particularly 
dangerous settings and skeptical of the United Nations current command-
and-control capabilities, as many of us are. Indeed, I am critical of 
much of the United Nations command structure or the lack thereof.
  General Zinni, who we just confirmed, is a hardnosed marine and he is 
a realistic observer. He believes that the United States has a 
responsibility and an opportunity to lead in improving the United 
Nations in trying to make multinational operations work. This is what 
he told the Armed Services Committee:

       The future is multinational operations. We ought to provide 
     resources, leadership and personnel to do it right. The only 
     alternative is to establish an isolationist position or to 
     dangerously stretch our already thin military capability to 
     meet unplanned forward commitments in an ad hoc manner. 
     Regional instability, drug trafficking, threats to the 
     environment, overwhelming human catastrophes, mass slaughter, 
     threats to democracies are examples of events that could 
     conceivably involve our interest. We should attempt to deal 
     with them in an international context to promote burden 
     sharing and to gain a sense of international legitimacy, but 
     that will require our leadership and participation.

  I urge all Members of this body to particularly read the letter from 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense 
that oppose any amendment which would restrict the committee's proposed 
language in this area, and the pending amendment surely falls into that 
category. I hope that it is rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Simon). The Senator from Idaho is 
recognized.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Indiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I want to rise to support the amendment of 
my friend and colleague from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne. $300 million is 
a lot of money. There is a broader question here, however, that I think 
needs to be addressed.
  Clearly, we are stretching the limits of our ability to provide 
readiness and training for our troops, and directing these funds to 
that purpose is a worthy one. At the same time, I think it sends the 
very clear decision on the part of this Congress that there are other 
functions for which this money ought to be allocated. It should not 
come out of Department of Defense functions.
  However, it is that broader question which most concerns me and one 
which I hope we can find the time to address.
  The administration has proposed and has, in fact, now written a new 
directive, PDD-25, which outlines the when and how of U.S. involvement 
in U.N. and multilateral peacekeeping operations. It discusses peace 
enforcing as well as peacekeeping in both chapter 6 and chapter 7 of 
the United Nations Charter, and it raises a number of questions which I 
do not believe have been thoroughly aired and thoroughly discussed.
  We do not have the time under this amendment to do that. I had hoped 
to be able to do that. Obviously, in 2 minutes that is not possible.
  But I would hope that both the Armed Services Committee as well as 
the Foreign Relations Committee and the entire Senate could give some 
very serious attention to how and why and when we involve U.S. troops 
in conflicts around the world, and how and why and when we integrate 
them with U.N. peacekeeping and peace enforcing operations.
  There are many questions that have not been answered. I hope we can 
do that. In the meantime, I hope my colleagues will support this 
amendment which moves us in that direction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has 6 minutes 51 
seconds remaining; the Senator from Georgia has 5 minutes 50 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment. I 
appreciate the efforts put into this amendment by my colleague from 
Idaho.
  A lot has been said about this amendment. I would like to just talk a 
little bit about the aspect of the peacekeeping impact on our training 
and readiness. Training is the backbone of readiness. The level of 
sophistication, quantity and quality of our military training structure 
is the means through which we guarantee that our Nation will be 
victorious under any conditions and that we will do so with minimal 
loss of life to our own troops. We proved this clearly during Desert 
Storm.
  We no longer have the force structure with which we fought the war in 
the desert and the turnaround times for our carrier battle groups and 
divisions have compressed from 18 months to 12 months. These compressed 
training schedules do not violate requirements put in place to protect 
the morale of our troops, but we certainly have to wonder if today's 
schedules are in keeping with the spirit of our arrangements. We can 
still maintain a reasonable level of readiness with a reasonable amount 
of sacrifice on the part of our forces that will not riot, strike or 
sue. That is the type of people we attract. But the only thing our 
troops expect is we will send them forth inadequately prepared never.
  Where this simple expectation starts to become impossible to fulfill 
is when we start committing our forces to peacekeeping operations that 
do not pass the tests set in other questions raised by the Senator from 
Idaho.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed 3 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Could we just basically propound a unanimous-consent that 
there be an additional 10 minutes to be equally divided because we are 
going to give out time on both sides and that will give us a rollcall 
vote at 6:30, possibly, is that right? Am I correct in that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to that request? Without 
objection, each side is given an additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for just one 
moment?
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I just finish, please, I ask the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has the floor.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would yield an additional 3 minutes 
to the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for an 
additional 3 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I do not want to hold up the unanimous-consent request 
but there will be then no more votes until a time certain?
  Mr. NUNN. Yes. We will vote at approximately 6:30, and there would be 
a window here with no rollcall votes until at least 8:30, and possibly 
as long as quarter of 9.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. As I was saying, Mr. President, the expectations that our 
men and women in the military have start to become impossible when we 
start committing our forces to peacekeeping operations that do not, 
indeed, allow them to maintain the level of readiness that is 
necessary. A unit that is halfway through a 12-months training cycle 
that suddenly finds itself holding down an airport, beachhead or 
protecting peace workers is not half ready. Training is not divisible 
in clearly defined increments. It also follows that when that unit 
returns after 6, 8, or more months after peacekeeping duty, they will 
not be able to resume the training program at the point they left off.
  Toward this end, this amendment seeks to protect the fiscal means 
through which our military can attempt to recoup some of its lost 
training. Training left incomplete as a result of commitments to U.N. 
missions cannot be readily replaced. It is simply gone at some cost to 
the price of peacekeeping.
  My belief is that this amendment will offer DOD freedom from an 
additional injurious financial obligation incurred by paying a portion 
of U.N. assessments. DOD funds are intended to provide for the 
readiness of our services and ultimately the defense of this Nation.
  Please bear in mind that money spent on these types of assessments 
are resources that should rightfully be programmed for refresher 
training. To reclaim readiness, refresher and proficiency training is 
necessary and should be required upon return. We are already asking our 
military to make do with less. We should not ask returning units to 
take refresher training funding out of hide.
  The idea of requiring our services to in effect pay the price of 
admission for their own participation in a U.N. operation seems 
ludicrous.
  Funding U.N. operations has traditionally been a responsibility of 
the State Department and is a tradition I am strongly in favor of 
perpetuating. As we see defense top lines free fall to mid-1980 levels, 
it is not the time to start adding new fiscal burdens on an already 
fragile defense budget.
  I have serious concerns about the administration's foreign policy and 
its reliance upon the United Nations for foreign policy leadership and 
decisions. If we choose now to identify the defense budget as the cash 
cow that will support the ever-increasing number of U.N. peacekeeping 
operations that lie ahead, we are setting the stage for the demise of 
readiness and dooming our services to operate with even more austere 
resources than are offered under the current gutted defense budget.
  In summary, for all these reasons, for the readiness of our Armed 
Forces and our Nation, I strongly urge the support of this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Kempthorne 
amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
1995.
  This amendment would eliminate the provision in this bill that 
provides for Department of Defense funding of U.S. assessments for 
international peacekeeping activities involving U.S. combat troops.
  Mr. President, I agree with the administration's view, as expressed 
in the Presidential Decision Directive 25 and the original version of 
this bill, that DOD should bear a share of the responsibility for 
international peacekeeping operations. I therefore add my voice to that 
of the Pentagon, Department of State and the Committee on Armed 
Services in support of the bill as currently before the Senate, and I 
urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  In the coming months, I will be taking a close look at the potential 
for the greater sharing of responsibilities between the Department of 
Defense and the State Department on matters related to peacekeeping.
  The section of this bill, relating to peacekeeping, represents a step 
in the right direction. The adoption of the concept of shared 
responsibility is a significant development.
  Pentagon funding of our peacekeeping assessments helps ensure that 
American military expertise is brought to bear on peacekeeping and 
peace enforcement operations, especially those that have a significant 
military component or involve U.S. troops. It also helps ensure that 
the United States meets its binding obligations to pay its share of 
peacekeeping costs. Continuing U.S. arrears in our assessments threaten 
to undermine U.N. peacekeeping efforts. Clearly, we must reassess the 
manner in which we respond to our peacekeeping obligations.
  To those who fear a marked increase in DOD funding responsibilities, 
I note that the vast majority of U.N. peace activities fall under 
traditional chapter VI peacekeeping and do not involve U.S. forces. As 
this section of the bill obligates DOD to pay only assessments for U.N. 
peacekeeping or peace enforcement activities which include U.S. combat 
forces--defined as forces which have a primarily combat mission--most 
assessments would remain the responsibility of the State Department.
  It is in our interests to support a strong United Nations capable of 
engaging in selective, but effective, peace operations. Yet the United 
States cannot call for greater international cooperation and 
coordination in resolving the world's conflicts while at the same time 
shirking its own responsibilities to the international community. The 
United States can and should provide vital leadership to strengthen the 
United Nations as a multilateral security institution.
  U.N. peacekeeping operations can be important instruments for 
protecting and advancing U.S. interests. But our failure to support 
international efforts at conflict resolution today will sow the seeds 
of tomorrow's Rwandas and Bosnias.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Florida 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I have listened with interest to the views expressed 
by my colleagues regarding our Nation's involvement in international 
peacekeeping operations.
  I would like to take a moment to share my observations in this 
regard.
  I believe that in this post-cold-war era, the United States has 
essentially three options for dealing with world conflicts and strife.
  One, the United States can sit on the sidelines and watch events 
unfold in the world around us, doing nothing even when these events 
have a significant impact on our national interests.
  Two, the United States can act unilaterally where and when we believe 
that it is in our national interest to do so.
  Or three, the United States can contribute to the development of 
effective multinational capabilities to deal with these world events or 
crises.
  I believe increasingly that third option will be the one we will wish 
to choose.
  We have learned from our Nation's history that the first option--
essentially, isolationism--has negative consequences which are not in 
our national interest.
  To pull inward and watch from the sidelines would be failure to 
acknowledge our role as a world leader, and the fact that this world is 
becoming more interdependent and interconnected than ever before in 
human history.
  It would lead to a loss of credibility in the international community 
and certainly undermines our ability to work together with other 
nations.
  The second option--unilateral operations--also poses significant 
problems for us if we were to choose it.
  For one, we do not have the national assets required for us to 
perform all of the operations in this world required to protect our 
national interests.
  As we speak, and as in the past, our military continues to be 
involved in numerous exercises with foreign nations, training together 
and developing proficiencies so that we can coordinate our efforts in 
time of need.
  And in these times of need, we would work closely, as we did in the 
past, with our allies to address whatever crisis with which we are 
dealing.
  When we acted to thwart the aggression of Saddam Hussein during 
Desert Storm, we did it in concert with other nations, not on our own.
  Therefore, I believe that the question that is before us now is how 
to make the third option as effective as possible in terms of strategic 
decisionmaking, organization, training, equipment, command and control, 
and the other requirements of political and military operations.
  We have now had a number of experiences from which to learn what are 
the challenges and what are some of the means of more effectively 
preparing ourselves for yet future challenges.
  We cannot afford to turn back from the lessons we have learned to 
date.
  That is why I believe it is important that we, along with our allies, 
remain committed to the process, and effort, of developing a workable 
and mutually beneficial system for promoting and keeping peace.
  One important part of that effort is ensuring that our Nation pays 
its share of legitimately assessed costs associated with peacekeeping 
operations.
  There is widespread agreement with the administration that our 
assessments should be reduced to 25 percent from 31 percent, and that 
some of our allies should bear a larger share of the financial costs 
than they are currently.
  However, with respect to paying what we have been legitimately 
assessed under current rules, there is no doubt that withholding such 
funds will unduly burden the United Nations and negatively impact 
efforts to promote reforms and enhancements within the organization.
  That is why, if we are genuine in our desire to see the United States 
play a credible and productive role in international world affairs, it 
seems to me we need to be committed in our efforts to make the United 
Nations a viable organization.
  The Senate has confirmed the nomination of Maj. Gen. Anthony Zinni, 
U.S. Marine Corps, to the grade of lieutenant general, and to be the 
commanding general of the First Marine Expeditionary Force.
  He is an expert on this issue of U.N. peacekeeping.
  Gen. Anthony Zinni has served in numerous multinational task forces, 
including a tour as the chief of staff and deputy commanding general of 
the combined task force Provide Comfort during the Kurdish relief 
effort in Turkey and Iran.
  He served as the military coordinator for operation Provide Hope 
relief efforts in the former Soviet Union.
  He served as the Director for Operations for the Unified Task Force 
Somalia for Operation Restore Hope and assistant to the U.S. Special 
Envoy in Somalia.
  In other words, General Zinni is an experienced military expert with 
hands-on, up-close experience in this area of U.N. peacekeeping 
operations.
  I would like to quote the general's recent response to questions 
asked him by the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  His responses capture my opinion in this matter, and I agree with him 
to the letter.
  I quote the general:

       I believe there are certain intervention operations that 
     the U.S. must commit to that are in our national interest, 
     and we must properly prepare our forces for them.
       We need a policy and strategy statement that clearly 
     articulates what is expected of our military in these 
     commitments much in the same way we have articulated the 
     requirement in the two MRC strategy.
       As a result, we should fund the additive military forces 
     and resources needed.
       The only alternative is to establish an isolationist 
     position or to dangerously stretch our already thin military 
     capability to meet unplanned for commitments in an ad hoc 
     manner.
       We certainly should not involve ourselves in commitments 
     not in our interests, but in today's world the things that 
     threaten our national interests are growing more complex and 
     subtle.
       Regional instability, drug trafficking, threats to the 
     environment, overwhelming human catastrophes, mass slaughter, 
     threats to democracies, are examples of events that could 
     conceivably involve our interests.
       We should attempt to deal with them in an international 
     context to promote burden-sharing and to gain a sense of 
     international legitimacy, but many will require our 
     leadership and participation.

  I could not have said it better than General Zinni. He has been on 
the front lines, and he knows these issues well.
  Clearly, we must work together with our allies to establish permanent 
and competent peacekeeping mechanisms.
  An ad hoc approach cannot, and will not, provide us with a consistent 
and stable methodology and support system for dealing with these world 
conflicts.
  A stable and effective, permanent system is what we need in this 
unstable, post-cold-war era.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support retention of the 
provisions in the Defense authorization bill which support these 
efforts.
  Mr. President, I oppose the amendment that is before the Senate at 
this time. I believe that it is an amendment which is out of reality 
with the world in which we are now living. This is a world in which we 
are going to be increasingly faced with the kinds of engagements that 
are currently underway in places whose names we hardly knew just a few 
years ago: Somalia, Bosnia, and other locations where the international 
community is going to be called upon to bring order and to defend 
democracy.
  It is my strong belief to the extent the international community has 
a well-organized, well-commanded, equipped and trained capacity to 
undertake those kinds of initiatives, that it is less likely they ought 
to be called upon to do so. If, for instance, in September 1991, the 
world community had a capacity to carry out its rhetoric in support of 
the democratic institution, I think it would have been much less likely 
that the military in Haiti would have deposed the democratically 
elected president.
  The options that we face, it seems to me, Mr. President, are 
essentially four. No. 1, we can either retreat into isolationism and 
deny ourselves the capacity to defend interests which are important to 
the United States; or, No. 2, we can only accept the capacity to 
respond to those attacks against our national interests on a unilateral 
basis; or, No. 3, we can do what we are doing today, participating in 
joint multinational exercises but typically being poorly organized, 
high-cost, and requiring supplemental appropriations beyond the budget 
caps to be financed for the U.S. operations; or, No. 4, we can begin to 
move toward some rational, coherent policy in terms of these types of 
operations.
  I believe the language in the defense authorization bill takes that 
fourth road. It will lead to greater cost control. It will lead to the 
Department of Defense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, will the Senator from Georgia yield 30 
additional seconds?
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Florida, and then 3 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts following 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida may proceed for an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I believe the language in the defense 
authorization bill will move us toward having an international capacity 
with major U.S. leadership involvement which is both effective in terms 
of its military capability and efficient in terms of cost, and places 
the responsibility for our combat troops where it should be placed--
with the Department of Defense.
  Mr. President, I close by suggesting that this debate is only an 
early chapter in the longer book, in which the United States will begin 
to find its way to participate in multinational operations. I hope that 
we do not close that book prematurely by adopting this amendment and 
frustrating our ability to be rationally involved in such an important 
engagement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, thank you.
  I rise to oppose this amendment, and ask colleagues to measure 
carefully the increase of responsibilities that we have assumed, all of 
us as a country, equally under the requirements of the United Nations 
and the votes that have taken place both here in the Senate and in the 
United Nations.
  I also ask them to measure carefully what the President has 
undertaken here to separate the requirements of chapter 7 and the need 
to try to reflect the accuracies of our Federal budget crisis.
  The State Department simply cannot afford, nor will Congress vote, to 
give the State Department adequate funding to cover all of 
peacekeeping. Congress likewise does not want to face up to the reality 
of what our requirements are under the Defense Department.
  So the President has drafted a careful program to try to divide those 
responsibilities between Defense and State, and also to make certain 
that these funds would only be spent in those cases where American 
troops are in fact involved. And under the new requirements of our 
peacekeeping decisions, that will only be with consultation with 
Congress and through a process of public debate.
  So, in effect, what the Senator is seeking to do is to deny us the 
very ability to be able to pay for what in the future we are going to 
decide. I do not think anything could be more irresponsible than 
precluding our capacity to fulfill our obligations for world leadership 
at this point in time.
  The simple reality is that the United States, if we are going to 
fulfill our role in the world, is going to be called on to take part in 
peacekeeping and to support peacekeeping.
  This particular measure goes to the question of where we take part in 
peacekeeping. If the Senator is deeply concerned about readiness of our 
troops and capacity of our troops to do the job and be protected, to 
have them participate, but not able to take the funding and to put the 
President in the predicament of not being able to adequately support 
them would be the worst of all worlds.
  So I hope my colleagues will eject this amendment, recognizing that 
it simply runs contrary to the responsibilities that we have already 
accepted and that we face if we are going to protect the national 
interests of the United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 2 minutes and 9 
seconds; the Senator from Idaho has 6 minutes and 51 seconds.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back all the time on 
this side if the Senator from Idaho is. We do not see anyone else who 
wants to speak.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would like to make closing comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  First, may I ask that Senator Craig be made a cosponsor of this 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record a letter signed by a number of Senators to the 
Assistant to the President for National Security.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                              Office of the Republican Leader,

                                   Washington, DC, March 24, 1994.
     Hon. Anthony Lake,
     Assistant to the President for National Security, The White 
         House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Lake: Pursuant to a request from your staff, we 
     are writing to share our views on the Administration's 
     pending peacekeeping policy review. This review is 
     particularly timely in view of the recently released 
     unclassified CIA assessment which details 36 current or 
     proposed peacekeeping operations--far more than is generally 
     recognized.
       At the outset we want to express our support for your 
     statement last month that ``peacekeeping is not at the center 
     of our foreign or defense policy.'' We also appreciate the 
     opportunity to comment on this important policy initiative of 
     the Clinton Administration. As a result of the consultation 
     process begun last year, we have become familiar with the 
     draft concepts and ideas on ``Presidential Review Directive 
     13'' (PRD-13). As you know, we have supported legislative 
     proposals which would strengthen U.S. policy on peacekeeping, 
     further bipartisan support for U.S. participation in United 
     Nations and other peacekeeping operations, and advance the 
     stated goals of your review.
       In the spirit of furthering a cooperative approach to 
     peacekeeping issues, we offer the following comments.


    1. u.s. support for and participation in peacekeeping operations

       First, the proposed criteria for determining whether to 
     support a U.N. operation omit, inadvertently we are sure, 
     American national interest. Clearly, the U.S. should not 
     commit its vote--or its funds or forces--to any operation 
     which does not advance American interests. We urge you to 
     explicitly include calculation of American national interests 
     as the foremost criteria for all decisions to support any 
     U.N. operations.
       Second, it is unclear from briefings to date whether these 
     ``cumulative'' criteria will be applied to U.S. support for 
     extensions, revisions and renewals of ongoing operations. We 
     urge you to apply any criteria just as rigorously to 
     continuation or expansion of ongoing operations as to new or 
     proposed operations.
       Third, the criteria lack any reference to reining in the 
     power of the U.N. Secretary General. In recent years, the 
     ability of the U.N. Secretary General to make unilateral 
     decisions directly and indirectly affecting American 
     interests has dramatically increased. In our view, the role 
     envisioned under the U.N. Charter for the Secretary General 
     was for a chief administrative officer--not a chief executive 
     officer, and certainly not a commander in chief. A recent 
     example of such decisions by the Secretary General involves 
     the U.N.-sponsored deployment of troops from countries with 
     ethnic, historical, colonial or religious ties to any side of 
     a conflict. The long-held U.N. position of using neutral 
     troops appears to have been abandoned--with the deployment of 
     Russians at the side of Bosnian Serbs in UNPROFOR, and the 
     proposed deployment of Russians in the former Soviet colony 
     of Georgia in UNOMIG. At the same time, the U.N. Secretary 
     General has refused--apparently unilaterally--offers of 
     troops from certain countries for certain operations. In our 
     view, there are ample administrative duties which should 
     occupy any Secretary General on a full-time basis, reserving 
     politically and financially important decisions on troop 
     deployment and many other issues for the Security Council. We 
     urge you to make such a limitation of the Secretary General's 
     authority a stated policy goal of PRD-13.


                           2. cost reduction

       Reduction of U.S. costs for peacekeeping operations is a 
     goal we all share--especially in light of the exponential 
     growth of such costs for assessed, voluntary and other 
     contributions, and in the incremental costs of Defense 
     Department activities in support of peacekeeping operations. 
     The Administration sometimes justifies U.S. participation in 
     peacekeeping activities as a form of ``burden sharing'' in 
     the post-Cold War era; cost reduction, therefore, becomes 
     even more important since the U.S. share of the peacekeeping 
     burden keeps increasing. We are concerned, however, that the 
     proposals in the draft PRD-13 will not achieve the goal of 
     reducing U.S. costs.
       First, there appears to be inadequate recognition of the 
     waste, fraud, and abuse that accompany United Nations 
     operations; an independent inspector general may be able to 
     expose and limit malfeasance, but PRD-13 should not expect an 
     inspector general to implement large-scale cost containment.
       Second, there is no mention of the U.N.'s unilateral 
     decision to raise the U.S. assessment to 31.7%--a decision 
     made during the transition between the Bush and Clinton 
     Administrations. While the Administration is properly 
     refusing to recognize the irregularly increased assessment, 
     this ongoing effort by the U.N. to overbill its largest 
     contributor should be renounced in the PRD. And, the PRD 
     should recognize clearly the implications of such overbilling 
     as we seek to reform United Nations' financial practices.
       Third, we urge you to include an explicit statement that 
     the U.S. will no longer recognize U.N. assessments in excess 
     of 25% beginning January 1, 1995. Simply stating the goal of 
     reducing the assessment is not enough; we urge you to include 
     such a clear statement in the PRD.
       Fourth, the idea of making benefiting nations bear a 
     greater share of the burden is attractive, but U.N. 
     peacekeeping operations almost by definition occur in 
     countries ravaged by natural and human disasters. The two 
     examples used in briefings (Cyprus, Kuwait) have already 
     assumed some greater burdens; we question whether Somalia, 
     Mozambique, Georgia, Cambodia, Lebanon, Angola, Liberia, 
     Haiti, etc. can bear a greater burden; in fact, including 
     such a reference could very well have the effect of raising 
     unrealistic expectations. We urge you to either specify new, 
     proposed savings resulting from this concept or to delete the 
     reference.
       Fifth, the PRD is silent on an immediate and achievable 
     step the U.S. could take which would realize significant cost 
     savings: Seeking and receiving full credit for U.S. 
     contributions to peacekeeping operations. For example, the 
     U.S. is providing some $45 million this year for police and 
     judicial programs in Somalia directly related to UNOSOM, yet 
     the Administration has not even sought to have these 
     contributions credited toward the U.S. assessment. Likewise, 
     the U.S. is providing some $30 million in support of UNOMIL 
     in Liberia, yet no credit for the U.S. assessment has been 
     sought. We urge you to make receiving full credit for U.S. 
     contributions directly related to U.N. peacekeeping 
     operations a goal of PRD-13.
       Sixth, we urge you to add termination of peacekeeping 
     operations which are not achieving their stated purposes as 
     an explicit cost reduction measure in the PRD. The PRD should 
     delineate clear guidelines for evaluating the effectiveness 
     of peacekeeping activities, and clear guidance for the U.S. 
     to oppose extension of operations which do not meet those 
     guidelines.


                         3. command and control

       We have grave reservations about the proposed provisions on 
     command and control.
       First, the PRD fails to recognize that the U.N. is not now, 
     or for the foreseeable future, an organization that can 
     conduct military combat operations--which are evidently part 
     of your peacekeeping definition. Recent events in Bosnia make 
     this point abundantly clear, given the delay of many hours in 
     seeking U.N. officials' approval for close air support for 
     U.N. forces under attack, and the shocking revelation that a 
     U.N. official actually tried to contact the political leaders 
     in control of the aggressor forces. Ultimately, no action was 
     taken due to the delays and, possibly, the warnings given 
     Bosnian Serb forces. This type of paralysis, warning to 
     the aggressor, and lack of coordination should never occur 
     in military operations and would be scandalous if it 
     occurred in a U.S. operation; yet such events seem to 
     typify current U.N. command and control arrangements. We 
     urge you to recognize the U.N.'s institutional 
     shortcomings in the PRD--not to simply gloss over them.
       Second, the draft PRD does not appear to recognize the 
     unique risk to Americans serving in U.N. operations. The 
     experience in Macedonia--which so far has not resulted in the 
     targeting of American peacekeepers--is not sufficient to 
     warrant complacent treatment of this sensitive issue. In our 
     view, the tragic experience of Lieutenant Colonel William 
     Higgins in Lebanon serves as a reminder of both the risk to 
     American personnel, and the inability of the U.N. to protect 
     its peacekeepers even in Chapter VI operations. The ambiguous 
     status of captured peacekeepers under international law--
     including questions over the applicability of the Geneva 
     Conventions--should be clarified in the PRD. We urge you to 
     add specific recognition of the unique risks to American 
     military and civilian personnel to the criteria in the PRD to 
     be addressed before any deployment of U.S. armed forces under 
     foreign command.
       Third, we are deeply disturbed over the apparent deletion 
     of a reference to U.S. armed forces under foreign command 
     being able to refuse militarily imprudent orders. The 
     readiness, training, ability and leadership of U.S. military 
     personnel is second to none; unfortunately, the same cannot 
     be said of foreign commanders who will have operational or 
     tactical control of U.S. forces in current or future 
     peacekeeping operations under the Administration's proposed 
     policy. It is our understanding that the draft PRD at one 
     point included clear guidance specifying that militarily 
     imprudent orders, as well as orders illegal under 
     international or domestic law and orders outside the mandate 
     of the mission, were to be rejected on the spot by American 
     military personnel. We are disturbed that this has apparently 
     been replaced by language directing American personnel placed 
     under foreign command to ``phone home'' to consult on orders 
     which are illegal or outside the mission's mandate---and that 
     the crucial reference to militarily imprudent orders has been 
     deleted. We urge you to grant express authority for U.S. 
     personnel to refuse militarily imprudent orders as well as 
     illegal orders; anything less than such clear authority in 
     the PRD only increases the possibility of American casualties 
     due to inept or incompetent foreign command.
       Finally, we note that the conditions the PRD lays out for 
     foreign command of U.S. forces are very similar to those 
     included in section 4 of the Peace Powers Act (S. 1803). We 
     urge you to specifically reference the certification process 
     proposed by this legislation in the PRD, which would 
     strengthen the partnership between the Executive and Congress 
     on this issue.


                    4. united nation's capabilities

       We are disturbed by some elements of the proposed efforts 
     to ``strengthen'' U.N. capabilities. First, we question the 
     need to dedicate U.S. resources to the already bloated U.N. 
     public affairs efforts. While some U.N. capabilities may 
     deserve U.S. support, we do not believe U.S. support for U.N. 
     public information, public affairs, or propaganda efforts is 
     wise or appropriate.
       We also question the prudence of support for U.N. 
     intelligence capabilities. Any intelligence provided to the 
     U.N. must be assumed to be subject to nearly immediate 
     compromise. The issue of U.N. intelligence capabilities also 
     beg important questions about how far such capabilities would 
     extend--will the U.N. develop an independent intelligence 
     collection capability? Will the U.N. develop a special 
     operations, clandestine, or covert action capability? These 
     and other concerns led us to propose section 16 of S. 1803, 
     which would require any intelligence be shared with the U.N. 
     only pursuant to an agreement that has been reviewed by the 
     Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. We urge you to move 
     very slowly on an expansion of U.N. intelligence activities, 
     to spell out exactly what the PRD proposes on this sensitive 
     issue, and to proceed with intelligence sharing only with the 
     complete concurrence of all elements of the intelligence 
     community.


                            5. u.s. funding

       The draft PRD does not adequately address the central issue 
     of U.S. funding for peacekeeping--specifically the claimed 
     shortfall of over $1,000,000,000 by the end of Fiscal Year 
     1994. We note the Administration only requested $617 million 
     at the time of its FY 94 budget submission, and more than 
     $400 million was appropriated. Just as current assessments 
     were woefully underestimated, we are concerned that future 
     estimates are likewise underestimated.
       First, it seems clear that the Administration request of 
     $300 million for FY 95 peacekeeping for all Chapter VII and 
     Chapter VI operations with U.S. participation is insufficient 
     to meet expected assessments; we note that the U.S. currently 
     estimates an assessment of nearly $400 million for FY 95 for 
     just one Chapter VII operation. Since it seems doubtful that 
     U.N. costs will reduce in any significant fashion in FY 95, 
     the $300 million request level needs revision to be 
     considered seriously by the Congress. Accordingly, we urge 
     you to consider all aspects of FY 94-95 funding as a priority 
     issue within the PRD process.
       Second, we note that incremental costs of DoD participation 
     in peacekeeping operations is also not included in the PRD 
     section on U.S. costs. The Congress has already appropriated 
     $1.2 billion in an emergency supplemental for FY 94 costs 
     already incurred, yet there is no effort to project, plan 
     for, or request funds for incremental costs of DoD 
     participation in peacekeeping operations. We urge you to do 
     so as part of the PRD process.
       Third, we have a number of serious questions--and practical 
     concerns--over the proposed ``Shared Responsibility'' 
     concept. Such questions include: how DoD will ``manage''. 
     Chapter VII operations which have no American troops 
     deployed; whether DoD will be responsible for unbudgeted 
     costs incurred due to underestimates of assessments of 
     Chapter VII (and Chapter VI operations with U.S. combat units 
     deployed); whether DoD will have input into specific 
     operations to be supported by the U.S. in the Security 
     Council in keeping with DoD's proposed funding and management 
     responsibilities; and how management of an operation would 
     shift from State to DoD or vice versa if the U.N. 
     authorization or U.S. force component changes after an 
     operation has been initiated.
       Because so many questions and issues associated with this 
     proposal remain unresolved, we urge you to defer this portion 
     of the PRD for the time being.


                        6. congressional support

       While we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the 
     proposed PRD through the consultation process, we note that 
     consultation on peacekeeping operations themselves has been 
     less than optimal. We also note that the Administration 
     opposed every section of the Peace Powers Act, including the 
     provisions on consultation, and has opposed related 
     provisions added during Senate consideration of S. 1281, the 
     Foreign Relations Authorization Act, despite great efforts on 
     our part to accommodate stated Administration concerns. While 
     the PRD no longer calls for revisions in the United Nations 
     Participation Act, we believe that legislation needs 
     substantial alteration. Finally, we note that despite the 
     more than year-long review in the PRD process, no legislation 
     has yet been submitted to the Congress.
       We urge you to include precise clarification of the 
     circumstances under which Congressional approval of 
     deployment of U.S. armed forces in peacekeeping operations 
     would be sought. We are concerned that the Administration's 
     commitments on this vital issues are ambiguous. The PRD 
     should clear up this ambiguity.
       There are numerous issues related to U.S. participation in 
     peacekeeping that are not addressed in our previous comments. 
     For example, U.S. acquiescence in or support for Russian 
     peacekeeping in the Newly Independent States is a matter of 
     utmost national security interest for our country; yet, 
     decisions appear to have already been made without serious 
     Congressional consultation.
       While the draft PRD is not yet finalized, we are aware that 
     your review is nearly complete. We are also aware of your 
     intention to release a modified, public version of the 
     resulting PDD. We urge you to provide, on a classified basis 
     if necessary, the actual PDD and all annexes to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress before the document is 
     finalized. We also urge you to provide the same documents in 
     their final form. We hope we can work together to fashion a 
     bipartisan U.S. approach to peacekeeping policy.
       Thank you for the consideration of our views.
           Sincerely,
         Bob Dole, Ted Stevens, Mitch McConnell, Don Nickles, 
           Richard Lugar, Thad Cochran, Pete Domenici, John 
           Warner, Jesse Helms, Larry Pressler, Paul Coverdell, 
           Strom Thurmond.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I think that during this debate, we 
have pointed out statistically that the United States is paying more 
than its fair share.
  I will quote now from a letter from Anthony Lake, Assistant to the 
President for National Security Affairs. It states:

       The President's policy covers six major aspects of reform 
     and improvement.

  And one of these is:

       Reducing U.S. and U.N. costs for peacekeeping operations.

  I applaud that. Here is an opportunity to reduce those costs. It has 
been stated also that we only have to pay where we have U.S. troops 
involved. But there is a very important distinction, and that is those 
U.S. troops have to be under U.N. command in order for the United 
States to receive reimbursement. That troubles me greatly.
  Mr. President, we have also noted the letter that was written by 
General Shalikashvili. It was then referenced that somehow it applied 
to this amendment.
  Let me also read to you from a report from the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili, a report to the Congress on 
1994 force readiness assessment. Here is what they say:

        The current pace of operations of U.S. forces throughout 
     the world threatens our ability to maintain a high degree of 
     readiness to meet all contingencies. The CINC's have noted 
     that the transfer of operations and maintenance funds to 
     support operations in Somalia, the Persian Gulf, the former 
     Republic of Yugoslavia, and other contingencies has reduced 
     operational readiness.

  That is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  I will note also, Mr. President, that the House of Representatives 
has rejected this provision of taking $300 million from the Department 
of Defense budget.
  My closing remark is this, Mr. President. I do not think anybody 
disputes that we have a troubled world. The cold war may be over. But 
it is a troubled world with conflicts arising everywhere. We talk about 
the fact that for 10 years, we have been reducing the defense budget. 
We talk about the fact that we are probably approaching the point that 
we are going to have a hollow force because historically the United 
States has done this every time after we have disarmed from major 
conflict.
  I am not saying we should not pay for peacekeeping with the United 
Nations. But pay for it from the State Department, not the Department 
of Defense.
  Mr. President, that $300 million ought to remain in the Department of 
Defense budget to be directed with recommendations from people like the 
chairman, Senator Sam Nunn and the ranking Member, Senator Strom 
Thurmond, based on recommendations by General Shalikashvili, rather 
than turning this over to the United Nations and having Boutros 
Boutros-Ghali determining where that $300 million is spent.
  That is what this amendment does. It keeps the priorities where they 
should be, and that is, with regard to readiness, the $300 million 
remains in the Department of Defense.
  I yield back my remaining time.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, this is an excellent amendment. There is no 
reason to pay for U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's 
adventures. In this fiscal year, the United States will spend far in 
excess of $2.2 billion for peacekeeping. Despite a much-publicized new 
policy on peacekeeping, this administration persists in approving and 
extending peacekeeping operations. In the course of the review which 
led to the new policy, Senate Republicans urged the administration to 
refrain from raiding the defense budget, and to reject using Defense 
Department funds to pay U.N. assessments. Unfortunately, the 
administration rejected our advice.
  Many of us believe that we have cut too much from the defense budget 
already, especially for readiness. This administration has not 
requested enough money for the exploding international entitlement 
program of United Nations peacekeeping. While only $833 million is 
requested for fiscal year 1995, the United Nations will assess at least 
an additional $1 billion for the United States taxpayer to finance. We 
will soon be faced with a supplemental appropriation legislation with 
$670 million for peacekeeping costs this year.
  There is no reason to spend our scarce defense dollars on U.N. 
peacekeeping. American readiness needs are too great. I would hate to 
see accidents or casualties in the future due to a lack of readiness 
funds--this amendment will help avert that outcome. The House 
explicitly prohibited using defense funds for U.N. assessments. We 
should follow the same prudent course and adopt the Kempthorne-McCain 
amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I will take 30 seconds in closing my 
argument, and I will yield.
  I want everybody to understand that the only way this $300 million 
can be spent and can be sent to the United Nations is, if the President 
of the United States decides under the procedures we have set up in 
this bill, which requires advance notice to Congress--if the President 
decides to send American combat troops to the particular peacekeeping 
operation. In other words, if we have not decided to put in combat 
troops, this money will not be eligible to be sent to the United 
Nations.
  At this stage, I yield the remainder of my time.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Kempthorne 
amendment which is pending before the Senate.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] is 
absent because of illness in the family.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] and 
the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 35, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 165 Leg.]

                                YEAS--35

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Specter
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Craig
     Dodd
     Exon
     Inouye
     Wallop
  So the amendment (No. 1849) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 1840

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment before the Senate is 
amendment No. 1840, offered by Senator Johnston.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, there will be no further rollcall votes 
this evening, as I am advised by the manager that good progress has 
been made during the day today and no further progress this evening is 
possible, except on amendments that will be accepted. I understand that 
the managers will be here to consider such amendments.
  We have reached a point in this legislative session where the amount 
of work to be completed far exceeds the amount of time within which to 
do it. It is therefore necessary that we be in session tomorrow to 
ensure the presence of Senators.
  There will be a vote at 9:30 a.m. and there will be more than one 
vote tomorrow. I repeat, there will be more than one vote tomorrow. 
There may be several votes tomorrow, including procedural votes, if 
necessary, to ensure the presence of Senators during the day, as it is 
imperative that we make further progress on this bill, and we have a 
number of other measures on which action must be taken before the 
Senate leaves for the July 4 recess next Friday.
  In view of the fact that I would like to finish this bill tomorrow 
and the number of other matters on which action will be necessary to be 
completed, Senators should be aware and should expect very late 
sessions every night next week through and including Friday, unless the 
pace quickens in a way that has not been apparent and is not now 
apparent. So Senators should be aware of that.
  I repeat, there will be a vote at 9:30 a.m. There will be more than 
one vote, possibly several, including procedural votes, if necessary, 
to ensure the presence of Senators, and votes are possible throughout 
the day tomorrow, at least until 3 p.m.
  Next week, votes will be possible and votes will be likely throughout 
the day Tuesday through Friday and possibly on Monday. I issued a prior 
statement with respect to the possibility of votes on Monday and will 
make a decision and an announcement on that tomorrow, depending upon 
what progress is made on this bill during the day tomorrow.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the leader yield for a question?
  Mr. MITCHELL Yes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. As I understood the leader's comments with regard to 
Monday, you are going to make a decision prior to 3 o'clock tomorrow on 
the schedule for Monday?
  Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. We have been notified that there may be votes on 
Monday, but I was not aware that they were going to start prior to the 
afternoon on Monday.
  Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct; they will not start prior to 6 p.m.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. But you will advise us prior on your decision on how 
late we will go tomorrow and on the schedule for Monday?
  Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It would be very helpful, because I am planning to go 
back to Alaska and the last plane I can catch is the 2:20 plane, but I 
can make that.
  But if I come back and have to make votes on Monday--and I realize 
the Senate does not mind my inconvenience; but, nevertheless, I have to 
do what I have planned--if I leave there at 7 a.m, which is the first 
flight I can get, and fly all day Monday, I will get here at 8 o'clock.
  So whatever the leadership can do, obviously, I would appreciate it.
  I thank the leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I will, as always, do my best to accommodate the 
Senator from Alaska, and will, of course, take his schedule into 
account in making the decision.
  Because of its rules, the Senate schedule is inherently uncertain and 
not fully predictable. I will do my best to make it as certain and as 
predictable as possible, but, as you know, circumstances do not always 
permit that.
  Further, I want to say that, at least in recent weeks, the practice 
has developed where enough Senators leave, simply leave, and then call 
back from wherever they have gone attempt to make it a self-fulfilling 
prophecy that there will not be any votes in their absence. That is the 
reason we are going to have to have votes tomorrow.
  So any Senator who leaves and is not here tomorrow knows that he or 
she, with certainty, will miss a minimum of two votes and possibly 
more. It is the only way we can ensure the presence of sufficient 
Senators to conduct the business. Therefore, that is what we will have 
to do.
  I thank the Senator from Georgia and my colleague, the Senator from 
Maine, for their work on this matter and hope we can make some progress 
on the bill tomorrow.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the majority leader.
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I just want to let everyone know that we 
have a number of amendments that people have indicated they want to 
bring up, and we have a number of amendments that are going to require 
rollcall votes before this bill is completed.
  The more we can get done now, that means the more likely it is we 
will not be staying here next Friday night until 11 or 12 o'clock. So I 
hope everyone who has an amendment would be willing to have a 
meaningful debate and a vote on that amendment tomorrow morning, if at 
all possible. We will have some discussion on a Bosnia amendment, but 
there will be no vote on that one until next week. We will have 
discussion on a B-2 amendment. I am not certain when a vote on that one 
will occur.
  But there will be some important matters discussed tomorrow, and I 
hope we can--I know other amendments are going to require rollcall 
votes. For instance, the Senator from New Jersey, Senator Bradley, has 
an amendment to eliminate selective service. That will require a 
rollcall vote. We could handle that one tomorrow if the Senator from 
New Jersey could be here and present it. We could handle a Warner ABM 
amendment tomorrow if the Senator could be here and present that one. 
We could handle a Feingold amendment on uniform medical school 
tomorrow. I hope one or two or three of those amendments will be 
presented.
  In addition to that, I want everyone to know I will be here at least 
for another hour, as long as we can do business tonight, to examine any 
amendment any Senator believes might be able to be accepted. We will 
discuss it with them. We will see if we can accept it. We will begin 
working on it on both sides, and we can make progress in that regard. 
So I plan to be here for at least an hour and as long as necessary 
tonight, as long as we can continue to work amendments.
  I hope anyone who has an amendment that they want us to take a look 
at tonight or tomorrow, I hope they will come over and give it to us 
tonight and let us begin working on it.
  The same can be said tomorrow morning. We will be here debating 
amendments that will probably require rollcall votes, but we will also 
be receptive to looking at any amendment that is presented. I hope 
people will take advantage of that. It is inevitable we are going to 
get into a time crunch next week. If Senators want due consideration of 
their amendments, this is the time to debate them, rather than waiting 
until we get into a crunch next week when there may be an urge to table 
people's amendments and with people voting almost automatically on 
those tabling motions without the same kind of careful consideration 
that can be done on the early stages of the bill.
  My bottom line is we will be here an hour at least or longer if 
necessary on both sides to look at amendments, and I encourage those 
who have amendments to bring them over. I thank all Senators for their 
cooperation. We have had meaningful progress made today. There is going 
to be meaningful debate tomorrow morning on both Bosnia and on the B-2 
strike amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rockefeller). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to proceed as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________