[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 109 (Tuesday, August 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        REFUGEE RELIEF IN RWANDA

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it seems safe to say that all Members of 
this body, and all Americans, have been appalled at the carnage that 
has been visited upon the people of Rwanda, and the refugee crisis that 
has resulted. I commend the President for his decisive action in 
bringing the unique expertise of the Department of Defense to bear on 
the situation, bringing vital relief to hundreds of thousands of needy 
people in camps in nations bordering on Rwanda, particularly in Zaire. 
The Appropriations Committee, in this bill, has included a provision, 
which I offered at the full committee markup, to provide the necessary 
funding for the U.S. humanitarian aid operation and at the same time 
put specific parameters around the operation in terms of scope, cost, 
duration, and security matters. The Committee amendment--which was 
supported by the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. 
Inouye, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Stevens, and by 
the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Hatfield--the committee 
amendment fully endorses the President's humanitarian actions, and 
recommends $170 million in fiscal year 1994 supplemental appropriations 
to provide the funds necessary for this effort. This $170 million is in 
addition to the $50 million that has been included in the foreign 
operations conference for emergency aid relief to Rwanda refugees, so 
the grand total is $220 million.
  The sudden influx of massive numbers of refugees, escaping from the 
violence of a civil, tribal war in Rwanda created a crisis requiring 
immediate response. Only the United States has the airlift and 
logistical capability, as well as recent experience in this type of 
operation in Iraq and Bosnia, to provide the needed relief. The 
appropriations, as requested by the administration, are required to 
establish and operate airport services at Goma, Zaire; Kigali, Rwanda; 
and other locations; to provide fuel, logistics support, maintenance of 
vehicles, and equipment for distribution of water, food, supplies, and 
medical items; to establish and operate an air distribution facility in 
Uganda, for the collection, storage, and forward movement of relief 
supplies; transport supplies and equipment; to provide safe water, and 
to deploy and sustain approximately 4,000 United States troops.
  There has been some discussion of inserting United States troops into 
Rwanda to help entice Hutu refugees back into the country to begin the 
rebuilding process. Certainly there is not a permissive, benign 
environment inside Rwanda which would permit United States forces to 
play an exclusively humanitarian role there. The prospects for further 
violence are substantial. Indeed, there are rising tensions in 
neighboring Burundi, where Hutu and Tutsi groups are again the ethnic 
mix, and where there are reports of killings. The New York Times of 
yesterday, August 8, 1994, editorialized that:

       It has begun to dawn upon policymakers, if not yet the 
     public, that the crisis in Rwanda may take years to resolve. 
     Relief workers in Zaire, where a million Rwandans have fled, 
     see little hope for a prompt return home for Hutus fearing 
     reprisal massacres by Tutsis, who now dominate the new 
     Government in Kigali. Indeed, instead of getting better, 
     matters could become worse, spreading conflict, hunger and 
     uprooted peoples through an entire region. It would be wise 
     for the Clinton Administration to prepare Americans for what 
     may be a very long haul in Central Africa.

  And I shall ask at the close of my remarks, Mr. President, an 
editorial from the New York Times, the excerpts from which I have just 
read, be printed in the Record.
  This amendment that I offered in full committee and which was adopted 
by the full Committee on Appropriations says that the massive relief 
effort by the United States is not promised for the ``long haul,'' 
certainly not past this fall, as the funding for it is terminated on 
October 7, 1994. The rebuilding of the society of Rwanda and the 
stopping of the spread of ethnic strife in Central Africa is a matter 
for the international community, and particularly for African nations. 
We are now providing the extent of aid which I believe the American 
people will support and tolerate, but it is no blank check and it is no 
indefinable ``long haul.''
  While the committee fully supports this noble, humanitarian action, 
we are nevertheless concerned about the lack of burdensharing among the 
international community; about the security of our troops and civilian 
personnel in an area where the hatred and violence associated with the 
warfare between the Hutus and Tutsis is far from over, according to 
reports; and about any costs and actions that might be needed after 
this funding runs out at the end of the fiscal year. The committee is 
concerned about avoiding any pressure to expand the humanitarian 
mission into new roles, such as security of the Rwandan population, 
safeguarding the rebuilding of the societal fabric ripped apart by the 
warfare, about any pressure to engage in ``nation-building'' in Rwanda. 
How long should the United States bear the load, and when can the 
unique aspects of what we have done in a time-urgent response to the 
crisis be handed over to the United Nations, and other nations and 
international relief agencies?
  Thus, while fully supporting this operation, the committee is, 
nevertheless, concerned about the lack of burdensharing among the 
international community, excepting the French, who have safeguarded the 
southwestern portion of Rwanda. The French have announced their 
intention to leave by the end of August, opening up new possibilities 
for tribal violence in Rwanda. The committee does not support expanding 
our relief mission into a security or peacekeeping or peaceenforcing 
role in Rwanda. That assignment has been given by the United Nations to 
a special peacekeeping organization composed of African States, UNAMIR, 
the United National Assistance Mission in Rwanda.
  To address the committee's concerns, it has included a section in the 
bill which requires certain reports and actions. First, it provides 
that the Secretary of State provide a report to the Congress no later 
than September 1 of this year as to the burdensharing arrangements in 
the Rwanda relief operations that have been negotiated and implemented 
with other nations and international public and private organizations, 
as to both cost and personnel participation, including Armed Forces 
participation. Second, regarding the troublesome question of security, 
the Secretary of Defense is to provide assessments to the Congress by 
September 1, 1994, as first, any threats to the security of U.S. 
personnel and, second, the extent to which the UNAMIR peacekeeping 
operation has established a security system within the country of 
Rwanda. The committee strongly believes that we must avoid becoming 
involved in the competition for power in Rwanda, and that peacekeeping, 
the establishment of protected zones, or other forms of nation-building 
that will suck the United States into the politics of Rwanda for a 
lengthy period of time.
  The expansion of our humanitarian role was a cardinal mistake in 
Somalia, and I think we are all wary of repeating that mistake in 
Rwanda. I do not think there is any stomach in the American people for 
risking United States casualties to rebuild the nation of Rwanda. 
Therefore, Mr. President, the amendment that I included in the bill 
before the Senate provides that ``any change in the mission from one of 
strict refugee relief to security, peace-enforcing, nation-building or 
any other substantive role, shall not be implemented without the 
further approval of the Congress.'' If any such mission change is 
contemplated--and I do not see any sign that it is contemplated--then I 
think it would be wise for the President to bring the Congress on board 
in an affirmative way. In particular, the insertion of United States 
forces into the countryside of Rwanda would risk such mission creep or 
change, and so the amendment provides that:

       United States armed forces shall not participate in relief 
     operations inside Rwanda until and unless the President has 
     certified to the Congress that the security situation in the 
     countryside has stabilized to the extent that United States 
     forces will not play a peacekeeping or peaceenforcing role 
     between the warring factions inside Rwanda.

  Mr. President, I believe the administration should attempt to wrap up 
this mission by October 7, 1994, around the time that the Congress is 
scheduled to adjourn, and thus the amendment provides that the 
President give us a plan by September 15, 1994, as to how he will

       * * * terminate United States involvement in the Rwanda 
     operation by October 7, 1994, unless an extension of time is 
     approved by the Congress, and what arrangements have been 
     made for other nations and international public and private 
     organizations to replace United States resources and 
     personnel.

  If the President wishes to extend the U.S. mission beyond October 7, 
that would certainly be considered, but in that event the Congress 
would have to debate and decide on that extension before adjournment.
  Mr. President, while these timelines may be looked upon as strict by 
some, the world has been attuned to the Rwanda crisis for some time 
now, and the United Nations has created an organization, UNAMIR, to 
deal with the security aspect of it. Logistical roles which needed to 
be provided by the United States, because of the short time-urgent 
nature of the need, can be handed over in an orderly manner to others 
who should be prepared and be preparing to pitch in. This is an 
international crisis and demands an international response. I am proud 
of the role that we have played, and I hope that the rest of the world 
will step up to the plate so that the goals that we have set forth in 
this legislation can be met.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial from the 
New York Times be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Aug. 9, 1994]

                        Rwanda's Very Long Haul

       It has begun to dawn on policy makers, if not yet the 
     public, that the crisis in Rwanda may take years to resolve. 
     Relief workers in Zaire, where a million Rwandans have fled, 
     see little hope for a prompt return home by Hutus fearing 
     reprisal massacres by Tutsis, who now dominate the new 
     Government in Kigali. Indeed, instead of getting better, 
     matters could become worse, spreading conflict, hunger and 
     uprooted peoples through an entire region.
       It would be wise for the Clinton Administration to prepare 
     Americans for what may be a very long haul in Central Africa. 
     A small contingent of U.S. troops is already assisting the 
     United Nations operation in Rwanda, and Washington has 
     promised to come up with $270 million in new aid. If the case 
     is fairly made, if burdens are fairly shared with others, and 
     if civil peace can be maintained, this is an effort that 
     Americans can be persuaded to support.
       The immediate, compelling consideration is humanitarian. It 
     affronts decency to do nothing as children starve in squalid 
     refugee camps. But other interests are affected when four 
     million people flee their homes, half of them across 
     frontiers, in a country of just under eight million people 
     where, today, no food grows in vacated farms. Desperation 
     will breed new wars, sending shock waves through tense 
     neighboring states, notably Burundi and Zaire. The fearful 
     prospect of more upheavals calls out for energetic preventive 
     diplomacy.
       The place to start is Kigali, where a new Government 
     lacking even telephones, desks and offices rules a country 
     lacking people. Creditably, the victorious Rwanda Patriotic 
     Front has established a multi-party Cabinet that is led by a 
     President and Prime Minister who are both Hutu. But real 
     power is held by minority Tutsis, notably Vice President and 
     Defense Minister Paul Kagame, who was the chief strategist of 
     the rebel victory.
       The new regime is speaking the right words about 
     reconciliation. Yet these have to be set against the 
     scattered killings of returning Hutus, as reported in The 
     Times by Raymond Bonner, and Government plans to try 
     thousands of civilians as war criminals. There could also be 
     another nightmare if 500,000 Rwandans, most of them Hutu, 
     flee a security zone created by French peacekeepers, who are 
     due to depart by Aug. 22.
       Keeping to that timetable is a problem, since the French 
     are supposed to be replaced by 5,500-strong U.N. peacekeeping 
     force. But less than a thousand Canadian and African troops 
     are now in Rwanda, with the rest still to be trained to 
     protect convoys and reassure returning villagers. A small 
     contingent of U.S. troops is under direct U.S. command in 
     Kigali.
       By any measure, the prospects are grim: an untested new 
     Government, a collapse of basic services, reprisal killings, 
     an improvised international force and a depopulated country, 
     with the planting season supposed to begin next month.
       Meantime, mingling with two million refugees in Zaire and 
     Tanzania are remnants of the defeated Rwandan Army, including 
     units responsible for the worst massacres. Commanders talk of 
     regrouping and of border war from sanctuaries in Zaire; they 
     also threaten to shoot foreign relief workers who dare urge 
     Rwandans to return home. And the same despicable radio 
     station that clamored for Tutsi blood before the rebel 
     victory continues its broadcasts from a mobile base.
       What could make an enormous difference is a real 
     international presence in Rwanda, to reassure and to witness. 
     Now there are reports of killings in adjacent Burundi, with a 
     similar ethnic mix and with the same history of strife. The 
     world had neither the means nor the will to respond in April, 
     the critical early stage of Rwanda's descent into genocide. 
     It has been a terrible learning process, and yet crueler 
     lessons may lie ahead.

  Mr. BYRD. In closing, Mr. President, this is the last regular 
appropriations bill for this year and, of course, the largest of the 
bills in terms of dollars that will come before the body this year for 
fiscal year 1995. It is earlier than usual for the DOD appropriations 
bill but the authorization conference is nearly complete and I believe 
will be completed this week.
  The amendment on Rwanda that I have described I think is a 
responsible one and appropriate to the task, as well as the dangers we 
are all aware of. If, however, it is going to be relevant to the 
situation, we are going to have to get this bill passed and into 
conference, and conclude the conference report before the Senate goes 
on its August recess, if and when it goes on the August recess.
  The time lines in the amendment for reporting and certification all 
occur in early and mid-September, and if we are not going to pass the 
bill, we will be frustrated in effecting the will of this body and the 
Nation's policy toward Rwanda because it is financed with 1994 money. 
So there are some steep foreign policy costs to be associated with 
delaying the Department of Defense appropriations bill.
  I encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle who are 
concerned about the amendments to this bill, to help move the bill 
forward so that its provisions can take effect in a timely manner.
  I congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking 
member of the subcommittee for their valiant efforts to expedite the 
action on the bill. It is through their excellent efforts and their 
skills and good work that the bill is at the present stage.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                           amendment no. 2480

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak on an amendment concerning 
Colombia offered by the senior Senator from North Carolina yesterday to 
the Defense appropriations bill. I understand a vote on the amendment 
is planned for tomorrow.
  The Senator's amendment would cut off military aid to Colombia unless 
the President certifies that certain conditions have been met 
concerning allegations of corruption by Colombian officials.
  Let me say that I, like every Senator, am concerned about corruption 
in any government that receives U.S. foreign aid. It is a fact of life, 
and that is why we go to great lengths to protect our aid dollars from 
being diverted or misused. I have supported efforts to cut off aid to 
governments that were diverting it for the wrong purposes.
  This amendment is based on allegations that there is corruption in 
the Colombian Government. Of course there is. But the Senator from 
North Carolina makes no claim that our aid, which goes to combat drug 
traffickers there, has been stolen or diverted by Colombian officials.
  I have been a critic of our international counternarcotics program. 
We have spent billions of dollars and there is little to show for it. I 
have also been concerned about reports of human rights abuses by the 
Colombian military. But the new President of Columbia was just 
inaugurated this week. He says he will give a high priority to fighting 
the drug traffickers. He deserves a chance to show if he is serious.
  But the other reason I am concerned about this amendment is that it 
is very similar to an amendment to the Senate version of the foreign 
operations bill, which has already been through conference.
  In the House-Senate conference on the foreign operations bill 2 weeks 
ago, the Senator from North Carolina's amendment met with stiff 
opposition from several House conferees. I and Senator McConnell, the 
ranking member of the subcommittee, were seeking to find a compromise 
that would retain the guts of the Senate position.
  Before we reached agreement, a staff member for the Senator from 
North Carolina informed us that if we resolved another amendment of the 
Senator from North Carolina concerning Russia, we could recede on the 
Colombia amendment.
  That is what we did, when the House agreed to a provision on Russia's 
compliance with the biological and chemical weapons treaties, and we 
receded on the Colombia amendment.
  Now the Senator from North Carolina is seeking to amend that same 
foreign operations bill after the conference is over, and after we 
reached an agreement with him on his amendments in conference.
  Mr. President, we are going to find ourselves in a real quagmire here 
if we agree to the disposition of an agreement 1 week and then find we 
have to deal with it again 2 weeks later on another bill.
  I would ask the Senator from North Carolina to limit the scope of his 
amendment to the funds in the Defense bill to which it is being offered 
to. As written, this amendment goes far beyond that by amending the 
foreign operations bill. I would hope that the Senator from North 
Carolina would modify his amendment.


    the instrumented factory for gears at the illinois institute of 
                               technology

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, as we consider the fiscal year 1995 
defense appropriations bill, I would like to discuss a unique 
technology transfer program that is critically important to the U.S. 
gear manufacturing industry, the instrumented factory for gears, also 
known as INFAC. I would like to take a moment to share with my 
colleagues some background on this unique industrial initiative.
  INFAC is an in-place, fully equipped experimental teaching facility 
that provides research, education and industrial extension in the field 
of gear manufacturing technology. Located at the Illinois Institute of 
Technology [IIT], the program features a hands-on shop floor with 
state-of-the-art precision machine tool equipment. Researchers and 
students at INFAC provide consulting and seminar services to small and 
medium sized manufacturers to develop methods to keep these firms 
competitive and up-to-date with current technologies. The unique 
training and extension activities at the INFAC complex are a 
successful, working example technology transfer.
  This program was awarded to the Illinois Institute of Technology 
Research Institute in October 1989 as a result of a competitive 
procurement. As awarded by the Defense Logistics Agency, the 5-year 
INFAC contract calls for 25 percent cost share of the core program, and 
full funding of separately awarded research and development tasks. The 
Government has insisted that the minimum of 25 percent core cost share 
requirement remain unchanged through the current contact period. In 
addition, INFAC is requiring, and has begun to receive dollar-for-
dollar cost share on funds for cooperative research projects with 
industry.
  This program is strongly supported by the U.S. Army Aviation and 
Troop Command. The Army program manager has indicated that $8.5 million 
is needed for a full program year. However, it is my understanding 
that, as a matter of practice, the committee has tried to avoid 
earmarking funds for specific manufacturing technology projects. Given 
the millions in Illinois and Federal funds that have been invested in 
this program to date, it is important that adequate resources be 
provided in conference to allow the Department of Defense to support 
continued operations of the INFAC Program. I urge appropriators to 
provide adequate funding for fiscal year 1995 that would allow the 
program to be responsive to Army direction and continue through the 
next fiscal year.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator from Illinois for her comments 
regarding the instrumented factory for gears. The Senator is correct in 
stating that the committee has tried to avoid earmarking service 
manufacturing technology programs. However, I agree with the Senator 
that the Department of Defense should consider the past investment and 
the potential benefits in making decisions about continuing the gear 
INFAC Program in fiscal year 1995. I will give every consideration to 
the Senator's request during conference.


                        accounting for dod costs

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I offer an amendment today which would 
help Congress account for all incidental costs incurred by the 
Department of Defense in conjunction with U.N. activities. This is a 
simple amendment. It merely would require the Secretary of Defense to 
report quarterly to appropriate congressional committees on costs 
incurred by the DOD resulting from U.S. support or implementation of 
U.N. Security Council resolutions. Additionally, in the same quarterly 
report, the Secretary of Defense would be required to detail DOD 
efforts to obtain compensation from the U.N. for such costs and DOD 
efforts to seek credit against U.S. assessments to the United Nations.
  As my colleagues know, I have been concerned for years about the 
enormous amount of U.S. taxpayer dollars spent in support of 
multilateral operations. While I support the United Nations and want 
desperately for this organization to function effectively, I hesitate 
to spend U.S. money supporting ineffective operations--operations in 
which the United States often has no national interest.
  I offer this amendment today because I want everyone to be acutely 
aware of the elephantine size costs incurred by the DOD in support of 
U.N. operations. There are enormous amounts of incremental costs 
charged to the DOD which are not accounted for in DOD reports. Congress 
needs to know how much the DOD spends over and above what the United 
States is assessed in our U.N. peacekeeping dues and our regular U.N. 
budget contributions.
  At the end of this year, we will have budgeted over $1 billion for 
support of U.N. operations. We deserve to know how much the DOD 
contributes to those operations which is not budgeted. I believe my 
colleagues would be amazed to learn just how much is being spent 
incrementally by the DOD in conjunction with U.N. resolutions. Yet, 
currently, we do not have an adequate accounting system for assessing 
incremental costs. My amendment calls for just such an accounting. 
Additionally, my amendment would require the Secretary of Defense to 
report on DOD efforts to receive credit from the United Nations for 
unbudgeted support for operations and activities. We owe it to U.S. 
taxpayers to account for the money spent by the DOD. I urge my 
colleagues to support this fiscally prudent amendment.


 the need for continued research into the causes of and treatment for 
                           gulf war syndrome

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Inouye, in a colloquy regarding 
the research required to identify the causes of and treatment for a 
disabling syndrome experienced by many Persian Gulf war veterans that 
may be related to exposure to hazardous chemical, biological, and 
radiological agents, other hazardous substances, and endemic illnesses 
during their service in the Persian Gulf war.
  Mr. INOUYE. I welcome this opportunity to discuss this important 
issue with the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs who has devoted a great deal of effort to 
the well-being of the veterans of the Persian Gulf war. I share in his 
concern for the need to address this issue.
  Mr. RIEGLE. As the chairman is aware, the Senate version of the 
Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year 1995 contains language 
authorizing independent, expert research at a total funding level of 
$20 million. In conference, however, the conferees combined the funding 
for this research with funding for research into brain and spinal cord 
injuries, an artificial neural network research program for cancer 
detection and treatment, lyme disease research, and diabetes research 
at a combined funding level of $40 million. The Defense Authorization 
bill does not, however, specify how the funding shall be allocated 
among these programs. Further, I have been informed that while the 
agreed to authorization level for all of this research is $40 million, 
the amount appropriated by the Senate for Cooperative Department of 
Defense/Department of Veterans Affairs Research is only $20 million.
  As we established in the Defense Authorization bill, I believe $20 
million is needed to properly initiate research into this problem--a 
problem that as we have learned has expanded in scope. Last year, while 
$5.7 million was authorized by the Senate for this purpose, less than 
$2 million was appropriated. Over half of this amount has still not 
been spent by the Department.
  Mr. INOUYE. I agree that Congress needs to reevaluate the amount of 
funds necessary to deal with a problem that has grown in scope and now 
appears to affect these veterans of the Persian Gulf war and their 
families. And I am troubled with the reports that the Department has 
not disbursed moneys specifically appropriated by Congress to address 
an immediate medical problem such as this.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, hundreds of veterans and members of the 
Armed Forced, from both the officer and enlisted corps, who served in 
the gulf, have reported to us that chemical agents were detected with 
the onset of the air war, after Scud attacks, after explosions, in 
Iraqi and Kuwaiti minefields and in bunkers.
  In July of 1993, the Czech Government announced that Czechoslovak 
chemical detection units assigned to the Gulf detected chemical agents 
there. In December 1993, the French government confirmed that they too 
detected chemical agents during the Persian Gulf conflict. There have 
been thousands of reports that camels, sheep, goats, birds, and insects 
in Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia began suddenly dying shortly after 
the initiation of the air war suggesting that whatever exposures may 
have caused a cross-species contamination of mammals, birds, and 
insects, might have also been harmful to humans.
  I have also learned that there is good reason to be concerned about 
the long-term health consequences of the administration of the 
cholinesterase inhibitors in the nerve agent pretreatment program--as a 
result of both their direct effects and the reported studies of the 
possible potentiating or synergistic effects of these drugs when 
combined with exposures to organophosphate nerve gases and pesticides.
  I believe we must also continue to examine the hazards associated 
with other environmental and occupational exposures such as depleted 
uranium, chemical agent resistant coating or CARC, pesticides, smoke 
from the oil fires, and others.
  Gulf war syndrome, contrary to previous reports has not only affected 
U.S. veterans. I have also been contacted by members of the Canadian, 
British, and Australian military all complaining of similar symptoms. 
Eighteen members of the 169-person Czech chemical decontamination unit 
are also reportedly complaining of similar symptoms.
  Mr. INOUYE. I understand that since September 1993, the number of 
veterans who have signed up for the VA Persian Gulf registry 
examination has increased from 5,400 to over 24,000.
  Mr. RIEGLE. That is right, Mr. President. And I have received calls 
and letters from thousands of these veterans from throughout the United 
States. They uniformly complain of ineffective treatment within both 
the VA and Department of Defense medical systems for their undiagnosed 
disabling illnesses. Regrettably, I have also received reports of many 
young men and women who have--after initially experiencing these 
symptoms--died from cancers or unexplained heart failures.

  I have been contacted by hundreds of active duty members of the U.S. 
Armed Forces who are sick. Many are reluctant to seek medical care for 
their illnesses fearing that they will be discharged. Others are 
fearful of coming forward because many of those who previously came 
forward were referred for psychiatric examinations. As the U.S. Armed 
Services is now an all volunteer force, this is an issue of some 
concern since their careers and ironically, maintaining their health 
care coverage, depends on their remaining on active duty. Many members 
of their families are also ill.
  Mr. INOUYE. I understand that the VA Persian Gulf registry does not 
include any of the sick spouses and children.
  Mr. RIEGLE. That is correct. Over 75 percent of the spouses and 25 
percent of the children conceived before the war by the sick vets who 
have contacted me are experiencing many of these symptoms. Sixty-five 
percent of their children conceived after the war are also experiencing 
health problems. Most commonly noted among the health problems of these 
infants are respiratory infections, ear infections, and rashes. In some 
cases, severe birth defects have been noted.
  Nor does the registry include the sick Department of Defense 
civilians and contractors who served in the Gulf, nor the DOD civilians 
in the United States who became sick after decontaminating or cleaning 
equipment that was returned from the theater of operations.
  These patters of illnesses and exposures, along with reported 
observations of tens of thousands of dead sheep, goats, camels, birds, 
and insects suggests that immediate and extensive peer-reviewed, 
expert, competitively awarded research is required.
  The research authorized in the Defense Authorization bill for fiscal 
year 1995 requires the conduct of an epidemiological survey on 
veterans, armed services personnel, and Department of Defense civilians 
who served in the Persian Gulf War, as well as their spouses and 
children; the conduct of research into the long-term medical hazards of 
the administration of pyridostigmine bromide in the chemical nerve 
agent pre-treatment program during the Persian Gulf War; and 
establishes a research program to fund independent peer-reviewed 
research into the illnesses, treatment of the illnesses being 
experienced, and into determining if and how the illnesses are 
transmitted. This is desperately needed research.
  Ultimately, we will only learn the true scope and consequences of 
this issue when appropriate epidemiological testing and basic 
scientific research is conducted to determine the nature of the 
illnesses that these veterans, civilians, and their families are 
suffering. I am asking today that the Chairman support this research 
and do no more or no less for the men and women who served this country 
in the Persian Gulf war, that we have done when other unidentified 
illnesses have surfaced. The conduct of this research could ultimately 
result in a savings of billions of government and private-sector 
dollars in misdirected health care, disability and compensation 
benefits, and other social costs over several generations.
  Mr. INOUYE. I agree with the Senator that more needs to be done in 
this area. The Committee has included funds to study Gulf War syndrome 
under the Defense Health Program account in the bill before us.
  Mr. RIEGLE. I believe that in order to ensure that expert, 
competitively-awarded, independent research into Gulf War syndrome is 
conducted, a specific amount should be appropriated only for that 
research. Further, the Senate authorization bill recommended amount of 
$20 million is the amount desperately required to initiate this medical 
research into the cause of the disabling and sometime-fatal syndrome 
experienced by Persian Gulf war veterans.
  The language in the Senate Defense Authorization bill is consistent 
with both the scope of the problem and the type of information needed 
to be gathered in order begin to properly determine the causes and 
appropriate treatment for this disabling illness. But, if the funds are 
not appropriated specifically for this research, it may not be 
conducted.
  Mr. President, we cannot continue to let the men and women who served 
this country down--I am asking for your support in conference to obtain 
funding to conduct scientific research at or near the levels authorized 
by the Senate. This amount that I believe is needed, $20,000,000, is 
well below what we spend on research into other undiagnosed illnesses. 
We spent tens-of-billions of dollars to finance the conduct of the war. 
We must come to understand that the expense of war also includes our 
obligations to care for our soldiers and our veterans.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the distinguished Senator for his efforts on this 
matter. I agree that this is a serious issue which must be thoroughly 
and rapidly researched and we will seriously consider these 
recommendations when the bill is being considered in conference.
  Mr. RIEGLE. I again thank the distinguished chairman for his work to 
make sure that the Department of Defense is both ready for the future 
conflicts they may be forced to confront, and willing to take the 
necessary efforts to ensure that those who serve during these conflicts 
receive proper medical care.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

                          ____________________