[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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would note the Senator from Georgia 
controls 4 minutes.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I am prepared to yield back the remainder 
of my time and go to a vote on the Bosnian amendments. There will be 
two of them, I understand.
  But while we have Senators on the floor, I ask for the yeas and nays 
on the Nunn-Mitchell amendment, and as well, I am sure, on the Dole-
Lieberman amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we once again face a difficult decision on 
the best way to help end the tragic loss of life and human suffering in 
Bosnia. This disastrous war has killed 200,000 Bosnians and driven 2 
million from their homes. The world has witnessed events in Bosnia that 
we had assumed could not occur again, especially not in Europe. Ethnic 
cleansing, forced relocations, and concentration camps recall the 
horrors of another time. Unfortunately, this war has brought back all 
of the old demons and unleashed new despicable tools of terror as well.
  There are no innocents in this conflict, but clearly the Bosnian 
Serbs, backed by their patrons in Serbia, must bear the lion's share of 
responsibility for the ongoing suffering. It is the Bosnian Serbs who 
continually have violated cease-fires, ignored ``safe havens'' and 
exhibited complete intransigence at the negotiating table. With utter 
defiance for the international community, the Bosnian Serbs have 
shelled civilians and attacked U.N. peacekeepers.
  We must find a way to end this virtually unopposed reign of terror 
and reverse the collective failure of the international community to 
bring an end to a conflict that could spread to who knows where, 
perhaps Kosovo and Albania, Macedonia and Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey. 
The instability in the former Yugoslavia has disrupted regional trade, 
has revived mutual suspicions of territorial ambition, and threatens to 
overflow and engulf the entire region, including important American 
allies.
  The world community has grappled with the breakup of Yugoslavia since 
the summer of 1991 and has searched for a resolution to the bloody war 
in Bosnia for 28 months. The United States, other nations, 
international organizations, and ad hoc groups have searched in vain 
for a diplomatic solution to stop the senseless slaughter and 
interminable suffering. The United Nations, the European Community, 
NATO, the combined UN-EC International Conference on the Former 
Yugoslavia, the CSCE, the Western European Union, and most recently the 
``contact group'' of France, Russia, Britain, Germany, and the United 
States all have tried and failed to stop the violence and bring real 
peace to the Balkans.
  The Senate has repeatedly endorsed the idea of lifting the arms 
embargo on the Bosnian Government as a way of creating a level playing 
field. I have supported this position with some reservations, but I 
have not supported taking that action unilaterally and without regard 
to international repercussions. We have discussed many times the 
problems with acting unilaterally--the need to maintain international 
cooperation in other embargoes; the danger to UNPROFOR troops, 
including some troops provided by our NATO allies; the fear of pushing 
the Russians into open support for the Serbs; and concerns about long-
term damage to general international cooperation. The continued 
intransigence of the Bosnian Serbs, coupled with the ineffectiveness of 
international efforts to deal with the crisis, has shifted the balance 
away from these concerns and toward swift action.
  I am hopeful that events have reached a critical stage, providing the 
President with the ability to exercise American leadership to achieve a 
multilateral lifting of the embargo. If that is still not possible, our 
actions to this end should serve as adequate notice to the world 
community of American intention to take this step unilaterally, if 
there is no other way to do so.
  When the Bosnian Serbs rejected the contact group's proposed 
partition of Bosnia, they crossed the Rubicon and even their patrons in 
Belgrade have now turned against them. Yet they continue their defiance 
of the international community. Their actions in reimposing a siege on 
Sarajevo, attacking a U.N. convoy, and seizing impounded weapons should 
be enough to eliminate any doubt about their intention to continue the 
violence.
  Now is the time for action. In addition to the positive steps taken 
by Milesovic to cut ties with the Bosnian Serbs, the Russian Government 
has shown an increasing willingness to take a tough line, and the 
Bosnia Moslem-Croat coalition has strengthened its military position. 
If the Bosnian Serbs refuse to accept the peace plan presented by the 
contact group, then the world community should take whatever action is 
necessary to lift the embargo and allow the Bosnian Government the 
right to self-defense. If the President cannot secure international 
agreement in a very short time on lifting the embargo, then the United 
States has no choice but to act unilaterally.
  The Senate wants the embargo lifted, the President wants the embargo 
lifted, and, most importantly, the Bosnian Government wants it lifted. 
Whatever action we take today, the end result will be the same. The 
embargo will be removed and the Bosnians finally will have a fair 
chance.


                           amendment no. 2524

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to say a few words about the events 
taking place in the former Yugoslavia and the legislation that we are 
considering at the present time.
  I'd like to begin by commending the distinguished minority leader, 
Senator Dole, as well as my colleague from Connecticut, Senator 
Lieberman, for insisting that this matter remain the focus of attention 
of the Senate. Their efforts have made it certain that the issue of 
Bosnia and the plight of the Bosnian people are given the treatment and 
the consideration they deserve.
  Mr. President, the amendment that has been proposed by Senator Dole 
and Senator Lieberman raises important and difficult questions that 
warrant the careful consideration of every Member of this body. In all 
candor, each time we have debated this issue, I have found myself 
closer and closer to agreeing to what their amendment seeks to do.
  In fact, I would argue that the Nunn-Mitchell amendment currently 
pending before the Senate will in fact lead to the same goal that Dole-
Lieberman seek; namely, loosening the strangle hold that has prevented 
the Bosnia Government from defending itself. Perhaps, the only real 
difference between the two amendments before us today is the timetable 
and modalities for accomplishing that goal. Furthermore, President 
Clinton has endorsed the approach set forth in the Nunn-Mitchell 
proposal.
  Would we all feel momentarily better if we could say today that we 
were unilaterally lifting the arms embargo against the Bosnian Moslems, 
rather than having to wait while the Clinton administration takes 
additional steps--painfully slow and time-consuming steps, to work with 
the international community to gain support for the multinational 
lifting of the arms embargo against the Bosnian Government? Absolutely.
  I, like others, have watched as the Bosnian Moslems have been forced 
from their homes and subjected to murder, rape, and unspeakable 
horrors. I, like others, have watched as the Bosnian Moslems have 
become the victims of a cruel and deliberate policy of aggression and 
ethnic genocide. I, like others, have watched the Bosnia Serbs as they 
have blatantly violated the U.N. mandated safe-havens, illegally 
removed arms from U.N. protection, and shot at U.N. peacekeeping 
forces. And I, like others, was deeply disappointed when the Bosnia 
Serbs recently rejected the international plan of the so-called contact 
group to restore peace to this war-torn region.
  I share with the sponsors of the Dole-Lieberman amendment their 
growing frustration with the inability of the international community 
to bring an end to the war and bring an end to suffering of the Bosnian 
people.
  And I am whole heartedly convinced that the arms embargo on the 
Bosnian Moslems, though well-intentioned when the U.N. Security Council 
imposed it nearly 3 years ago, was ill-conceived from the beginning and 
has only worsened and prolonged this dreadful conflict--and that the 
time has come for the embargo to be lifted.
  To be candid, Mr. President, it is very easy to see the appeal of the 
amendment by the distinguished minority leader. After all, this 
amendment merely gives effect to a sentiment that many of us have 
certainly felt: Just lift the embargo; do it right now; and don't worry 
about what the rest of the world thinks.
  However, upon reflection, I concur with President Clinton in the 
potential dangers of not trying one last time to attain international 
consensus. He stated in his letter to Senator Nunn that--

       (L)ifting the embargo unilaterally would have serious 
     implications going well beyond the conflict in Bosnia itself. 
     It could end the current negotiating process which is 
     bringing new pressure to bear on the Bosnian Serbs. Our 
     relations with our Western European allies would be seriously 
     strained and the cohesiveness of NATO threatened. Our efforts 
     to build a mature and cooperative relationship with Russia 
     would be damaged.

  Despite our frustrations, I believe that most of us would agree that 
the potential for international cooperation and coordination is far 
greater today than it has been in many, many years. The United States 
deserves a great deal of credit for that fact. We should think very 
long and very hard before taking any action that could undo the very 
meaningful international cooperation that is still at work.
  Make no mistake, Mr. President, lifting the embargo unilaterally will 
not strengthen that international cooperation. It could, in fact, be a 
major setback to such efforts. And that is not in anyone's interest, 
least of all the people of Bosnia.
  Mr. President, regardless of what anyone in this Chamber thinks about 
the Nunn-Mitchell amendment or the Dole-Lieberman amendment currently 
before us, there can be no disagreement over one fact: What is 
happening in Bosnia today is an unthinkable tragedy. Thousands of 
innocent civilians have been killed and countless more have been 
tortured, raped, or brutally uprooted from their homes. The aggression 
and the genocide in Bosnia must be stopped.
  But the question before us today is not whether we approve of 
genocide or even whether we approve of all the actions that have been 
taken in Bosnia by the United Nations and by our partners in the 
international community. The question before us is whether we can do 
more to help Bosnia by working in cooperation with the international 
community, or by going it alone.
  As much as in my heart I would like to be able to support the 
unilaterally lifting of the embargo, I continue to believe that the 
Nunn-Mitchell amendment is the right approach. It gives the Clinton 
administration our support as it endeavors one last time to lead the 
international community toward a policy that is the only morally right 
thing to do; namely, lifting the arms embargo against the Bosnian 
Moslems. If he should fail in that effort, then the time will be at 
hand for the United States to lift the embargo unilaterally, and I am 
confident that the President will take that course of action.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am prepared to yield back the 
remainder of time, if any remains on this side, on the Bosnian 
amendment.
  Could we set a time for the vote on the Bosnian amendment? I think 
Members need notice to get back.
  Is all time yielded back?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would notify the Senator from 
Georgia that we did get consent to consider the yeas and nays for both 
amendments. The yeas and nays are pending.
  The Chair now asks: Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time on 
the Bosnian amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is all time yielded back?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry. Which amendment will we vote on 
first?


                       vote on amendment no. 2524

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the 
Nunn-Mitchell amendment No. 2524.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who 
desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall vote No. 279 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--44

     Bennett
     Biden
     Bradley
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     DeConcini
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Wallop
  So the amendment (No. 2524) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       vote on amendment no. 2479

  The VICE PRESIDENT. The question now occurs on agreeing to amendment 
No. 2479 offered by the Republican leader.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 280 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeConcini
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Riegle
     Robb
     Roth
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Danforth
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Mathews
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Warner
  So the amendment (No. 2479) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, is the pending amendment the Thurmond 
amendment, Thurmond-DeConcini amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). The Senator is correct.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I yield to the distinguished Senator 
from Arizona.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I thank my colleague, the Senator 
from South Carolina.
  Madam President, the Thurmond-DeConcini amendment to the Defense 
appropriations bill would cure a conflict in law which would deny 
defense conversion moneys already appropriated in prior years for the 
Department of Labor, Office of Veterans' Employment and Training--VETS. 
Unless current law is changed, an important employment program for 
Persian Gulf era veterans discharged as a part of the defense personnel 
down-sizing effort will prematurely end.
  The Service Members' Occupational Conversion and Training Act--
SMOCTA--authorized a veteran job training program for 3 years under 
subtitle G of the Defense Authorization Act of 1992, Public Law 102-
484. However, the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 1993, 
Public Law 102-396, required obligation of all moneys made available 
under the bill for defense conversion within 2 years before September 
30, 1994.
  While SMOCTA was initially authorized as a 3-year program, the 
appropriations act only made funds available for 2 years. Unless the 
Congress and the President act immediately to correct this error, 
SMOCTA and the veterans it serves so effectively will be stripped of 
over $22.5 million of the $75 million already appropriated for this 
specific purpose.
  Madam President, CBO scoring rules require the projected unexpended 
balance of SMOCTA to be considered as new budget authority for fiscal 
year 1995. Prior to the subcommittee consideration of the bill, CBO 
estimated that $22.5 million in budget authority, and $10.3 million in 
outlays, would be required to continue the program into fiscal year 
1995.
  Madam President, I was the sponsor of the original Senate-passed 
veteran job training legislation, S. 2515, the Veterans Employment and 
Training Act of 1992, that ultimately was enacted into law as SMOCTA. 
S. 2515 was cosponsored by the distinguished manager of this bill, 
Senator Inouye, then-VA Committee Chairman Cranston, as well as 
Majority Leader Mitchell, and Senators Graham, Akaka, Ford, and 
Burdick.
  SMOCTA is an improved version of the Emergency Vietnam Veterans Job 
Training Act of 1983, later known as the Veterans Job Training Act. 
This act provides immediate incentives to employers to hire and train 
veterans in fields leading to stable, long-term employment.
  SMOCTA authorized a 3-year employment and training program. Employers 
who hire and train veterans under this act will be eligible for 
payments of up to $7,500 per year to defray the costs of training. 
Veterans participating in an approved job training program, including 
apprenticeship programs, may also receive reimbursement for some work-
related expenses such as special clothing, tools, bus or car fare, and 
child care.
  Madam President, I am extremely interested in completing the program 
as designed and evaluating its performance prior to its 
reauthorization. But, that is not my only motivation to be here today. 
Madam President, I am here to say to men and women who put themselves 
on the line in the Persian Gulf war, ``America appreciates you.'' I 
want to say to these brave men and women that the Congress is not 
kicking you out of your careers in the military without a parachute.
  Madam President, I am frankly tired of a seemingly ungrateful Defense 
Department dumping its responsibilities for the welfare of servicemen 
and servicewomen the day they are discharged. Madam President, too many 
of the people we are letting go out of the military do not have skills 
one can reasonably describe as transferable. These men and women are 
well-disciplined workers, and only need a small boost to get them 
through the door to new jobs.

  The Departments of Defense, Labor, and Veterans Affairs took far too 
long to get an interagency agreement negotiated in order to implement 
the program. While SMOCTA was enacted in October 1992, no veterans saw 
any benefit from the bill until September 1993.
  Despite this slow start, SMOCTA is well underway today and has 
attracted significant veteran and employer interest. Since last 
September, over 5,902 veterans have secured training and employment. As 
of July 29, 1994, the Department of Labor, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training, reports that 
$40,367,765 had been obligated at an average cost of $6,879 per 
veteran.
  During the first 2 years of the program, bureaucratic tussles and 
poor marketing limited the amount of funds obligated under SMOCTA. 
Those problems do not exist today. In the past 2 months alone, the 
number of national contracts has tripled, and it is anticipated that at 
least 25 of the Fortune 500 will be actively participating by mid-
August. This represents a potential for 50,000 new private sector jobs 
over the next 2 years.
  The program is universally supported by the veterans' community and 
private business. Walgreen Co., with over 2,600 stores nationwide, is 
actively seeking store managers to open several hundred new stores and 
augment staff at current locations. Walgreen supports SMOCTA and sees 
it as a means to hire solid employees with the training they need. 
Beverly Enterprises of Fort Smith, AR, estimates it will add another 
30,000 employees to its current work force of 93,000. Beverly is so 
interested in the program, it is printing SMOCTA program materials for 
distribution in all of its hiring locations.
  Madam President, the following companies, whose employment as a group 
exceeds 2.1 million individuals, also have expressed great interest in 
SMOCTA or have already signed agreements for national contracts for 
SMOCTA employment programs: Revco, Rite Aid, Mead Group, American 
Stores, Manor Care, Columbia HCA, the Limited Group, Bell South, Chase 
Manhattan, UPS, Marriott, Ameritech, Kimberly Clark, Hyatt, Nationwide 
Wausau, American Home Products, Proctor & Gamble, Harris Corp., Carlson 
Co., Baxter, Asea Brown Boveri, and the city of Miami, FL.
  Madam President, SMOCTA works to put vets to work now. Apple pie just 
doesn't sell and other employment programs are not getting veterans 
through the door. Employers want skills and SMOCTA gets the employers 
attention. In 1992, the Senate unanimously passed S. 2515, the Veterans 
Employment and Training Act. VETA became SMOCTA after conference with 
the House on the Defense Authorization Act of 1992. I say to my 
colleagues, SMOCTA needs your help again. This is an opportunity to 
make a real difference to those Americans who have put themselves in 
harms way for us. Please do not let our Persian Gulf veterans down. 
Support the Thurmond-DeConcini amendment.
  Madam President, I want to thank the distinguished Senator from South 
Carolina for his staunch effort, and his staff and my staff for putting 
this together.
  I understand we are going to make a modification here in a little 
bit. I truly hope that the managers of this bill will ensure us that in 
conference this funding of $22.5 million will be made available.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, will the Senator mind if I make a 
statement on this?
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Of course not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I want to state to the Senate that I 
fully support the matter raised by the distinguished ranking member of 
the Armed Services Committee.
  We considered this matter in our subcommittee markup at the urging of 
the senior Senator from Arizona. I commend him for his efforts in this 
regard.
  At that time, Senator Inouye and I pledged our support to identify 
sufficient funds in our conference to fulfill the authorization for the 
Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act.
  I commend the Senator from South Carolina for his perseverance, and 
the Senator from Arizona for his support. I want to renew my pledge 
that we will work with them in conference to try to achieve their 
objectives.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.


                    Amendment No. 2520, As Modified

  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I appreciate the remarks of my 
colleagues regarding funding for the SMOCTA program. I understand the 
concerns expressed by the managers of the bill. I know they have a 
difficult task in funding the requirements for our national security.

  Madam President, it is my understanding that although the amendment 
seeks to extend previously appropriated funds, it would be scored 
against current year budget authority. It is also my understanding that 
this would cause the Defense appropriation bill to exceed the 
committee's budget allocation, thus subjecting the amendment to a 
budget point of order. Therefore, I would ask unanimous consent to 
modify the amendment, and send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2520), as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of Title VIII, GENERAL PROVISIONS, add the 
     following new section:
       Sec.   . It is the Sense of the Senate that 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, this modification expresses the sense 
of the Senate that previously appropriated funds for the SMOCTA program 
should be extended 1 year, consistent with the authorization. This will 
expressly provide the conference with the will of the Senate with 
regard to this matter.
  I appreciate the assurances of the managers of the bill that they 
will work in conference to resolve this issue. I thank the managers for 
their leadership on this matter.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I join my colleague from Alaska in 
commending the senior member of the Armed Services Committee.
  We are most pleased to accept the modified amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I concur in that. We accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina.
  The amendment (No. 2520), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
DeConcini be added as a cosponsor of amendment number 2500 which was 
adopted yesterday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Sale of Used Machine Tools

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, if I may, I want to raise a matter that 
does not directly affect my State but is a growing national problem. It 
is one of personal significance to me because of my family background, 
having been raised by a tool and die maker who was part of the tool and 
die industry.
  I want to express my concern over recent actions taken by the 
Department of Defense to sell its inventory of used machine tools.
  Over the past several weeks, the Department has sold more than 1,000 
machine tools at auction; another 1,000 will be sold before the end of 
August. Thousands and thousands more are scheduled to be sold in the 
coming months.
  I am extremely troubled about these sales--primarily for two reasons. 
First, the United States has a domestic machine tool industry that is 
being undermined and severely weakened by the dumping of these tools 
into the market. Second, these machines could pose significant health 
risks because of PCB's and other harmful contaminants they may contain.
  I was prepared to offer an amendment to this bill requiring the DOD 
to immediately halt sales of these machine tools in its inventory until 
these concerns are addressed. I have reconsidered that position and 
shall not offer that amendment today.
  But, I urge the Department to slow down with its auctions. Officials 
at the Commerce Department are on notice to this problem and have 
described to the DOD the significant adverse impact its inventory sales 
will have on the domestic machine tool industry--yet the DOD refuses to 
act. Moreover, the Environmental Protection Agency has been asked to 
examine the potential environmental and health consequences that could 
result from contaminated machines. In my opinion, the DOD would be wise 
to heed the concerns raised by both Commerce and the EPA.
  In conclusion, the Department should stop, or at least slow down, 
these sales until it has evaluated the damage that these continued 
sales could have upon a critical American industry and upon public 
health.


                     lhd-7 amphibious assault ship

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, last year the Director of Central 
Intelligence, James Woolsey, said, ``We have slain a large dragon, but 
we now live in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of poisonous 
snakes * * *.'' The American military is currently engaged all over the 
world, from Rwanda to Korea and in many other places that are not in 
the news every day. We have certainly learned that the conclusion of 
the cold war has not ended the dangers we and our allies face daily 
around world.
  Our military has responded to the challenges of downsizing, reducing 
its budget, and reducing its fixed overseas presence while taking on an 
increasing number of missions, some of which include a ``* * * 
bewildering variety of poisonous snakes * * *.'' Along with many of my 
colleagues, I am greatly concerned that our defense budget has been cut 
too much and, consequently, readiness will suffer. Despite these 
challenges, the military is doing the best it can with limited 
resources.
  A prime example of making do with limited resources is the increasing 
use of Marine Corps amphibious ready groups, or ARG's. ARG's, which are 
centered on big deck amphibious assault ships, are called upon almost 
every time there is a crisis somewhere. Right now, for example, there 
are two amphibious ready groups in the vicinity of Haiti. In fact, a 
recent Wall Street Journal article, ``Marines Re-Emerge in Post-Cold 
War Military To Put Out Several of the World's Small Fires,'' points 
out that the amphibious assault ship U.S.S. Inchon returned from 6 
months at sea off of Bosnia and Somalia only to steam out of Norfolk 14 
days later for Haiti. Marine Pfc. Daniel Gaita is quoted in the article 
as saying, ``In 1994, I've spent 20 days in the United States.''
  I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit One)
  Mr. COCHRAN. A Marine Corps operational tempo that requires an 
amphibious ready group to go to sea 14 days after returning from a 6-
month deployment is too high. Given the instability around the world, 
it is likely that the demand for amphibious ready groups will continue. 
The answer to the problem of an unsustainable schedule of operations is 
to procure another amphibious assault ship, LHD-7.
  The purchase of LHD-7 will enable the Navy to form a 12th amphibious 
ready group. Witnesses appearing before the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee voiced strong support for this ship. Secretary of Defense 
Perry discussed the increased need for sea-based forward presence as 
the number of our overseas bases decline; General Shalikashvilli 
emphasized the need for 12 carrier battle groups and 12 amphibious 
ready groups to execute the forward presence mission; Secretary of the 
Navy Dalton stressed the desirability of having this ship and the 
Navy's plans to request it in its 5-year plan; and General Mundy, 
Commandant of the Marine Corps, made clear the military requirement for 
this amphibious assault ship and the necessity of procuring it in order 
to attain the Navy's stated goal of 12 amphibious ready groups. Quite 
clearly, when faced with a problem, our military and civilian 
leadership look for the nearest amphibious ready group as their 
solution of choice.
  An unsustainable tempo of operations, with its corrosive effect on 
morale, equipment, recruiting, and readiness, is not the only reason to 
procure LHD-7 right away. The Navy currently has a fixed-price option 
to purchase the ship. By taking advantage of this option, the Navy will 
save, by its own estimate, approximately $700 million. Purchasing LHD-7 
5 years from now, as the Navy currently plans, will increase its cost 
by at least 50 percent. It makes little sense to follow a procurement 
path which unnecessarily increases the cost to the taxpayer.
  I would like to thank Senators Inouye and Stevens for their strong 
support of LHD-7. They understand the capability LHD-7 represents, not 
only for forward presence but also when it is necessary to transition 
from forward presence to warfighting. I look forward to working with 
them in conference to fund this ship.

                               Exhibit 1

         [From the Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, July 26, 1994]

 Marines Re-Emerge in Post-Cold War Military To Put Out Several of the 
                          World's Small Fires

                          (By Thomas E. Ricks)

       Aboard the USS Inchon.--With the passing of the Cold War, 
     the U.S. Marines are happily finding a central role in the 
     new world disorder.
       Just listen to Sgt. Maj. James Rogers as he sips ice water 
     in a sergeants' mess aboard this amphibious assault ship 
     steaming near Haiti. The Marines he supervises aboard the 
     Inchon were the last U.S. troops to leave Somalia last March. 
     Then they sailed to the coast of Bosnia. Now they may be the 
     first U.S. forces to go into Haiti if the Clinton 
     administration decides to invade.
       After years of being a Cold War sideshow to the other 
     military services, the Marines are back. ``We've got a lot of 
     little fires to put out in the world,'' says Sgt. Rogers, a 
     25-year-veteran of the Corps. ``If you look at the history 
     books, it's nothing new. We sit on ships close to hot spots, 
     and if the president deems it necessary, we go in.''
       Indeed, he notes, every new Marine even today learns in 
     basic training about the exploits of Smedley Butler, Dan Daly 
     and Herman ``Hard Head'' Hanneken, who all earned Medals of 
     Honor in Haiti the last time the Marines fought there, from 
     1915 to 1934.
       In the public mind the Marines may still be associated with 
     World War II and ``The Sands of Iwo Jima,'' But for most of 
     its history, the Marine Corps has been the force that fights 
     the nation's small wars ``From the halls of Montezuma/To the 
     shores of Tripoli,'' as the Corps' hymn puts it. In the 140 
     years preceding World War II, the Marines made 180 landings 
     in 37 countries, including most near the waters where the 
     Inchon is steaming today: Cuba, the Dominican Republic, 
     Puerto Rico, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico and, of course, 
     Haiti.
       ``Small wars represent the normal and frequent operations 
     of the Marine Corps,'' concluded the Corps' ``Small Wars 
     Manual,'' a 1940 effort at distilling the lessons of all 
     those interventions.
       That wasn't true for much of the Cold War, when the Corps 
     frequently found itself shunted aside. One president tried to 
     abolish the Marines and another used them in Vietnam in a way 
     they disliked. The Marines never had a significant role in 
     the nuclear chess game that for four decades dominated the 
     thinking of the Air Force and much of the Navy.


                              center stage

       But with the end of the Cold War, the other services lost a 
     big chunk of their core missions, and the Marines secured 
     center stage. ``The Army is still trying to build the main 
     battle tank of the future, while the Marines are worried 
     about fighting in city streets,'' says Rand Corp. analyst 
     Carl Builder, author of ``The Masks of War,'' a comparative 
     study of the U.S. armed services. ``I like that. I think 
     they're focused on the right problem.''
       It is a capability also appreciated by the Clinton 
     administration. The Corps is the only service actually to 
     increase in size from the Bush administration's ``Base 
     Force'' plan, which would have cut the Marines to 159,000 
     troops. The Clinton ``Bottom-Up Review'' plan gives them 
     174,000 leathernecks.
       Consuming about 5% of the Pentagon budget, the Marines are 
     accustomed to living inexpensively. They also are equipped to 
     be expeditionary in nature, while the far-heavier Army is 
     built to be ``forward deployed'' in Europe and South Korea. 
     In fact, the Corps' biggest worry is that its Marines are 
     used so much that many may decide to leave the service. It is 
     a real concern: Down on the hanger deck of the Inchon, Pfc. 
     Daniel Gaita stares out to sea and comments, ``In 1994, I've 
     spent 20 days in the United States.''
       The Marines aboard the Inchon returned from six months at 
     sea on June 23, only to be sent back out on July 7 as Haiti 
     became a full-blown foreign-policy crisis. If that sort of 
     fast deployment ``becomes a habit, it could cripple the 
     service, long-term,'' worries Lt. Col. Steve Tagg, commander 
     of the helicopter wing aboard the Inchon.
       But the Marines already are lobbying Congress to give them 
     a bigger budget to ease that burden. Far more than the other 
     services, the Marine Corps is accustomed to justifying its 
     existence. That is a useful skill at a time when many 
     Americans, especially the governing elites, know little and 
     care less about the military. There are a dwindling number of 
     veterans in Congress, and only one graduate of West Point. 
     But as long as the Marines avoid the problems that have 
     plagued them in the past--a scandal among the U.S. Embassy 
     guards in Moscow and training abuses at Parris Island--their 
     lobby on Capitol Hill is likely to remain influential.


                          `A Very Deep Anchor'

       Essentially, the Marines have gone back to their 
     traditional mission of being the world's premier force at 
     fighting small, messy wars, a development that carries 
     especial significance for the most tradition-conscious of the 
     U.S. military services. ``The Marine Corps feeds on its 
     history,'' says James Webb, a former Navy secretary and a 
     Marine veteran of Vietnam. ``What other service celebrates 
     its birthday as the biggest day of the year? That gives them 
     a sense of continuity--and a very deep anchor.''
       This knowledge of the past makes the jobs the Marines now 
     are taking on less of a shock. The Army is still rattled by 
     its experience in Somalia, especially the loss of 18 Rangers 
     in a Mogadishu firefight last Oct. 3. The Marines, by 
     contrast, seem quite content with their time in Somalia, 
     where they were first in and last out. They went in expecting 
     a near-combat experience, and they weren't wrong. They used 
     their light-armored vehicles effectively, surrounding 
     warlords, compounds and negotiating the other guy's continued 
     presence. The Army seemed to expect lighter work akin to 
     United Nations-style traditional peacekeeping and only 
     received armor after the October firefight--an omission that 
     the ``Small Wars Manual'' warns against.
       This comfort with low-intensity conflict extends down to 
     the small-unit level, which actually does the fighting. At a 
     time when most of the U.S. military still tends to think in 
     Reagan-era terms of acting only when they posses overwhelming 
     decisive force, the Marines are at ease with the idea of 
     using ``minimal force'' as Staff Sgt. Vernon Clark put it.


                           specialist snipers

       ``One of the things you want to accomplish is to get the 
     locals behind you,'' he says, as his platoon from India 
     Company of the 3rd Batallion of the 6th Marines crowds around 
     him near a CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopter parked on the flight 
     deck of the Inchon. If fired on by someone hiding in a 
     Haitian mob, says Sgt. Clark, he will wait for specialist 
     Marine snipers to retaliate. ``You don't want to hose 20 
     people to get one guy,'' he explains.
       Sgt. Clark hasn't heard of ``Small Wars Manual,'' but there 
     is a copy aboard ship, brought by Lt. Col. David Young, 
     commander of the Marine infantry force on the Inchon.
       Though a half-century old, the manual is practically a 
     guide to how the U.S might intervene in Haiti: First invade 
     and occupy principal cities. Then simultaneously extend 
     control over the countryside and retrain or develop the local 
     nonpartisan army and constabulary. Next, after stability is 
     achieved, pull back from a broad occupation and turn over 
     control to local authorities. But keep a presence in larger 
     cities and remain available for emergency help. Finally, 
     supervise elections and withdraw.
       ``It's the kind of thing we do well,'' the colonel says as 
     he eats a tuna fish from a metal cup in the officers' mess. 
     ``All these guys here have a pretty good level of confidence 
     from Mogadishu. They were shot at every day. Some of the aura 
     has gone away. They know it's dirty, hard work with a lot of 
     monotony, searching people, searching vehicles.''
  Mr. SPECTER. Will the distinguished Republican manager of the bill 
yield for a question.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator yields for a question from the senior 
Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I direct the Senator's attention to the item under Navy 
procurement for ``Modification of EA-6B Aircraft'' in the amount of 
$38.4 million. Does the Senator understand that the appropriation of 
this amount assumes that the Navy will exercise its options to begin 
production of the Band 9/10 jammer program?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I would like to seek the support of 
the distinguished subcommittee chairman and ranking member for an 
innovative program in the Department of Defense. The program is the 
Army Environmental Policy Institute [AEPI], which has focused on 
important environmental policy issues for the military since its 
founding several years ago.
  Mr. INOUYE. I would be pleased to discuss the Army Environmental 
Policy Institute with the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The distinguished chairman and ranking member are aware 
of my support for the work of the Army Environmental Policy Institute. 
I urged the subcommittee to consider funding to support two priority 
projects for the Institute. The first project would require $3 million 
and would address the technologies and policies relating to the 
demilitarization of conventional weapons and ammunition in the United 
States and abroad. The second study would require $750,000 to study the 
environmental consequences of the accident at the Tomsk nuclear reactor 
in the Russian Republic and involve the collection of data useful in 
developing an effective response to a comparable United States nuclear 
disaster. The University of New Mexico and the University of Alaska 
have talented researchers that would work on these initiatives.
  Due to overall budget constraints, the subcommittee was unable to 
accommodate this additional funding.
  Mr. INOUYE. The Senator from New Mexico is correct. The committee has 
supported the budget requests for the Institute in the current and 
prior fiscal years. For 2 years, we included special funding so that 
the Institute could carry out an important study on the effects of 
depleted uranium on the battlefield, recognizing this possible health 
hazard long before the Gulf War Syndrome emerged as a public concern. I 
hope the Army will be able to continue its support for the Institute.
  Mr. STEVENS. I would also urge the Army to continue its support for 
the Institute. I am particularly interested in the proposed study of 
the Tomsk nuclear disaster since the toxic byproducts of this accident 
threaten the waters of the Arctic Circle, including those that border 
Alaska.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member 
for their attention to this important issue. I note that the Senate 
Armed Services Committee supported the Institute by authorizing an 
increase in base operating funds to a total of $4.7 million. I hope 
that my colleagues will give careful consideration during conference to 
the AEPI budget and the two priority projects that we have discussed.


                           Amendment No. 2521

(Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate concerning Japan fulfilling 
its commitments under the Host Nation Support Agreement it signed with 
                 the United States on January 14, 1991)

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I call up the amendment No. 2521 
offered by the distinguished Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Roth, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2521.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Sense of the Senate concerning Japan fulfilling 
     its commitments under the Host Nation Support Agreement it 
     signed with the United States on January 14, 1991
       That, the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty continues to be a 
     strong bond between our two countries, serving as a main 
     pillar of the bilateral relationship;
       That, the bilateral relationship is of vital importance to 
     both countries and to the stability of the Asia Pacific 
     region and the entire world;
       That, Japan's willingness to share the costs of maintaining 
     forces in Japan is an important contribution to strengthening 
     our security partnership;
       That, it has often been asserted that Japan's host nation 
     support for American forces provides a model defense burden-
     sharing arrangement for our allies;
       That, Japan and the United States signed a new Host Nation 
     Support Agreement on January 14, 1991, providing for Japan to 
     assume--over five years beginning in Japanese Fiscal Year 
     1991 and ending in FY 1995--virtually all yen-based costs of 
     maintaining U.S. forces in Japan;
       That, Japan voluntarily entered into that agreement more 
     than a year before the expiration of the previous Host Nation 
     Support Agreement which was not as generous;
       That, the Government of Japan hailed the new agreement as 
     ``a step of great significance for the overall relationship 
     between the two countries;''
       That, Japan's Defense Agency appears to have decided to 
     decrease expenses for bearing the cost of stationing U.S. 
     forces in Japan in its FY 1995 budget request, thereby 
     failing to fulfill its obligations under the 1991 Host Nation 
     Support Agreement;
       That, should Japan fail to fulfill those obligations, the 
     bilateral relationship may suffer negative consequences, 
     particularly as current problems on the Korean peninsula may 
     pose a critical challenge to U.S.-Japan security ties: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, That:
       (1) It is in the interest of both Japan and the United 
     States to fully comply with all the provisions of the Host 
     Nation Support Agreement of 1991; and
       (2) Should Japan take actions that prevent it from 
     fulfilling any of its obligations under that Agreement, the 
     bilateral relationship may suffer harmful consequences.

  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be 
cosponsored by the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I rise today for myself and Mr. Lautenberg 
to offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution regarding our burden-sharing 
arrangements with Japan. As I believe Members of this body well 
understand, the United States-Japan relationship is vitally important 
to both our countries and to the entire world.
  We have our differences over trade and economic issues--differences 
which are chronic, serious, and must be resolved. Yet on most other 
issues, particularly in the political and security realm, we share 
close and common interests.
  Indeed, the United States-Japan Security Treaty is the bedrock upon 
which the bilateral relationship has been built. Our close security 
ties have provided the Asia-Pacific region with the stability requisite 
for the explosive economic growth the region has enjoyed. It has been 
an essential element in preventing the many territorial disputes and 
latent tensions in East Asia from escalating to dangerous levels. And 
given the problems we face on the Korean peninsula, it helps serve to 
bind our two countries together in confronting what is undoubtedly the 
world's most severe near-term security problem. Thus, I believe it 
essential that neither the United States nor Japan take actions that 
serve to undercut our close security relations.
  Unfortunately, there are indications that Japan may embark on a path 
that could have the effect of loosening the ties that bind the critical 
bilateral security relationship. According to certain news reports, 
Japan's Defense Agency has decided to decrease its commitments to help 
bear the cost of stationing United States forces in Japan.
  Should Japan actually follow this course, Tokyo will fail to fulfill 
its obligations under the Host Nation Support Agreement it signed with 
the United States on January 14, 1994. In that agreement Japan 
committed itself to assuming virtually all the yen-based costs of 
maintaining United States forces in Japan. Tokyo's commitment at that 
time was particularly commendable in that Japan had voluntarily entered 
into that agreement to replace a previous accord which was less 
generous to the United States, yet could have remained in force for 
well more than 1 year.
  At the time, the Government of Japan issued a statement hailing the 
agreement because it ``not only will contribute to the effective 
management of Japan-U.S. security arrangements, it should also be seen 
as a step of great significance for the overall relationship between 
the two countries.''
  It appears, however, that domestic politics in Japan may force Tokyo 
to renege on its pledges. The current coalition government is composed 
primarily of two long-time adversary parties, the Liberal Democrats and 
the Socialists. The greatest policy differences between the two always 
had to do with security matters.

  In a series of stunning policy reversals to align himself with the 
LDP, however, Japan's Socialist Prime Minister abandoned most of his 
party's long-held positions on these matters. The Prime Minister stated 
within the last month that he would now recognize the constitutionality 
of Japan's Self-Defense Forces, uphold the United States-Japan Security 
Treaty, and abandon the party's previous call for unarmed neutrality. 
He also acknowledged the validity of Japan's national flag and national 
anthem, and recognized that official visits by Cabinet Ministers to 
Yasukuni Shrine, which enshrines Japanese war dead, including class-A 
war criminals, are constitutional.
  Needless to say, not all Socialist party members have been 
comfortable with the Prime Minister's near wholesale abandonment of the 
key principles the party has held for 40 years. Perhaps more to the 
point, this latest coalition government could very well fall apart 
should the Socialists fail to back the Prime Minister's new positions 
during the Socialist party convention in early September. To provide 
the Prime Minister at least some political cover, the LDP yielded to 
the Socialists in one area--it agreed to hold down defense spending in 
Japan's fiscal year 1995 budget while boosting nonmilitary foreign aid.
  The defense cuts will be severe enough that--according to one Defense 
agency official--United States forces in Japan will also need to share 
the pain. Mr. President, sharing the pain is one thing. Reneging on an 
agreement is quite another. If the 1991 Host Nation Support Agreement 
was the step of great significance for the bilateral relationship that 
Japan claimed it was, surely Tokyo's failure to fulfill its obligations 
under that agreement would do little to enhance United States-Japan 
relations.
  I believe Japan should closely consider its position on this issue, 
and therefore urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator 
Roth's amendment concerning Japan's compliance with the Host Nation 
Support Agreement of 1991.
  This amendment states the sense of the Senate concerning Japan's 
apparent intent to decrease their fair share of the costs of stationing 
United States forces in Japan next year. I urge the managers of the 
bill to accept this amendment to the bill.
  Madam President, this amendment is straightforward. It expresses the 
concern of the Senate about Japan's turnaround on its obligation for 
sharing the burden of its own security. Our agreement with the 
Japanese, signed in 1991, requires the host nation of U.S. military 
forces to pay for a significant portion of our overseas basing costs. 
As my colleagues are aware, this agreement resulted from strong 
congressional pressure.
  Over the past 7 years, the Congress has taken decisive action in 
burdensharing. We have cut the cost to American taxpayers for basing 
U.S. forces overseas. We have ratified several new agreements with host 
nations. And, we have created several incentives for the administration 
to get tough and negotiate a better deal for the American taxpayers.
  Madam President, while far from perfect, the Japanese agreement has 
been a good model for other host nation agreements. It offers a fair 
deal for the American taxpayer. Unlike our other agreements, our 
approach with Japan leaves the American taxpayer footing less of the 
Pacific defense burden. According to DOD, for example, in 1992 Japan 
paid 70 percent of the United States overseas basing costs and the 
United States paid for 30 percent of those costs. In fiscal year 1993, 
Japan paid for 72 percent of the overseas basing costs. Under the 
agreement, by 1996, Japan is supposed to pay all of those costs.
  The Japanese can afford to pay for a large share of their national 
security. We've provided them with a protective security umbrella for 
several years while their economy has grown beyond all expectations. 
And we're still meeting our obligations--the Japanese have the 
strongest defense shield in the region in place, and ready. The United 
States has fully met its obligations to the Host Nation Support 
Agreement--even with the worldwide drawdown of U.S. military forces.
  Madam President, the Japanese decrease in funding highlights the need 
for a strong, effective ambassador-at-large for burdensharing. My 
colleagues will recall that just 4 months ago, the administration 
attempted to downgrade that position within the State Department. The 
Congress, supported my efforts to retain the position as a full 
ambassador. We were right to stand firm--today our resolve will help 
the administration to be forceful in requiring the Japanese to meet 
their obligations.
  Madam President, the Congress must continue to show its strong 
resolve in ensuring that Japan meets its obligations. If we don't take 
immediate action, they will interpret our inaction as disinterest. We 
should not send the wrong signal to Japan--we will never allow our 
wealthy allies to get a free ride at the expense of the American 
taxpayer. The United States simply cannot afford to pay a 
disproportionate share of Japan's national security. Our Nation has 
nearly a $400 billion deficit, and a $4 trillion national debt.

  Without strong congressional action, the administration may not press 
Japan to meet their fair share of their defense burden. The Japanese 
model was negotiated only after years of pressure from the Congress. 
Still, we find ourselves having to press our long-standing ally to meet 
its obligations.
  Even with this host nation agreement, the United States continues to 
pay enormous amounts of money to defend collective security interests 
in the Pacific. And we will still defend the nations, including Japan, 
in that region against threats to their security and ours as well. 
Given the ongoing tension with North Korea, Japan is not free of 
threats to its homeland. In exchange for our continued vigilance, we 
should expect and demand that Japan continue to meet its obligations to 
bear its fair share of our basing costs.
  Madam President, this amendment will support the administration in 
negotiations with the Japanese. And it will show the American people 
the resolve of Congress to relieve them of a defense burden which they 
carried for many years. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.


                    amendment no. 2521, as modified

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send a modification to the desk and 
ask unanimous consent that it be adopted in lieu of the amendment that 
was just called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2521) as modified, is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Sense of the Senate concerning Japan fulfilling 
     its commitments under the Host Nation Support Agreement it 
     signed with the United States on January 14, 1991
       The Senate finds:
       That, the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty continues to be a 
     strong bond between our two countries, serving as a main 
     pillar of the bilateral relationship;
       That, the bilateral relationship is of vital importance to 
     both countries and to the stability of the Asia Pacific 
     region and the entire world;
       That, Japan's willingness to share the costs of maintaining 
     forces in Japan is an important contribution to strengthening 
     our security partnership;
       That, it has often been asserted that Japan's host nation 
     support for American forces provides a model defense burden-
     sharing arrangement for our allies;
       That, Japan and the United States signed a new Host Nation 
     Support Agreement on January 14, 1991, providing for Japan to 
     assume--over five years beginning in Japanese Fiscal Year 
     1991 and ending in FY 1995--virtually all yen-based costs of 
     maintaining U.S. forces in Japan;
       That, Japan voluntarily entered into that agreement more 
     than a year before the expiration of the previous Host Nation 
     Support Agreement which was not as generous;
       That, the Government of Japan hailed the new agreement as 
     ``a step of great significance for the overall relationship 
     between the two countries;''
       That, Japan's Defense Agency appears to be considering a 
     decrease in expenses for bearing the cost of stationing U.S. 
     forces in Japan in its FY 1995 budget request, thereby 
     failing to fulfill its obligations under the 1991 Host Nation 
     Support Agreement;
       That, should Japan fail to fulfill those obligations, the 
     bilateral relationship may suffer negative consequences, 
     particularly as current problems on the Korean peninsula pose 
     a potentially critical challenge to U.S.-Japan security ties: 
     Now, therefore, it is
       The sense of the Senate that:
       (1) It is in the interest of both Japan and the United 
     States to fully comply with all the provisions of the Host 
     Nation Support Agreement of 1991; and
       (2) Should either nation wish to depart from fully 
     complying with all the provisions of that agreement, it 
     should engage in close consultations with its counterpart 
     before taking any action:

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Delaware, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2521), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2522

(Purpose: To cap the amount to either replace or renovate the Pentagon 
                              Reservation)

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I call up amendment 2522, and I ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2522.

  Mr. STEVENS. 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 appropriate place, add the following: ``None of the 
     funds appropriated in this Act may be transferred to or 
     obligated from the Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving 
     Fund, if the total cost over the life of the project for the 
     replacement or renovation of the Pentagon Reservation shall 
     exceed $1,009,000,000.''


                     pentagon renovation dollar cap

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I want to offer an amendment today to 
cap the total amount to either replace or renovate the Pentagon 
reservation.
  My amendment places a dollar cap on this ongoing project at $1.218 
billion. I remain concerned about this very expensive renovation 
project, especially since the price tag keeps rising.
  In the March 1994 annual report to Congress on the status of the 
Pentagon renovation project, DOD reported estimated total construction 
costs of $1.009 billion. However, in late May, when they briefed the 
committee, DOD cited overall costs at $1.2 billion, price growth of 
almost $200 million, 19 percent in less than 3 months.
  I feel we must constrain the process. There is always the temptation 
to improve or change the renovation plan in the midst of construction, 
which ends up costing the taxpayers more money. I suggest that we hold 
DOD accountable to bring this project in at cost.
  There are many who criticize a billion dollar Pentagon renovation 
project in a time of shrinking defense dollars. However, the building 
is now 51 years old and needs work. Many of its corridors are lined 
with asbestos, it doesn't meet fire and safety requirements, the 
building leaks and the electrical system is severely overwhelmed. It 
must be brought into full compliance with the Americans With 
Disabilities Act.
  We have placed a great emphasis in this bill on supporting readiness, 
combat effectiveness and quality of life for the military at the 
expense of other worthwhile military and domestic requirements. While I 
recognize the necessity of renovating the Pentagon, there are just too 
many other national priorities not to set some spending limits on this 
project.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.


                    amendment no. 2522, as modified

  Mr. STEVENS. I ask that the amendment be modified, and I send it to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 2522), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       ``Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated in this Act may 
     be transferred to or obligated from the Pentagon Reservation 
     Maintenance Revolving Fund, unless the Secretary of Defense 
     certifies that the total cost for the planning design, 
     construction and installation of equipment for the renovation 
     of the Pentagon Reservation will not exceed $1,218,000,000.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified, of the Senator from 
Alaska.
  The amendment (No. 2522), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the motion to lay on the 
table is agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Hutchison be listed as a cosponsor of the McCain amendment No. 2500.
  The PRESIDENT OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Are there further amendments?
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT OFFICER. Senator from New Mexico is recognized.


                           amendment no. 2507

   (Purpose: To maintain the viability of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative 
Threat Reduction Program is Russia and Ukraine by expanding the sources 
                 available for transfer to the program)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2507.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 19, line 10, delete the period, and add the 
     following new proviso: ``: Provided further, That to the 
     extent that Congress fails to approve the transfer of any 
     part of $400,000,000 originally provided in section 9110(a) 
     of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993, 
     authority is provided for the Secretary of Defense to 
     transfer funds made available in this Act, or for the 
     President to transfer funds available for assistance to the 
     Russian Federation in any other Appropriations Act, to this 
     account for the Cooperative Threat Reduction ``Nunn-Lugar'' 
     program: Provided further, That any transfer made by the 
     Secretary of Defense under the foregoing proviso shall be 
     subject to the limitations and the reporting requirements 
     stipulated in section 8005 of this Act: Provided further, 
     That the authority to make transfers pursuant to this 
     provision is in addition to any other transfer authority of 
     the President and the Secretary of Defense.''


                  the nunn-lugar program is in trouble

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I am going to withdraw this amendment, 
but first I want to make a point. Among the finest hours in my time in 
the U.S. Senate were when we voted in $1.2 billion over 1992-1994 for 
the Nunn-Lugar amendment cooperative threat reduction program. It was 
supposed to put money into projects that would dismantle Soviet nuclear 
and chemical weapon systems. I regret to inform the Senate that, as of 
right now, out of that $1.2 billion, which was first programmed about 4 
years ago, $70 million has been spent to this point--not $700 million, 
but $70 million. Only $370 million has been obligated.
  There have been all kinds of bureaucratic problems, which I 
understand, but also Congress has, to some extent, reneged on this 
program, because more than $500 million of that $1.2 billion never 
materialized.
  This amendment would merely have given the President some additional 
flexibility to use other moneys that are destined for Russia and the 
Ukraine. It would have given him the latitude to use it, some of it, if 
he thought it was necessary and there were not sufficient funds, and 
dismantling could occur. The Senate agreed to a similar amendment on 
July 15 by a vote of 56 to 38.
  Sooner or later, we better get serious about this program. I do not 
know what is wrong with it. But clearly something is going wrong up 
here between the authorization and the appropriation processes and 
across the river between the policy people and the implementing people. 
They are not getting the work done.
  I did not want to see the President short of money because this is 
probably the single most important activity of the United States the 
former Soviet States. We are not doing very well at helping them 
dismantle nuclear weapons, as I will explain in a moment.
  Madam President, this amendment would have given the President the 
flexibility he may soon need to keep alive the vital Nuclear Threat 
Reduction Program in Russia and Ukraine.
  There is $400 million in new money in this bill for the Nunn-Lugar 
program. Of the $1.2 billion made available for this vital program in 
between 1992 and 1994 by this subcommittee, more than $500 million 
never materialized.


                what happened to the nunn-lugar program?

  What happened to the Nunn-Lugar program? After all, Congress made 
available some $1.2 billion over the 1992 to 1994 period for the Nunn-
Lugar threat reduction program. Only $70 million has been spent to 
date.
  Well, this is what happened. The first $800 million of those funds 
were not direct, new appropriations. They were transfer authority from 
other defense department funds.
  Today, the President and most of us realize that we need every dollar 
of our defense funds to pay for a deteriorating defense structure that 
faces deployment in Haiti, Bosnia, and Korea--A structure that will 
have to call up the reserves to fulfill its growing number of missions 
abroad.
  As a result of the financial squeeze on defense, the defense 
appropriators have drawn the line. Last year, the transfer authority 
for the 1992 Nunn-Lugar $400 million was canceled. Only about $200 
million had been used for Nunn-Lugar, so the program lost half of its 
1992 funding. That's one of the things that happened.
  Last year, the appropriators put very strict conditions on the 
transfer of Nunn-Lugar funds under the 1993 authority. Those conditions 
were retained in my amendment.
  As a result, some $318 million in requests for essential Nunn-Lugar 
programs have been frozen since March 17, 1994, because there is no 
agreement among the relevant committees on where to find the money.
  Madam President, it has taken over 2 years to get the Russians to the 
point where they are convinced that this threat reduction program is in 
their own interest. There was a lot of suspicion about our motives.
  It has taken 2 years to negotiate the detailed agreements to begin 
safeguarding and destroying nuclear warheads and chemical weapons in 
Russia and Ukraine. Finally, the Nunn-Lugar program is ready to roll. 
Unfortunately it is broke until this bill is enacted.
  We already have legal agreements to spend $1 billion to reduce the 
threat from excess nuclear and chemical stocks. Negotiations are 
approaching completion on the remaining $400 million in Ukraine, 
Russia, Kazakhistan, and Belarus. But, we don't have the resources in 
the defense budget to pay for all of these programs, unless we reduce 
readiness, pull back from the protection of Korea, or end participation 
in international peacekeeping. The managers made that point very 
eloquently in their opening statements.


              problems exist, but program must go forward

  The superb staff of the Appropriations Committee have worked with our 
Budget Committee staff to identify and correct deficiencies in 
implementation of the Nunn-Lugar program. The policy direction for this 
program in the Department of Defense suffers from some of the 
same problems that Senators McConnell and Leahy have identified in the 
Department of State.

  Like several other appropriators, I am uncomfortable with the use of 
Nunn-Lugar funds for officer housing. That effort is already funded at 
more than $160 million in the foreign operations bill. It was unwise to 
borrow funds dedicated for nuclear reactor safety in Ukraine to make an 
advance payment on officer housing programs.
  Another questionable effort by the Nunn-Lugar program is the 
establishment of a defense enterprise fund that appears to lack the 
independence and adequate capitalization that enabled the enterprise 
funds in central Europe to succeed. I am not sure that the Nunn-Lugar 
program should be funding enterprise funds.
  These secondary efforts divert funds from the central purpose of the 
Nunn-Lugar program: that objective is to help Russia, Ukraine and the 
other nuclear states begin to safeguard, dismantle, and destroy weapons 
of mass destruction and their delivery systems. That is why the Nunn-
Lugar program is as important to American security as it is to the 
security of the former Soviet Union.
  In another month there will be a summit meeting between President 
Clinton and President Yeltsin. The mutual security and proliferation 
issues that are covered by the Nunn-Lugar program will dominate their 
agenda. My amendment would have given the President flexibility to 
determine his own priorities in America's program of assistance to 
Russia and Ukraine. That has been his policy, as I understood it.
  Let me summarize. If sufficient funds from the current defense budget 
were no longer available for the Nunn-Lugar program, the President 
could have transferred Russian aid funds from the control of the Agency 
for International Development to the Nunn-Lugar Nuclear Threat 
Reduction Program in the Department of Defense.
  This transfer authority in this amendment and the one approved by the 
Senate on July 15th was discretionary; the President would not have to 
use it, unless he is convinced that the Nunn-Lugar program will fail 
without the full $400 million first approved in 1993. The amount of any 
transfer would have been limited to the $318 million not yet 
transferred under the original 1993 authority.
  Madam President, I am prepared to ask the Senate to again go on 
record in support of the vital Nunn-Lugar Threat Reduction Program, but 
both managers indicate a reluctance to carry this issue to conference. 
They have requested me to withdraw the amendment, and the 
administration withholds its support.
  I withdraw the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2507) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 2514

   (Purpose: To require the Administration to budget for the cost of 
  humanitarian, peacekeeping, peacemaking operations, and operations 
 other than war in which Armed Forces of the United States are or will 
               be participating, and for other purposes)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] for Mr. Dole, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2514.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place insert the following new section:

     SEC.  . REQUIREMENT TO INCLUDE IN THE ADMINISTRATION'S 
                   DEFENSE BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE COMING FISCAL 
                   YEAR THE COST OF INVOLVEMENT BY ARMED FORCES OF 
                   THE UNITED STATES IN HUMANITARIAN, 
                   PEACEKEEPING, PEACEMAKING OPERATIONS, AND 
                   OPERATIONS OTHER THAN WAR.

       (a) Requirement.--The President shall, when submitting to 
     the Congress the budget for the United States Government for 
     the coming fiscal year, include in the budget the cost of 
     involvement and participation by the Armed Forces of the 
     United States in ongoing or anticipated operations outside 
     the United States as specified below--
       (1) operations to provide humanitarian aid;
       (2) peacekeeping operations;
       (3) peacemaking operations;
       (4) operations other than war;
       (5) and any operation, other than normal troop movements, 
     rotations, or exercises, in which U.S. military involvement 
     during the fiscal year is anticipated.
       (b) Classified Annex.--If the President or the Secretary of 
     Defense determine that disclosure of the information required 
     in paragraph (a) of this section could reasonably be expected 
     to damage the national security of the United States, the 
     President shall provide the information in a classified 
     annex.

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2514) was withdrawn.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remaining committee amendments be considered, en bloc, and agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the committee amendments were agreed to, en bloc.

                          ____________________