[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 111 (Thursday, August 11, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I just listened to speech of the 
distinguished Senator from Georgia. I want to say how very much I 
respect the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I think that he 
has great concerns about what is happening in Bosnia, as all of us do.
  I find that I agree with him a lot more than I disagree with him, but 
on this occasion I am taking a different position.
  It is because, Mr. President, it seems to me that we have been 
returning to this debate for the entire year that I have served in this 
august body. Each time the Serbs make the headlines with a new atrocity 
or outrage, we resume the debate. We talk about allowing those who are 
willing to fight for their freedom to be able to have the means to 
fight for their freedom. And each time we conduct a debate, we find 
some excuse not to approve lifting the arms embargo on the Bosnians.
  Last week, the Serbs rejected a peace plan once again. They stole 
armored vehicles and fired on a U.N. helicopter.
  The only improvement in the Senate, however, is that now we are 
debating how we will go about lifting the arms embargo instead of 
should we lift the embargo. But by passing two different resolutions, 
we are not leading, Mr. President. We are continuing to stall.
  I am concerned that the other amendment, while having much of the 
same response, is still not going to allow the lawful countries in the 
international community to give arms to the Bosnians, because the law-
abiding countries are not, in my opinion, going to give arms just 
because it is not being enforced when the embargo is still there.
  On June 23, I met with Vice President Ganic at the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. He made a poignant appeal to the Armed Services 
Committee. Vice President Ganic of Bosnia said apologetically to us, 
``I realize I am emotional about this issue.''
  I thought to myself, this man is apologizing for being emotional, 
while his country is under armed assault, their families are being 
brutalized and murdered. He was very poignant, real, when he was 
speaking for his people as the elected Vice President of their country.
  Mr. President, the Bosnians should have our support, not our 
sympathy. We have a moral obligation to follow declared U.S. doctrine 
as enunciated by U.S. Presidents from John F. Kennedy to George Bush. 
That obligation is to lend our support to oppressed people who are 
willing to fight for freedom. It is not always our responsibility to 
fight for others, but we must be willing to support them. The issue is 
America's leadership and resolve.
  Three years ago, the United States formed and led a coalition of 
diverse nations to a stunning victory in Operation Desert Storm. At 
that time, the United States was the unquestioned leader of the world. 
Are we now perceived as simply a member of the community of nations 
rather than its leader? The danger lies in the false sense of security 
that leadership in some way will evolve from consensus.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. Consensus follows 
leadership. Leadership does not, nor will it ever, evolve from 
consensus. The coalition which met the challenge in the gulf war did 
not result from consensus. It came about because of American 
leadership, and that is what is lacking today. It is up to us to 
provide that leadership because no other country can and no other 
country will.

  The time for leadership should be--and this time it should be--time 
for us to lead. Not to fight, as it was in Desert Storm, but to lift 
the impediment for those who are fighting so they can defend themselves 
from the attacks of aggressors.
  There is an old adage that it is preferable to die fighting on your 
feet than to live begging on your knees. It is clear that the Bosnians 
have made their choice and that is to fight on their feet, come what 
may.
  Some argue that lifting the embargo gives us a responsibility to put 
American troops in the fight. I do not think that is the case. The 
Bosnians have not asked for our troops to fight for them on the ground. 
Dr. Ganic told us he hopes the U.N. troops will continue to do 
humanitarian missions in Bosnia. But, he said, even if they feel they 
must withdraw, Bosnia is willing to accept that fate. He simply pled 
with us to no longer combine big words with small deeds. He asked us to 
lift the arms embargo because they need arms to survive.
  In closing, former State Department official Richard Perle, 
testifying before our Armed Services Committee, defined the stakes very 
well. He said:

       In considering, finally, whether to reverse the shameful 
     policy of leaving Bosnia defenseless against a well-armed 
     Serbian aggression, we face a decision in which the right and 
     moral course is also the course least likely to lead to 
     adverse consequences for the United States and its allies. 
     That is because it has the prospect of leading to a peace the 
     Bosnians themselves can defend, rather than a peace imposed 
     on a vanquished country that cannot last and which the United 
     States would then be obliged to defend.

  I want to also read from a recent policy statement from the American 
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, written by Albert 
Wohlstetter. He said:

       But it is not enough to resist forcefully all the bad 
     arguments for continuing an embargo in U.N. Resolution 713, 
     that never validly applied to Bosnia. Better to enforce the 
     valid U.N. demands to stop the flood of arms, ammunitions and 
     soldiers sent by Serbia, the genocide's source, to its 
     proxies in Bosnia and Croatia. That flood, financed by drug 
     deals, smuggling, and a network of pickpockets roaming 
     Europe, flagrantly violates, among others, U.N. Resolutions 
     752, 757, 819, 820 and 838. The world's democracies and the 
     U.N.'s bureaucrats turn a blind eye to these valid U.N. 
     demands.

  I do not like moving without our allies. That is not my first choice. 
Our distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee has 
repeatedly said that we should have our allies working together in 
concert, and I agree with him. But they have failed to move--time and 
time and time again. I believe and hope that if we take this action, 
which is a bold action, they would support our move. But the United 
States has acted unilaterally before and will do so again. That is what 
leadership is, sometimes.
  We must lift the arms embargo. Vice President Ganic of Bosnia said it 
so well. ``We are dying anyway,'' he said. ``let us die fighting, 
fighting for our country.''
  Mr. President, I hope we hear their pleas. I hope we set a date 
certain for lifting the arms embargo. I am supporting the Dole 
resolution because it is the right thing to do. We have talked too 
long. The time to act has long since passed.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, for more than 2 years I supported the 
lifting of the arms embargo in a unilateral manner if necessary. We 
have had debate time and time again, and I listened very attentively to 
the Senator from Georgia. As usual he points out in a very profound 
manner the responsibility of the United States as the embargo is 
lifted. If that be the case, I believe the United States would meet 
that responsibility.
  I do not quite see it that way, however. The fact that you lift the 
arms embargo does not mean that you have to deploy troops there. The 
fact that you lift the arms embargo and this would cause some 
disruption with our allies, and some heartburn in our relationships 
with France and England, to me is not sufficient to keep us from doing 
what the Senator from Texas referred to as truly a moral obligation to 
do something to help these people.
  There have been some efforts by our administration. President Clinton 
has talked to many people in the world, many people in the Congress, 
attempting to forge a multilateral effort to end this conflict. He has 
indicated that he himself would like to see the arms embargo lifted, 
but only if done on a multilateral basis.
  The fact is we cannot lift it on a multilateral basis. The Senator 
from Maine and the Senator from Georgia now have proposed the best of 
all that we have had over the last 20-some months of efforts to lift 
the arms embargo, because they do set a date. Apparently the President 
now realizes that this train is moving and eventually it is going to 
come out of this Senate and House with a vote to unilaterally lift the 
arms embargo. He may be presented with no alternative but to veto it 
and I do not think he wants to do that. I think in his heart--and I do 
not know--in his mind he wants to see the Bosnian Muslims be able to 
defend themselves.
  The reality is we have had a failed policy there, from the U.S. 
standpoint, but more so from the allies and the multilateral 
standpoint. We have not succeeded in bringing the Serbs, Bosnian Serbs 
to the table with any credibility, with any willingness to enter into a 
peace accord where they do not end up with 70 percent of someone else's 
country. And this accord that the contact group put together July 6 is 
no great accord. They end up with 49 percent of someone else's country. 
And that someone else is the Bosnia and Herzegovinans who want to 
defend themselves.
  So we lift the embargo, and the question is asked by the 
distinguished Senator from Georgia, how are they going to get the arms 
in there? You know, people who want to fight for themselves, who want 
to die if they have to, to die with dignity, are going to fight, just 
like they are fighting right now with the embargo on. They are getting 
arms. And they have demonstrated on several occasions they can be 
pretty effective, even against the far greater armed force of the 
Bosnian Serbs.
  So it gets back to where do we as a nation stand when a nation, an 
independent sovereign country, a member of the United Nations, part of 
the CSCE process, has now decided that they want to fight these 
invading forces? And we say because of an embargo that is imposed 
against the former Yugoslavia that no longer exists, that the people of 
Bosnia and Herzegovina cannot defend themselves. That does not make 
sense.
  It does not make sense because it is not right on anybody's scale. 
And the fact is there is a moral obligation of the United States to do 
all we can to help these people fight and be able to defend themselves 
from the Bosnian Serbs.
  Will they be able to do it? I do not know. It is interesting here, 
the debate that we have had on the Persian Gulf, for example. When the 
time came there was a big hue and cry--there are many who wanted to 
commit American troops there. They thought we should go after those 
invaders.
  That is what we have here--we have invaders. There is no reason that 
we have to decide today or any time in the future that we have to 
deploy troops there.
  But I do believe that we are committed under NATO to use air strikes 
and we should use them. It has been demonstrated time and time again 
when we are prepared to use those air strikes, there is a response from 
the Bosnian Serbs. General McPeak, the Chief of the Air Force, 
testified a little over a year ago before the Appropriations Committee, 
that airstrikes can be carried out with minimal risk, or very low risk 
of loss of U.S. pilots.
  For us not to be willing to lift that embargo and to do what we have 
to do with air strikes, to me is walking away--walking away from a 
pending catastrophe.
  I have been to Bosnia and Herzegovina four times, and Macedonia and 
other countries in the area. I have talked to people who have been put 
through the genocide and murder process that the Bosnian Serbs, armed 
by the Serbian former Yugoslav Army have subjected them to. To sit 
there and talk to a person of my own age who lost his mother, his 
sister, and his brother through murder and rape, and to hear of other 
relatives who were forced out of their villages through the ethnic 
cleansing process of the Bosnian Serbians to me is enough to make you 
cry, and it did just that.
  It made me feel like, ``What do you want from the United States?'' 
And I asked him that. When the President of Bosnia and Herzegovina was 
here, I asked him, ``What do you want?'' He said to me, ``Let us die in 
dignity if we have to die; let us have arms.'' He said, ``We are not 
asking for your soldiers. You do not even have to give us the arms. 
We'll get the arms, but we cannot get them in because of the embargo.''
  If we lift that embargo unilaterally--I cannot believe the allies 
there are going to stop arms from coming in to help the Bosnians. If 
the allies feel it is too dangerous, it is their right to get their 
troops out. They do not have to be there. But their being there has not 
brought stability to Bosnia and Herzegovina and an end to this 
genocidal conflict.
  So I hope this body will have the courage to stand on principles, to 
stand with people who have been so deprived and so victimized that 
there is just nothing more we can do today except vote a clear message 
that the United States understands the severity of the problem and is 
prepared to lift this embargo.
  If we do not do that, then the Senator from Georgia and the Senator 
from Maine have crafted, in my judgment, the best alternative. I must 
say, it is much better than we have had before because it does set a 
time, it does indicate that if the multilateral effort to get the 
United Nations to lift it does not happen, funds are cut off from our 
enforcement contribution. I compliment the Senator from Georgia for his 
ability to craft that and get that through the conference committee and 
apparently get the President and the administration to support it.
  So we have two good alternatives. I just happen to come down on the 
side that lifting the embargo is not as dangerous as the Senator from 
Georgia might say. Sure, it is nice to have a big plan, and we had a 
big plan when we went to the Persian Gulf. And in Bosnia if we were 
talking about arming them, that is one thing. We are not talking about 
arming, we are just talking about lifting, removing the prohibition now 
of selling arms or transferring arms to Bosnia and Herzegovina. I hope 
this body has the courage to do that.
  In any event, the only good thing I can find out of all this is that 
we are moving closer and closer to where many of us thought we should 
have been a long time ago, and that is to let the Bosnians die in 
dignity, if they must die; let them fight for their own country as 
anybody else in this body would want to do if we were in their shoes.
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his 
kind and thoughtful remarks about our proposal, and I certainly 
understand his position on the overall issue.
  I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island, the chairman of 
the Foreign Relations Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the distinguished minority leader has 
offered an amendment to this bill mandating the unilateral lifting of 
the arms embargo, an amendment that I will oppose.
  This is an issue that knows no partisan boundaries, that cuts to the 
heart of issue related to U.S. influence and power abroad. There are 
serious and valid disagreements among us, and as public servants, we 
are called upon to exercise our best judgment on this very difficult 
issue. My own gut felling, my own conscience tells me that unilaterally 
lifting the arms embargo is the wrong thing to do.
  Clearly, the situation in Bosnia is untenable, one we cannot support 
as we see the innocent civilian victims of the fighting, the vast 
majority of whom are Bosnian Moslems. Regrettably, the suffering of 
blameless civilians is far too common an occurrence in our world today. 
Untold misery is occurring in Rwanda, Kurdistan, Sudan, Haiti, and the 
Caucasus--to name just a few places.
  As I have said previously, before we take any unilateral action in 
Bosnia--we need to answer the most serious question of all: Is it in 
our national interest? Where does our national interest lie. How deeply 
involved is our national interest in Bosnia? Regrettably, we still do 
not have clear answers.
  My own view is we do not have an overriding national interest, but I 
realize that is not the view of many of my colleagues. As long as that 
remains the case, I would not support an action that could launch us 
headlong into a military quagmire.
  On several occasions now, the Senate has conducted an honest and 
thorough examination of a difficult issue. I have listened to and 
participated in the previous debates on this matter, and I have 
previously acknowledged that I see merit in some of the arguments 
regarding a lifting of the embargo. My best judgment, though, tells me 
that unilateral action is the wrong course to take.
  Today we are considering another approach. We have before us an 
amendment offered by the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, Mr. Nunn, which promotes a multilateral approach but which 
will likely lead to the nonenforcement of the embargo by the United 
States.
  I commend the Senator from Georgia as well as the majority leader, 
Mr. Mitchell, for their fine efforts to come up with compromise 
language. But this amendment goes quite far in urging the United States 
to go it alone, and for that reason, I am not completely comfortable 
with it. But I am more comfortable with it than I am with the Dole 
amendment. President Clinton has indicated that he will seek a 
multilateral lifting of the embargo. He did so with the full knowledge 
that if the Security Council does not agree to lift the embargo the 
language in the Nunn amendment, if adopted, would require the United 
States to halt enforcement of the embargo.
  In my opinion, this takes us a bit down the road of unilateral 
action. However, I see this amendment as the lesser of two evils. Our 
President has made the judgment that he can live with the consequences 
of this amendment--that it fits in with what he is trying to accomplish 
on the diplomatic front. I, too, much prefer this approach to one which 
would mandate a unilateral lifting of the embargo. For that reason, I 
will support this amendment as a tactical matter--in the hopes that it 
will help prevent the adoption of a measure that directs the President 
to unilaterally lift the embargo.
  One lesson that can be drawn from this debate, and previous ones, is 
that it is to our best advantage not to intervene with a unilateral 
action but to only do so in a multilateral way.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and 
suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask that the time be evenly 
divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, how much time is remaining on each side, 
now that we have split this quorum call?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia controls 2 minutes 
and 30 seconds, the Republican leader controls 16\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I have some other speakers. If my time is 
being dissipated by this, I do not know what to do about it. Perhaps 
the Senator from Alaska could let the time run against his time, and at 
least let me reserve--Madam President, I would ask that the remaining 
time on both sides be reserved. I ask unanimous consent that no further 
time be charged against either side on the Bosnian amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I would also like to inform the desk that 
the leader has authorized me to use his 10 minutes on the Bosnia 
question, if there are other Senators who want to speak on this side.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. I ask that the pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2520

  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, 
amendment 2520. I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2520.

  Mr. THURMOND. Madam 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:

       At the end of Title VIII, General Provisions, add the 
     following new section:
       SEC.   . Of the funds appropriated by title VIII of Public 
     Law 102-396 (106 Stat. 1899) for defense reinvestment for 
     economic growth, the unobligated balance of the funds made 
     available by such title for military service members 
     occupational conversion and training shall remain available 
     until September 30, 1995.

  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Murkowski and Simpson be added as cosponsors, in addition to Senator 
DeConcini.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, this amendment would extend the 
obligation life of funds previously appropriated for the Service 
Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act [SMOCTA].
  Madam President, the SMOCTA program was created by the fiscal year 
1993 Defense Authorization Act to provide subsidies to employers who 
train recently separated service members for new careers in the private 
sector. The act authorized funds for the program, to be available for 
obligation for 3 years. The 1993 defense Appropriations Act identified 
$75 million for SMOCTA, as part of the $472 million appropriated for 
defense conversion programs. Unfortunately, the appropriation was made 
available for obligation for only 2 years. This amendment would correct 
the discrepancy between the authorization and the appropriation, making 
the funds available for the 3-year period. Over $40 million of the 
original appropriation has been obligated to date.
  Madam President, although there were some initial bureaucratic delays 
in getting the program implemented, the program has been very 
successful. Over 4,500 employers have certified training programs, 
including national corporate chains. The program provides incentives to 
hire and train veterans. Over 35,000 veterans are certified for the 
program. Approximately 6,000 veterans are currently receiving job 
training, for a period of 12 to 18 months, at an average cost per 
veterans of $6,879.00.
  The Departments of Defense, Labor, and Veterans Affairs have worked 
hard to establish this program, although there were some delays. 
However, it would be a mistake to let this program expire at this time. 
To not extend the life of the prior appropriation would send a message 
to our military members, caught in the downsizing, that we do not care 
about their futures. It would tell employers that the Federal 
Government cannot be trusted in partnership agreements. I do not 
believe this is the message the U.S. Senate wishes to send.
  Madam President, without this amendment, SMOCTA funds will be 
abruptly cut off this coming September, at the end of the current 
fiscal year. My amendment will cure the conflict between the 
authorization and appropriation for this program, extending the period 
of availability for obligation of SMOCTA funds until September 30, 
1995.
  Mr. President, the SMOCTA program has strong support in the business 
community and the veterans community. My amendment is supported by the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, the AMVETS, the American 
Legion, and the Vietnam Veterans of America. In addition it is 
supported by the Department of Labor, which administers the program.
  I encourage my colleagues to join in supporting the amendment.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator 
Thurmond's amendment to make unobligated funds under SMOCTA available 
in fiscal year 1995.
  The Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act [SMOCTA] 
was created by the fiscal year 1993 Defense Authorization Act to 
provide subsidies to employers who train recently separated service 
members for well-paying, stable jobs. The act authorized $75 million 
for the program, and provided that the money would be available for 
obligation for 3 years.
  In the 1993 Defense Appropriations Act, $75 million for SMOCTA was 
identified as part of a $472 million defense conversion appropriation 
which was made available for obligation for 2 years. I have no reason 
to believe that the Appropriations Subcommittee intentionally rejected 
the authorizing committee's 3-year provision for SMOCTA funds.
  The Department of Defense, Labor, and Veterans Affairs have worked 
very hard to get this important program up and running. To date, 
approximately 4,000 veterans have entered training, and many more have 
been certified as eligible.
  The recent realization that SMOCTA funds could be abruptly cut off 
has caused much concern among veterans' advocates and the people who 
have worked to make this program a success. The prospect of having to 
turn away veterans and employers who have agreed to work together in 
this program is disconcerting to them and to me. We are concerned, not 
only about the veterans who will be let down, but also about the 
negative impact that the cutoff in funds may have on employers' 
willingness to participate in veterans' employment programs in the 
future.
  While efforts are being made to obligate as much of the direct 
services money as possible before the end of this fiscal year, it 
appears now that this cannot be done. Obligation takes time because 
participants and training programs must be approved by VA. In addition, 
the 6 percent of the funds set aside for administration will be needed 
over the next year for continued monitoring, as required by law.
  I want to make sure that veterans who have relied on SMOCTA are not 
let down, and that the people who serve them are not left without the 
support they anticipated. To this end, I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside so that I may speak on the Bosnia 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry. Has 10 minutes 
been set aside?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Pennsylvania indicate 
the time he wishes to speak?
  Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry: I believe I have 10 minutes set 
aside under my control.
  I am advised by staff I am authorized to take 10 minutes of the time 
from leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.


                     Amendments Nos. 2518 and 2524

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I might say parenthetically that I 
thought 10 minutes had been reserved under my control. But apparently 
the arrangement was not done. But I am advised I do have authority to 
take 10 minutes of leadership time.
  Madam President, I have sought recognition to support the resolution 
to terminate the United States embargo of arms for the Government of 
Bosnia and Herzegovina no later than November 15, 1994, because I 
believe that is the appropriate foreign policy of the United States.
  I have in the past supported other amendments advanced under the 
leadership of Senator Dole because I think Bosnia and Herzegovina have 
a right to self-defense under the U.N. Charter.
  The atrocities there are well-known. There have been major 
international efforts to stop the Bosnians and Serbs from proceeding 
with the slaughter. That stand has apparently been supported by Serbia. 
The United States, Great Britain, France, and other allies, joined by 
Russia, have tried to have a settlement there to stop the slaughter, 
and that has not worked.
  This resolution has been before the Senate on several other 
occasions. There was a 50-50 vote. I believe that there are other 
Senators who are now willing to support this resolution so that we have 
a unilateral lifting of the arms embargo as a matter of basic fairness 
to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  I recognize the problem of the United States acting alone because 
that may weaken our position on unified action on other major matters 
around the world, such as, for example, North Korea. But I think this 
situation has gone on long enough. It is intolerable. We ought to move 
ahead, and the Senate ought to pass this resolution.
  I have no doubt that this is not going to become the law of the land 
because, even if there is a narrow victory in favor of this resolution, 
it is subject to being vetoed by the President because the 
administration has stated its opposition to this resolution. There is 
no doubt that a two-thirds majority cannot be mustered to override the 
resolution.
  So what we are really going to be doing here is making as forceful a 
statement as the Senate can that we do not accept the policy of 
President Clinton, that we do not accept the arms embargo, and we do 
wish to proceed to lift the arms embargo even though we are aware of 
the difficulties that presents in the international community.
  What I think the effect will be of a forceful passage of this 
resolution is that it will put greater pressure on the administration 
to negotiate with the allies to have a multilateral lifting of the 
embargo, and will place pressure on the Bosnian Serbs. I think that 
ought to be accomplished.
  Parenthetically, Madam President, I am concerned about the 
articulation of this resolution where it says ``The President shall 
terminate the United States arms embargo,'' et cetera, from the point 
of view of the constitutional implications of the Congress ordering the 
President as to what the President should do.
  This is not a ministerial act. This is a discretionary act. I think 
there is a constitutional question as to whether the Congress can issue 
this kind of order to the President.
  Last week I took the position that the President did not have the 
authority to make war against Haiti without a congressional resolution 
in the context where there was ample time to get a congressional 
resolution. My view here is somewhat different with respect to the 
Presidential authority and congressional authority.
  But I do believe that the practical impact of passing this resolution 
will be to impose greater pressure on President Clinton and on the 
allies to move ahead to get the arms embargo lifted.
  My thinking is that there might be some more artful way to articulate 
this policy because, if you had the resolution passed and vetoed by the 
President and had the veto overridden, it would be a curious situation 
with the Congress ordering the President to do something in these 
terms.
  But again, the practical effect is to put pressure to try to get a 
settlement to stop the bloodshed, and to give Bosnia and Herzegovina a 
chance to defend themselves.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and any further time I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Boxer, Wofford, and Pell be listed as cosponsors to the Bingaman-Pryor 
amendment No. 2530.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask that the pending amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2531

    (Purpose: To increase the amount made available for the Defense 
              Contract Management Command by $36,500,000)

  Mr. INOUYE. I ask that amendment number 2531, the Levin amendment, be 
considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Levin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2531.

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam 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 11, line 10, before the period insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That, of the total amount 
     appropriated under this title, $1,224,309,000 shall be 
     available for the Defense Contract Management Command''.

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, last night I proposed an amendment that 
would restore to the Defense Contract Management Command [DCMC] the 
$36.5 million cut by the Appropriations Committee.
  DCMC is the agency responsible for managing nearly all contracts for 
the Department of Defense. It also administers contracts for NASA as 
well as a number of civil agencies and even some foreign governments. 
It manages some $840 billion of Federal contracts--a staggering sum.
  Contract management is an absolutely critical responsibility. DCMC is 
on the front line of DOD's relationship with our defense contractors 
and is our trip wire for any problems that may develop with contractor 
performance. In overseeing DOD contracts, DCMC returns $10 for every $1 
spent through cost savings and avoidances resulting from contract 
negotiations, contractor process enhancements, and contractor systems 
reviews. These savings and cost avoidances are realized by the services 
which are then able to make the best possible use of their contract 
dollars.
  Over the last 3 years, DCMC efforts have resulted in financial 
recoveries of $551 million--over one-half billion dollars. And DCMC has 
played a significant role in obtaining the debarment or suspension of 
some 364 unresponsible contractors.
  DCMC currently has a staff of 17,500. That is down by over 30 percent 
from 1989. According to DCMC, these reductions were achieved through 
attrition, special pay incentives, and selective reductions in force. 
By the end of fiscal year 1995, DCMC estimates an additional 1,000 
positions will be eliminated. Over the same period of time, however, 
there was, according to DCMC, a 12 percent increase in the obligated 
value of contracts, a 19 percent decrease in the number of contracts, 
and a 9 percent decrease in the unliquidated dollar balance. DCMC's 
reduction in personnel has clearly outstripped the decrease in the 
workload.
  An additional cut of $36.5 million could seriously weaken DCMC's 
ability to do its important job. According to the Department's own 
analysis, the proposed reduction will adversely impact DCMC's ability 
to invest in training, automation, and process improvements. It is 
these very investments that will enable DCMC to significantly improve 
its effectiveness in a future of continued downsizing.
  My amendment would have restored the administration's full budget 
request for DCMC, but I am advised by the chairman of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee that he will seek to restore funding in 
conference. I ask the Senator from Hawaii if that understanding is 
correct.
  Mr. INOUYE. The Senator's understanding is correct. I am aware of the 
impact cuts to DCMC's operation may have on our ability to monitor the 
enormous volume of defense contracts. I assure the Senator from 
Michigan that I will work to restore funding for this agency in the 
conference with the House.
  Mr. LEVIN. With those assurances, Madam President, I will then 
withdraw my amendment and express my appreciation to the floor manager 
for his support. Cutting DCMC's budget is cutting our ability to 
oversee the operation of $840 billion worth of defense contracts. In my 
view it is penny-wise and pound-foolish. It may look good today, but it 
will have costly consequences tomorrow and on into the future. I 
welcome the floor manager's support and offer my assistance in fighting 
for full funding for DCMC in the conference.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. INOUYE. In behalf of Senator Levin, I withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is a 
withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 2531) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 2537

(Purpose: To extend the terms of United States patent numbers 4,428,744 
          and 4,683,889 (relating to a photopheresis method))

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that the Senate consider amendment No. 2537.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Dodd, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2537.

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam 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 142, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       Sec.   . The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the 
     Commissioner of Patents, shall, upon expiration of United 
     States patent numbers 4,428,744 and 4,683,889 (relating to a 
     photopheresis method involving collection and exposure of 
     extracorporeally circulating leukocyte-enriched blood to 
     long-wave ultraviolet energy in the presence of a photoactive 
     drug 8-methoxypsoralen), or as soon thereafter as practicable 
     extend such patents for four and one-half years, with all the 
     rights pertaining thereto.

  Mr. INOUYE. In behalf of Senator Dodd, I withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 2537) was withdrawn.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2546

  (Purpose: To limit the obligation of funds for the HUNTER unmanned 
                      aerial vehicle (UAV) system)

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask that we call up amendment number 
2546, the DeConcini amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. DeConcini, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2546.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 142, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       Sec.  . (a) No funds may be obligated for a second low rate 
     initial production of the HUNTER Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 
     (UAV) system until the Secretary of Defense submits to the 
     Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives, the Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the Senate, and the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives the 
     Secretary's certification of the following:
       (1) That the Logistics Support Analysis Report required by 
     contract to be submitted to the Department of Defense has 
     been received by the Department and is sufficient to fully 
     support a determination to field the system.
       (2) That 200 hours of flight time have been successfully 
     logged on a Phase II UAV airframe for the system as part of 
     ``OPTEMPO'' testing.
       (b) The Secretary shall submit to the committees referred 
     to in subsection (a), with the certification submitted 
     pursuant to that subsection, a copy of the Logistics Support 
     Analysis Report and the OPTEMPO testing reports relating to 
     the HUNTER UAV system.

                    amendment no. 2546, as modified

  Mr. INOUYE. I send to the desk a modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 2546), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 142, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following 
     new general provision and number appropriately:
       Sec.  . (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act for 
     a second low rate initial production (LRIP) contract or 
     contract option for the Hunter unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) 
     system may be obligated until the Department of Defense 
     certifies to the Congressional Defense Committees that--
       (1) two Hunter UAV systems have been accepted by the 
     government using the currently defined Acceptance Test 
     Procedure;
       (2) the operational tempo (OPTEMPO) phase of the risk 
     reduction program has been successfully completed; and
       (3) the flight test portion of the first article test (FAT) 
     has been successfully completed;
       (b) None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     obligated to procure more than four Hunter UAV systems until 
     the Logistics Support Analysis (LSA) report has been 
     submitted to the relevant Committees of Congress and the 
     Department of Defense has certified to these Committees that 
     the LSA is sufficient to fully support fielding of the Hunter 
     UAV.

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, as modified, the managers have no 
objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I want to thank the managers of the 
bill.
  I want to thank the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee and his staff for working with me on my amendment, which 
is designed to help the Hunter UAV program. As many of you know, the 
Hunter system is a set of unmanned aerial vehicles designed for short-
range reconnaissance, supporting tactical military operations. This 
billion-dollar capability is a significant one; ultimately 50 systems 
are planned for a total of 400 unmanned airplanes distributed among the 
Army, Navy, and Marines. I support the Hunter UAV program.
  The Hunter UAV system has experienced several fundamental--but 
hopefully not fatal--problems during its development and procurement. 
The GAO has issued three critical reports in 3 years regarding the 
progress of the Hunter UAV program. The GAO continues to monitor the 
program today and has reinforced to me that their past concerns have in 
fact not been resolved, that they still include insufficient/
unrealistic testing, extremely poor logistics support, engine design 
problems, and questionable program management.
  For example:
  The engines--originally intended for motorcycles--have been 
unreliable, requiring several modifications, some of which are still 
ongoing.
  The fact that testing has fallen behind procurement compounds this 
problem, increasing the danger that faulty systems are being tendered 
to the Government.
  Logistics support--critical to a successful fielding--has been behind 
schedule. Without logistics support a single, minor problem with a part 
can incapacitate an entire system on the battlefield.
  For example, a contractually required ``Logistics Support Analysis 
Report'' manual is 2 years behind schedule. The title does not do 
justice to the importance of this report--without it, soldiers in the 
field will not be prepared to perform routine maintenance and 
operational repairs because the right spare parts will not be available 
in the right quantities. Right now, I understand, there is not even a 
spare set of landing gear for the Hunter planes.
  Several recent crashes have highlighted the program's growing pains. 
In at least one case the cause of the crash is not even known yet.
  Over and above these substantive problems is a concern regarding what 
I perceive as DOD misleading the Congress on the health of the Hunter 
UAV program.
  After Congressional staffs were assured this spring/early summer that 
the program was on track, that GAO's reported problems had been fixed, 
and that congressional concerns were outdated, the Hunter program, as 
submitted to Congress, was touched in markup.
  However, in mid-July, staffs of the relevant congressional committees 
were briefed that the program had been sifnificantly restructured as a 
result of numerous ongoing problems. The DOD Joint Program Office, even 
after privately conceding many of the GAO's significant criticisms, 
continues to publicly claim that the program is in near-perfect health. 
In last week's issue of Defense News, DOD and contractor officials 
state that all problems with the programs have been corrected. We know 
this not to be true, based on DOD's own statements--and DOD's desire 
for a restructuring.

  The Pentagon has not yet submitted changes to the FY 1995 Hunter UAV 
funding request. Our staffs have been briefed that approximately $65 
million is needed to implement this restructuring and some $30 million 
of that is being borrowed from the Close Range UAV program, which my 
staff was initially told was not being affected.
  DOD reported that the damage to a HUNTER UAV that crashed on June 19 
while undergoing Government acceptance testing was minimum. In fact, 
the damage is so bad that a replacement vehicle has been ordered.
  Before us is a request for a restructuring of the FY 1995 submitted 
HUNTER program to address its acknowledged deficiencies. As I 
understand it, the request is for $88 million to procure four low-rate 
systems.
  This restructuring is generally well-advised: it provides more 
support for logistics and testing.
  However, my amendment as modified by Senator Inouye will ensure that 
the Department of Defense follows its own prescription for 
restructuring. Specifically, the Congress should fence the $88 million 
requested by the Department for procurement of the second low-rate 
initial production systems until three specific milestones have been 
met. These milestones have been defined by the Department of Defense as 
follows:
  Milestone 1--requires that two HUNTER UAV systems be accepted by the 
Government using the currently defined acceptance test procedure;
  Milestone 2--requires that the operational tempo [OPTEMPO] phase of 
the risk reduction program be successfully completed;
  Milestone 3--requires that the flight test portion of the first 
article test [FAT] be successfully completed;
  These milestones are designed to keep a watchful eye on both the 
system performance and the logistics support. Members may ask why we 
need this amendment. We need it because the Department has been 
reluctant to admit to any major problems with the program until a few 
weeks ago, and still only privately. Now that the program's problems 
are acknowledged, we must make sure that the Department's newfound 
concern does not dissipate in the next year. These milestones signal 
our resolve to keep the program on track--and ensure that the 
warfighter gets a product that works.
  The Department has assured me that these milestones will be met in a 
timely fashion, perhaps as early as November. If that is so, the second 
low-rate production decision can be made in accordance with the 
Department's own schedule. Thus my amendment to fence $88 million 
should be considered to be an unobtrusive but important insurance 
policy for the taxpayer and the warfighter--if the system's problems 
haven't gone away, we won't permit business as usual until they are 
fixed.
  The Hunter UAV system fills an important and substantial need for our 
Armed Forces. It is for this reason that we must make sure that what we 
pay for we count on to perform in combat. This amendment will ensure 
just that. Because it is based upon Department of Defense milestones 
and schedules, it should not impose any extra burden upon the DOD--
unless there is something still seriously wrong with the program.
  I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Inouye in working with me to 
correct the problems with the HUNTER UAV program, make the program meet 
its goals so that it can perform its critical mission, and, at the same 
time, wisely steward taxpayer dollars. I thank the chairman and urge 
adoption of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Arizona.
  The amendment (No. 2546), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. If I might address the Senator from Arizona, Madam 
President, I asked the Senator from South Carolina to withhold action 
on his amendment until the Senator from Arizona could be here. I wonder 
if he realizes that was the pending amendment.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. No. I did not know that.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, might I inquire of the Parliamentarian how 
much time remains under the agreement on the Bosnia amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader controls 11 minutes 20 
seconds. The Senator from Georgia controls 11 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. DOLE. I do not think I will need all that time.
  Let me indicate, as I did earlier this afternoon on this amendment, 
that we have had the debate several times in this Chamber. In nearly 
every case, every Senator stood up and indicated sympathy for the 
Bosnians, and for their plight in Sarajevo and everywhere else; and for 
all the people killed and made homeless, or driven from their homes. 
All we suggest in the Dole-Lieberman amendment is that if November 15 
comes and nothing has been done by the United Nations, the arms embargo 
is lifted. That is all we ask. We are not asking about American troops, 
no air strikes, no American troops.
  We are saying this is an independent nation, a member of the United 
Nations, and it has a right to self-defense under the U.N. Charter, 
article 51. And a group of us--Republicans and Democrats--believe they 
should have that right.
  I listened carefully to the Senator from Arizona earlier. I think 
there is an understanding around here that this country has been asked 
to give up 49 percent of their territory, and we are supposed to sign 
on that--in fact, we have signed on to that as a Nation, the so-called 
contact group. Maybe that is the way to walk away from this. But 
history will not treat us very kindly or the international community 
very kindly.
  I have given credit to the Senator from Georgia, [Mr. Nunn], and 
others on the Armed Services Committee. But under that arrangement, we 
would not know anything until about the middle of October, and we will 
not be here. We will not be able to consult with Congress. I do not 
think we will be here October 15. So it could be next January, January 
1995 before this matter is debated again. I do not believe that is the 
intent of the Congress or this Senate. So I hope there will be broad 
support for our amendment and that the other amendment will be 
defeated. I know some of my colleagues have had different views, but I 
hope that maybe now they are coming in our direction.

                          ____________________