[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 92 (Friday, July 15, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 15, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
           AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF CERTAIN NAVAL VESSELS

  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 516, H.R. 4429, 
a bill to authorize the transfer of naval vessels to certain foreign 
countries, that the committee amendments be agreed to, and the bill, as 
amended, be deemed read three times, passed and the motion to 
reconsider laid upon the table; and that any statements appear in the 
Record as if read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (H.R. 4429) to authorize 
the transfer of naval vessels to certain foreign countries, which had 
been reported from the Committee on Armed Services, with amendments; as 
follows:
  (The parts of the bill intended to be stricken are shown in boldface 
brackets, and the parts of the bill intended to be inserted are shown 
in italic.)

                               H.R. 4429

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER NAVAL VESSELS TO CERTAIN 
                   FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

       [(a) Argentina.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer to the Government of Argentina the ``NEWPORT'' class 
     tank landing ship LA MOURE COUNTY (LST 1194). Such transfer 
     shall be on a lease basis under chapter 6 of the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796 and following).
       [(b) Australia.--The] (a) Australia.--Subject to section 6, 
     the Secretary of the Navy is authorized to transfer to the 
     Government of Australia the ``NEWPORT'' class tank landing 
     ships SAGINAW (LST 1188) and FAIRFAX COUNTY (LST 1193). Such 
     transfers shall be on a sales basis under section 21 of the 
     Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761; relating to the 
     foreign military sales program).
       [(c) Brazil.--The] (b) Brazil.--Subject to section 6, the 
     Secretary of the Navy is authorized to transfer to the 
     Government of Brazil the ``NEWPORT'' class tank landing ship 
     CAYUGA (LST 1186) and the ``KNOX'' class frigates MILLER (FF 
     1091) and VALDEZ (FF 1096). Such transfers shall be on a 
     lease basis under chapter 6 of the Arms Export Control Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 2796 and following).
       [(d) Chile.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer to the Government of Chile the ``NEWPORT'' class 
     tank landing ships FREDERICK (LST 1184) and SAN BERNARDINO 
     (LST 1189). Such transfers shall be on a lease basis under 
     chapter 6 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796 and 
     following).
       [(e) Malaysia.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer to the Government of Malaysia the ``NEWPORT'' class 
     tank landing ship SPARTANBURG COUNTY (LST 1192). Such 
     transfer shall be on a lease basis under chapter 6 of the 
     Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796 and following).
       [(f) Morocco.--The] (c) Morocco.--Subject to section 6, the 
     Secretary of the Navy is authorized to transfer to the 
     Government of Morocco the ``NEWPORT'' class tank landing ship 
     BRISTOL COUNTY (LST 1198). Such transfer shall be on a grant 
     basis under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     (22 U.S.C. 2321j; relating to transfers of excess defense 
     articles).
       [(g) Spain.--The] (d) Spain.--Subject to section 6, the 
     Secretary of the Navy is authorized to transfer to the 
     Government of Spain the ``NEWPORT'' class tank landing [ships 
     HARLAN COUNTY (LST 1196) and] ship BARNSTABLE COUNTY (LST 
     1197). Such [transfers] transfer shall be on a lease basis 
     under chapter 6 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2796 and following).
       [(h) Taiwan.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer to the Coordination Council for North American 
     Affairs (which is the Taiwan instrumentality designated 
     pursuant to section 10(a) of the Taiwan Relations Act) the 
     ``NEWPORT'' class tank landing ships SCHENECTADY (LST 1185), 
     BOULDER (LST 1190), and RACINE (LST 1191). Such transfers 
     shall be on a lease basis under chapter 6 of the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796 and following).
       [(i) Venezuela.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer to the Government of Venezuela the ``NEWPORT'' class 
     tank landing ships PEORIA (LST 1183) and TUSCALOOSA (LST 
     1187). Such transfers shall be on a lease basis under chapter 
     6 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796 and 
     following).]

     SEC. 2. WAIVER OF REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS.

       The following provisions do not apply with respect to the 
     transfers authorized by this Act:
       (1) In case of a grant under section 516 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, subsection (c) of that section and 
     any similar provision of law.
       (2) In the case of a sale under section 21 of the Arms 
     Export Control Act, section 525 of the Foreign Operations, 
     Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
     1994 (Public Law 103-87) and any similar, successor provision 
     of law.
       (3) In the case of a lease under section 61 of the Arms 
     Export Control Act, section 62 of that Act (except that 
     section 62 of that Act shall apply to any renewal of the 
     lease).

     SEC. 3. COSTS OF TRANSFERS.

       Any expense of the United States in connection with a 
     transfer authorized by this Act shall be charged to the 
     recipient.

     SEC. 4. EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY.

       The authority granted by section 1 of this Act shall expire 
     at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, except that leases entered into during 
     that period under section 1 may be renewed.

     SEC. 5. REPAIR AND REFURBISHMENT OF VESSELS IN THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of the 
     Navy should request that each country to which a naval vessel 
     is transferred under this Act have such repair or 
     refurbishment of the vessel as is needed, before the vessel 
     joins the naval forces of that country, performed at 
     shipyards located in the United States, including United 
     States navy shipyards.

     SEC. 6. CONDITION FOR TRANSFER.

       No vessel may be transferred under this Act or any other 
     provision of law until the Secretary of Defense certifies in 
     writing to Congress that, after the transfer--
       (1) the amphibious lift capacity remaining available in the 
     Navy is sufficient in all lift categories to transport 2\1/2\ 
     Marine Corps expeditionary brigades simultaneously; and
       (2) the amphibious lift capacity planned to be available in 
     the Navy under the future-years defense program will be 
     sufficient in all lift categories, throughout the period 
     covered by the future-years defense program, to transport 
     2\1/2\ Marine Corps expeditionary brigades simultaneously.

     SEC. 7. USE OF PROCEEDS.

       The proceeds derived from a transfer authorized by this Act 
     that are received in a fiscal year shall be credited to the 
     appropriation for the Navy for such fiscal year for operation 
     and maintenance and shall be available, for the same period 
     as the appropriation to which credited, for operation and 
     maintenance of amphibious vessels.

  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, the Armed Services Committee has reported 
a bill, H.R. 4429, that would authorize the transfer of seven U.S. Navy 
ships to Australia, Brazil, Morocco, and Spain. The committee has 
amended a House-passed bill, and I urge the Senate to approve it as 
expeditiously as possible.
  These ship transfers must be authorized in legislation because 
section 7307 of title 10, United States Code, specifies that ``a naval 
vessel in excess of 3,000 tons or less than 20 years of age may not be 
sold, leased, granted * * * or otherwise disposed of to another nation 
unless the disposition of that vessel is approved by law * * *'' Each 
of the seven ships covered by this amendment displaces more than 3,000 
tons.
  In a legislative proposal dated April 15, 1994, the administration 
proposed the transfer of 17 ships to nine countries. Of these 17 ships, 
15 are Newport-class tank landing ships or LST's and two are Knox-class 
frigates. In the administration proposal, the ships would be 
transferred to the following countries. Two LST's would be sold to 
Australia; one LST would be provided on a grant basis to Morocco; two 
LST's would be leased to Spain; two LST's would be leased to Chile; one 
LST would be leased to Argentina; one LST and two frigates would be 
leased to Brazil; two LST's would be leased to Venezuela; one LST would 
be leased to Malaysia; and three LST's would be leased to Taiwan.
  The 15 LST's in the administration proposal are among a total of 20 
that were commissioned between 1969 and 1972. These ships constitute a 
significant part of our amphibious shipping fleet as they transport 
tanks, other heavy vehicles, engineering equipment, and supplies. The 
two frigates were commissioned in 1973 and 1974. It is important to 
note that many Knox-class frigates have already been transferred to 
other countries, but none of the 20 Newport-class LST's have been 
transferred yet. The LST's are relatively young in terms of their age 
and have impressive capabilities, as demonstrated by the interest of 
foreign navies in them.
  The Armed Services Committee has carefully considered the 
administration's proposal. It began its review of these transfers 
against a background of longstanding concerns over the amount of 
amphibious shipping in the U.S. Navy. For many years, the committee has 
strongly supported efforts to strengthen the Navy's amphibious lift 
capability. Currently, the committee is concerned over the accelerated 
retirement of existing amphibious ships at the same time that the 
construction program for new ships is delayed.

  In 1993, as part of its Bottom-Up Review, the Department of Defense 
examined the amount of amphibious lift that would be required to fight 
two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts. It concluded that the 
Navy should maintain enough lift to transport the personnel, aircraft, 
landing ships, vehicles, and supplies for 2.5 marine expeditionary 
brigades or MEB's. In this way, the Defense Department established the 
current goal of maintaining enough lift for 2.5 MEB's.
  The administration's proposal to transfer 15 LST's to foreign 
countries would remove a great deal of amphibious shipping from our 
current inventory. In particular, it would reduce the amount of lift 
available to transport vehicles to only 73 percent of the 2.5 MEB goal 
in fiscal year 1994. In terms of the organization of a Marine Corps 
task force, it is important for the personnel, combat power, mobility, 
and support of the task force to be moved in an integrated package. The 
committee believes that maintaining enough capacity to transport 2.5 
MEB's in all lift categories is a very important component of the 
overall capability required to carry out the strategy described in the 
Bottom-Up Review. Therefore, the committee cannot recommend the 
administrations's proposal to transfer 15 LST's to foreign countries.
  In response to the committee's concern, the Navy has proposed a new 
concept for maintaining 2.5 MEB's worth of vehicle space in the 
amphibious shipping fleet. In this concept two LST's and two amphibious 
cargo ships known as LKA's would be retained in a reserve status that 
would enable them to be available for active service in a few days. 
Four more LST's and three more LKA's would be stored in a nesting 
arrangement in which several months could be required to make them 
available for an emergency.
  The Navy's proposal for these six LST's and five LKA's is intended to 
maintain the necessary amphibious lift capability. It is also important 
to note that the Department of the Navy has not changed its policy for 
measuring amphibious lift. Therefore, the committee has amended the 
House-passed bill, H.R. 4429, to authorize the five most pressing LST 
transfers and the two Knox-class frigate transfers. The five LST 
transfers covered by the bill are those for Australia, Brazil, Morocco, 
and Spain. In these cases, foreign crews are already training in the 
United States.
  In addition to the basic authorization for the transfer of the seven 
ships, the bill reported by the committee would: Retain a provision in 
the House-passed bill that expresses the sense of the Congress that the 
Secretary of the Navy should ask each recipient country to have any 
necessary repairs performed at U.S. shipyards; prohibit the seven 
transfers until the Secretary of Defense provides a certification on 
amphibious lift capacity to Congress; and direct that the proceeds from 
the transfers shall be used for the operation and maintenance of 
amphibious ships.

  As amended by the Armed Services Committee, H.R. 4429 is a prudent 
measure that deserves the approval of the Senate.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that documents related to 
the ship transfers be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  General Counsel of the Navy,

                                   Washington, DC, April 15, 1994.
     Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
     President of the Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Enclosed is a draft of proposed 
     legislation ``To authorize the transfer of seventeen naval 
     vessels to certain foreign countries.''
       This proposal is part of the Department of Defense 
     legislative program for the 103rd Congress. The Office of 
     Management and Budget advises that, from the standpoint of 
     the Administration's program, there is no objection to the 
     presentation of this proposal for the consideration of 
     Congress.


                       purpose of the legislation

       The purpose of the proposed legislation is to authorize, 
     pursuant to the requirement of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 7307(b)(1), the 
     following transfers under appropriate transfer provisions of 
     the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961:
       Argentina: One ``NEWPORT'' class tank landing ship; LA 
     MOURE COUNTY (LST 1194).
       Australia: Two ``NEWPORT'' class tank landing ships; 
     SAGINAW (LST 1188), FAIRFAX COUNTY (LST 1193).
       Brazil: One ``NEWPORT'' class tank landing ship; CAYUGA 
     (LST 1186). Two ``KNOX'' class frigates; MILLER (FF 1901), 
     VALDEZ (FF 1096).
       Chile: Two ``NEWPORT'' class tank landing ships; FREDERICK 
     (LST 1184), SAN BERNARDINO (LST 1189).
       Malaysia: One ``NEWPORT'' class tank landing ship; 
     SPARTANBURG COUNTY (LST 1192).
       Morocco: One ``NEWPORT'' class tank landing ship; BRISTOL 
     COUNTY (LST 1198).
       Spain: Two ``NEWPORT'' class tank landing ships; HARLAN 
     COUNTY (LST 1196), BARNSTABLE COUNTY (LST 1197)
       Taiwan (the Coordination Council for North American Affairs 
     which is the Taiwan instrumentality designated pursuant to 
     section 10(a) of the Taiwan Relations Act): Three ``NEWPORT`` 
     class tank landing ships; SCHENECTADY (LST 1185), BOULDER 
     (LST 1190), RACINE (LST 1191)
       Venezuela: Two ``NEWPORT'' class tank landing ships; PEORIA 
     (LST 1183), TUSCALOOSA (LST 1187)
       Legislation authorizing the proposed transfer is required 
     by section 7307(b)(1) of Title 10, United States Code, which 
     provides in relevant part that ``a naval vessel in excess of 
     3,000 tons or less than 20 years of age may not be sold, 
     leased, granted * * * or otherwise disposed of to another 
     nation unless the disposition of that vessel is approved by 
     law * * * .'' Each naval vessel proposed for transfer 
     displaces in excess of 3,000 tons.
       The United States plans to transfer seventeen naval vessels 
     by lease, sale, or grant. Fourteen vessels (two ``KNOX'' 
     class frigates and twelve ``NEWPORT'' class tank landing 
     ships) will be leased pursuant to chapter 6 of the Arms 
     Export Control Act. The Chief of Naval Operations certified 
     that these naval vessels are not for the time needed for 
     public use. These fourteen vessels are not excess defense 
     articles and will be retained on the Naval Vessel Register. 
     Under the terms of the lease, a foreign recipient will have 
     operational control of the vessel, but, if the need arises, 
     the United States may terminate the lease and have the vessel 
     returned to U.S. custody.
       The remaining three vessels are ``NEWPORT'' class tank 
     landing ships which will be permanently transferred by sale 
     or grant. Two vessels will be sold pursuant to section 21 of 
     the Arms Export Control Act. One vessel will be transferred 
     as a grant under the provisions of section 516 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act. The Chief of Naval Operations certified that 
     these naval vessels are not essential to the defense of the 
     United States. The Secretary of the Navy has authorized these 
     vessels be stricken from the Naval Vessel Register. These 
     three vessels are excess defense articles pursuant to section 
     644(g) of the Foreign Assistance Act.
       Of the seventeen ships to be transferred, ten ``NEWPORT'' 
     class tank landing ships are active service ships in the U.S. 
     Navy fleet. Seven ships (two ``KNOX'' class frigates and five 
     ``NEWPORT'' class tank landing ships) are inactive service 
     ships which are located in various Naval Inactive Ship 
     Maintenance Facilities.


                          cost and budget data

       The United States will incur no costs for the transfer of 
     the naval vessels under this legislation. The foreign 
     recipients will be responsible for all costs associated with 
     the transfer of the vessels, including lease charges, 
     maintenance, repairs, training, and fleet turnover costs. Any 
     expenses incurred in connection with the transfers will be 
     charged to the foreign recipients. For leased vessels, 
     monthly lease charges are determined by dividing the number 
     of months of service life of the vessel into a single dollar 
     figure which includes the original acquisition cost, pro-rate 
     R&D payments are charged until the vessels reach seventy-five 
     percent of their service life.
       Argentina will pay the United States $1.8 million to lease 
     one U.S. tank landing ship. Australia will pay the United 
     States $22.1 million to purchase two U.S. tank landing ships. 
     Brazil will pay the United States $9.1 million to lease one 
     U.S. tank landing ship and two U.S. frigates. Chile will pay 
     the United States $1.9 million to lease two U.S. tank landing 
     ships. Malaysia will pay the United States $2.0 million to 
     lease one U.S. tank landing ship. Morocco will receive a 
     grant transfer of one U.S. tank landing ship. Spain will pay 
     the United States $4.6 million to lease two U.S. tank landing 
     ships. Taiwan, as represented by the Coordination Council for 
     North American Affairs, will pay the United States $4.7 
     million to lease three U.S. tank landing ships. Venezuela 
     will pay the United States $2.4 million to lease two U.S. 
     tank landing ships.
       In addition, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) 
     requires that all revenue and direct spending legislation 
     meet a pay-as-you-go requirement. That is, no such bill 
     should result in an increase in the deficit; and if it does, 
     it must trigger a sequester if it is not fully offset. This 
     proposal would increase receipts by $48.6 million for FYs 
     1994-1999.
           Sincerely,
                                               Steven S. Honigman.
                                  ____


                                 S. --

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER NAVAL VESSELS TO CERTAIN 
                   FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

       (a) Argentina.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer to the Government of Argentina the Newport class 
     tank landing ship La Moure County (LST 1194). Such transfer 
     shall be on a lease basis under chapter 6 of the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796 and following).
       (b) Australia.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer to the Government of Australia the Newport class 
     tank landing ships Saginaw (LST 1188), and Fairfax County 
     (LST 1193). Such transfers shall be on a sales basis under 
     section 21 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761; 
     relating to the foreign military sales program).
       (c) Brazil.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer to the Government of Brazil the Newport class tank 
     landing ship Cayuga (LST 1186), and the Knox class frigates 
     Miller (FF 1091), and Valdez (FF 1096). Such transfers shall 
     be on a lease basis under chapter 6 of the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796 and following).
       (d) Chile.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer to the Government of Chile the Newport class tank 
     landing ships Frederick (LST 1184), and San Bernardino (LST 
     1189). Such transfers shall be on a lease basis under chapter 
     6 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796 and 
     following).
       (e) Malaysia.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer to the Government of Malaysia the Newport class tank 
     landing ship Spartanburg County (LST 1192). Such transfers 
     shall be on a lease basis under chapter 6 of the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796 and following).
       (f) Morocco.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer to the Government of Morocco the Newport class tank 
     landing ship Bristol County (LST 1198). Such transfers shall 
     be on a grant basis under section 516 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j; relating to 
     transfers of excess defense articles).
       (g) Spain.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer to the Government of Spain the Newport class tank 
     landing ships Harlan County (LST 1196), and Barnstable County 
     (LST 1197.) Such transfers shall be on a lease basis under 
     chapter 6 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796 and 
     following).
       (h) Taiwan.-- The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer to the Coordination Council for North American 
     Affairs (which is the Taiwan instrumentality designated 
     pursuant to section 10(a) of the Taiwan Relations Act) the 
     Newport class tank landing ships Schenectady (LST 1185),  
     Boulder (LST 1190), and Racine (LST 1191). Such transfers 
     shall be on a lease basis under chapter 6 of the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796 and following).
       (i) Venezuela.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer to the Government of Venezuela the Newport class 
     tank landing ships Peoria (LST 1183) and Tuscaloosa (LST 
     1187). Such transfers shall be on a lease basis under chapter 
     6 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796 and 
     following).

     SEC. 2. WAIVER OF REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS.

       The following provisions do not apply with respect to the 
     transfers authorized by this Act:
       (1) In case of a grant under section 516 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, subsection (c) of that section and 
     any similar provision.
       (2) In the case of a sale under section 21 of the Arms 
     Export Control Act, section 525 of the Foreign Operations, 
     Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
     1994 (Public Law 103-87) and any similar, successor 
     provision.
       (3) In the case of a lease under section 61 of the Arms 
     Export Control Act, section 62 of that Act (except that 
     section 62 of that Act shall apply to any renewal of the 
     lease).

     SEC. 3. COSTS OF TRANSFERS.

       Any expense of the United States in connection with a 
     transfer authorized by this Act shall be charged to the 
     recipient.

     SEC. 4. EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY.

       The authority granted by Section 1 of this Act shall expire 
     at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, except that leases entered into during 
     that period under Section 1 may be renewed.
                                  ____


                           Sectional Analysis

       SECTION 1 provides authority to the Secretary of the Navy 
     to transfer seventeen naval vessels to Argentina, Australia, 
     Brazil, Chile, Malaysia, Morocco, Spain, Taiwan, and 
     Venezuela. Because these naval vessels displace in excess of 
     3,000 tons, statutory approval for the transfers is required 
     under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 7307(b)(1).
       Additionally, SECTION 1 provides the applicable law for 
     these transfers. Each naval vessel must be transferred to a 
     foreign government or international organization under the 
     Arms Export Control Act as a sale or lease or under the 
     Foreign Assistance Act as a grant. The specific statutory 
     authorities to transfer naval vessels to foreign governments 
     and international organizations include:
       a. Section 21 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2761; relating to the foreign military sales program) which 
     provides authority for the sale of defense articles from 
     stock.
       b. Section 61 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2796 and following) which provides authority to lease defense 
     articles in the stocks of DoD to eligible foreign countries 
     for compelling foreign policy reasons.
       c. Section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2321j; relating to transfers of excess defense articles) 
     which provides authority to transfer excess defense articles 
     to modernize defense capabilities of countries on NATO's 
     southern flank.
       d. Section 519 of the Foreign Assistance Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2321m; relating to transfers of excess defense articles) 
     which provides authority to transfer excess defense articles 
     to modernize defense capabilities of countries which have a 
     foreign military financing program.
       SECTION 2 relieves the Department of Defense of the 
     requirement to provide a separate Congressional notification 
     of each of these transfers.
       SECTION 3 provides that all costs are to be borne by the 
     foreign recipients, including lease charges, fleet turnover 
     costs, maintenance, repairs, and training.
       SECTION 4 provides that the transfers authorized by this 
     Act must be executed within two years of the date of 
     enactment. This execution of the transfer.
                                  ____


                      Committee Report on S. 2182


                   tank landing ship (lst) transfers

       During most of the 1970s, the goal for amphibious shipping 
     was to carry in excess of one division/air wing team, or 
     Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF). The Reagan Administration 
     increased this goal by adding a requirement that the Navy 
     also be able to carry a brigade/squadron team, or Marine 
     Expeditionary Brigade (MEB), which resulted in a so-called 
     ``MEF+MEB'' goal. In response to changing world events, the 
     Navy later decided to reduce the lift goal to three MEBs 
     (about a 25 percent cut in the previous goal), or roughly 
     what it was before the Reagan Administration. In fiscal year 
     1992, the Future Years Defense Program cut this goal even 
     further to 2.5 MEBs. The 1993 Bottom-Up Review ratified the 
     2.5 MEB goal.
       As a part of a recapitalization program, the Navy has 
     decided to retire many ships earlier than their normal 
     service lives will expire. Except for aircraft carriers, no 
     type of ships has avoided this axe. Of particular concern, 
     however, is the early retirement of a number of amphibious 
     ships, including all tank landing ships (LSTs). These ships 
     have between five and 13 years of remaining useful service 
     life, as evidenced by foreign navies' clamoring to buy or 
     lease them. Retiring these ships early will cause the MEB 
     lift capacity to fall below 2.5 MEBs for the foreseeable 
     future. The committee has heard no compelling rationale for 
     this adjustment, other than one of affordability.
       The committee believes that the concept of an innovative 
     Naval Reserve force suggested by the Navy several years ago 
     would apply to this situation. As this concept was originally 
     implemented, the Navy kept one frigate in a training status, 
     a so-called ``FFT'', with several other associated frigates 
     in storage. The training ship was used to train several crews 
     of reservists that could activate and operate the other ships 
     in wartime.
       The Navy has proposed to sell or lease 15 LSTs and two Knox 
     class frigates to several countries. The committee is 
     unwilling to recommend approval of any LST transfers until 
     the Secretary of Defense can certify that they will not 
     reduce amphibious lift capability below 2.5 MEBs, as called 
     for in the Bottom-Up Review. Given the importance of 
     maintaining this MEB lift capability, the committee believes 
     that the Navy should implement an innovative ``LST-T'' 
     concept to maintain lift capability. The committee recommends 
     additional Naval Reservist billets to permit the Navy to 
     implement this concept. The committee also recommends a 
     provision that would authorize the transfer of the two Knox 
     class frigates.
                                   rr_



                                    Chief of Naval Operations,

                                                     June 9, 1994.
     Hon. Sam Nunn,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     Washington, D.C.
       Dear Mr. Chairman. H.R. 4429, a bill ``to authorize the 
     transfer of naval vessels to certain foreign countries'' was 
     passed by the House on 23 May and referred to the Senate on 
     25 May.
       I am aware that there may be some concern with the impact 
     this bill may have on Marine Amphibious lift requirements. 
     The U.S. Navy plans to retain four NEWPORT class LSTs in a 
     mobilization status in order to better meet these 
     requirements.
       Of the fifteen LSTs proposed for transfer, five currently 
     have foreign crews on board undergoing training in 
     anticipation of transfer. Specifically, the following ships 
     and associated countries are at issue: USS FAIRFAX COUNTY 
     (LST 1193) to Australia, USS SAGINAW (LST 1188) to Australia, 
     USS CAYUGA (LST 1186) to Brazil, USS BRISTOL COUNTY (LST 
     1198) to Morocco, and USS BARNSTABLE COUNTY (LST 1197) to 
     Spain.
       The timing of this legislation is such that enactment prior 
     to 28 June is critical to the success of planned transfers. 
     For example, the Australians are scheduled to purchase two 
     LSTs at a total cost of $40 million. However, Australia must 
     obligate the funds to purchase these two ships by 1 July or 
     they will lose the funding. I am concerned that a delay in 
     Congressional authorization will result in the loss of this 
     sale to an important ally.
       I request that the Senate at a minimum authorize transfer 
     of these five ships.
       I am available to address this issue at your convenience.
           Sincerely,
                                                      J.M. Boorda,
                                               Admiral, U.S. Navy.
                                  ____



                                    Chief of Naval Operations,

                                                    June 22, 1994.
     Hon. Sam Nunn,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for meeting with me to discuss 
     amphibious lift and the related issue of transfer of LST 
     class ships.
       In previous years, particularly during Program Review 95, 
     Navy accelerated decommissioning of LKA (5) and LST (20) 
     class ships. This was done for affordability reasons and to 
     identify resources for recapitalization of the amphibious 
     force. Our goal is, of course, maintaining 2.5 Marine 
     Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) lift. Four of five fingerprints 
     (troops, air spots, LCAC spots, cargo capacity) remained at 
     or above the 2.5 lift capacity. Vehicle lift falls to 73 
     percent of the goal in FY94 and recovers to 91 percent when 
     LPD-17 class ships are delivered.
       The LKA class ships augmented by four LSTs have the 
     capacity needed to return the vehicle lift fingerprint above 
     the 2.5 MEB goal. I believe we can develop an innovative 
     maintenance status and reserve crewing to cover shortfalls in 
     the interim years. This concept represents a temporary fix 
     and not a policy change. It is meant to fill the gap between 
     today's lift shortfall and the delivery of the LPD-17 class. 
     The elements of such a program would include:
       Two LKAs in reduced operating status--5 days (ROS-51. These 
     ships could be broken out for surge use in five days (just as 
     we now maintain the hospital ships). They would be manned by 
     a small MSC crew augmented by naval reservists. One time 
     conversion costs for these two ships would be about $35M and 
     annual operating costs vary between $11M and $20M for the two 
     ships depending on prepositioning location (we might wish to 
     move them forward depending on the situation in forward 
     deployed areas). They would retain their amphibious 
     capability.
       Three LKAs and four LSTs in a special inactive maintenance 
     status similar to that envisioned for the previous FFT 
     program. This is a less desirable strategy than retaining 
     them in the active inventory but necessary because of 
     affordability. These ships could be available in 180 days or 
     less (trained reserve crews lessen the time required). Cost 
     per ship is approximately $50K per year.
       Two LSTs, one per coast, in the Naval Reserve Force. These 
     two ships, each with three reserve crews, would be available 
     for immediate use on recall of one of her crews and would 
     serve as a training platform for the crews who would man the 
     four LSTs that would come from special inactive maintenance 
     status thereby reducing the time to make those ships 
     available. This appears to be an ideal mission for our 
     reserve component.
       Five LKA reserve crews would be organized with periodic 
     training aboard one of the two ROS-5 LKAs. These crews would 
     each be tied to a particular LKA thereby reducing the time 
     for breakout of the three inactive maintenance LKAs and rapid 
     manning of the two ROS-5 LKAs needed.
       Maintain LPD-4 class ships in active status and 
     decommission as the LPD-17s are delivered.
       These concepts, including homeporting, require more 
     definition and costing, but I believe they are workable and 
     will, within the bounds of prudent risk, meet our 
     requirements. Affordability is, of course, an issue. It would 
     be of great benefit if the $40M available from the sale of 
     LSTs to Australia could be used to help defray the costs.
       The above concept would make 14 of the 20 LSTs available 
     for transfer to other nations. We presently have crews of 
     other nations prepared to accept ``hot ship'' transfer of 
     five of these ships on the dates shown below. These ``hot 
     ship'' transfers are to the advantage of our nation and the 
     receiving nations as they reduce costs of the transfer itself 
     and training involved: 28 June--Australia; 29 June--Spain; 9 
     July--Morocco; 30 July--Brazil; 9 Sept--Second Australia 
     transfer.
       I would very much appreciate Senate consideration of H.R. 
     4429 to permit us to proceed with these transfers even as we 
     complete program definition and costing of the above concept 
     with a view toward implementation in the remaining months of 
     FY94 and during FY95. We will, of course, work closely with 
     you and the SASC staff on the details of the program as we 
     identify specific ships, locations, reserve crews and costs 
     and funding.
       Thank you for meeting with me. The close working 
     relationships we have established and maintained with you and 
     the SASC staff continues to make it possible for us to work 
     the most difficult issues in a timely and cooperative manner 
     as we work through vital programs such as this one.
           Sincerely,
                                                      J.M. BOORDA,
                                               Admiral, U.S. Navy.

  The committee amendments were agreed to.
  So the bill (H.H. 4429), as amended, was deemed read three times and 
passed.

                          ____________________