[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]

 
FLIPPING THE U.N. PEACEKEEPING COIN: U.S. PARTICIPATION IN MULTILATERAL 
                               OPERATIONS

  Mr. PRESSLER. Since taking office, the Clinton administration has 
committed--all will--our resources and our troops to U.N. peacekeeping 
operations without clear guidelines and objectives meriting U.S. 
participation. Remember Somalia? Will Haiti or Rwanda be next? This 
cannot continue.
  The current conflicts in Haiti and Rwanda are operations where random 
U.S. commitments must not continue. A coin-flipping decision process 
seems to determine U.S. participation in peacekeeping operations. Heads 
we support. Tails we oppose.
  I am tired of Administration lip service regarding U.S. support for 
peacekeeping operations. I am tired of policies that say one thing and 
actions which practice something else. The next few weeks will be a 
testing time for the Clinton administration. Will the President stand 
firm and adhere to policies outlined both in the recently signed 
Foreign Relations Authorization Act and the recently endorsed 
administration decision directive on reforming multilateral peace 
operations?
  Already, President Clinton has failed the first test of resolve. With 
regard to Rwanda, the administration breached the integrity of the 
Foreign Relations Authorization Act--an act the President signed into 
law less than 4 months ago.
  Specifically, the new law (P.L. 103-236) requires the Permanent 
Representative to transmit the text of any resolutions and reports 
prepared by the United Nations pertaining to U.S. involvement, 
logistics/and or troops, in peacekeeping operations to Congress 3 
working days after a resolution is adopted by the Security Council. 
Additionally, the President--except in emergency situations--must 
submit cost assessments to Congress at least 15 days before any 
obligation of U.S. funds or before any actions are taken under articles 
42 and 43 of the U.N. Charter involving U.S. troops.
  Furthermore, the law requires the President to report each 
operation's expected duration, mandate, command and control 
arrangements, overall cost, and the cost to the United States. In 
addition, the report must include a detailed description of the 
functions to be performed by any U.S. Armed Forces used in support of 
an operation, as well as U.S. troop number and cost estimates.
  This Member of Congress received only vague derails from the 
administration concerning peace keeping in Rwanda, and this came 4 days 
after the United States agreed to U.N. Resolution 918 which called for 
an expansion of the UNAMIR operation. There was no consultation with 
Congress. No emergency waiver from the President. No concrete details 
of any kind.
  In light of heavy criticism launched against President Clinton and 
his foreign policy team, one would think the administration would 
exercise extreme care in adhering to the new reporting requirements 
outlined in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. How can Congress 
support a multilateral peacekeeping operation unless Members are able 
to assess an operation's costs, objectives, goals, duration, and effect 
on our national interests? The answer is simple. We can't.
  The administration must not disregard these new rules. Congress would 
not have included the reporting requirements in the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act if Members did no intend on using the reports to make 
informed decisions about multilateral operations. Certainly, one can 
overlook the administration's lack of systematic compliance with regard 
to Rwanda. But where does that leave Congress? When do we stop 
overlooking and start expecting action from the Executive Branch?
  In a similar vein, President Clinton recently signed and endorsed 
Presidential Decision Directive 25 [PDD 25] which outlines his 
administration's policy on reforming multilateral peace operations. PDD 
25 addresses six reform areas including management and funding reforms 
as well as reforms guiding determinations of U.S. support in regional 
conflicts. The guidelines set forth in PDD 25, however, are 
insufficient to serve as policy.
  While I have reviewed an unclassified copy of the Executive summary 
of PDD 25, the full text of the directive remains classified. Again, it 
is difficult for me, as a Member of Congress, to support fully the 
specific components of this directive since we simply do not know the 
details of this policy. It is extremely important that PDD 25 provide a 
clear directive for determining the extent to which the United States 
will support multilateral peacekeeping operations.
  Although, for example, the administration claimed the criteria in PDD 
25 were factored into the decision to support U.N. Resolution 918, how 
can this be verified by Congress? How can we verify the 
administration's criteria in its decision to send troops into Haiti? 
How can Congress travel the same road as the President if the troop 
authorization road map remains unavailable for evaluation?
  At best, PDD 25 is a first step in the reform process. However, it by 
no means should be heralded as policy, given the ambiguous language, 
inadequate detail, and loose guidelines outlined in the Executive 
summary. The United States needs a firm and consistent policy to guide 
our involvement in conflicts abroad. We simply cannot spend U.S. 
dollars and risk American lives any longer without clear mandates and 
cost estimates.
  The situations in Rwanda and Haiti present President Clinton the 
unique opportunity either to begin an intervention policy of caution 
and prudence or to continue proceeding along the same random foreign 
policy path. Continued pressure and insistence from President Clinton 
and Ambassador Albright are essential to ensure that multilateral 
operation and management reforms are taken seriously.
  If the United Nations is to be an effective international body, U.S. 
support, funding, and leadership are necessary. The administration's 
coin-flipping foreign policy mentality should no longer guide our 
peacekeeping involvements. We owe it to U.S. taxpayers to ensure that 
our support for U.N. operations is not wasted.


              destruction of neutralized chemical weapons

  Mr. BROWN. The bill before us includes a provision prohibiting the 
study of the transportation of unitary chemical weapons for destruction 
purposes. As many have pointed out, the issue of destruction has been 
studied extensively. Although this provision does not appear to 
preclude the study of neutralized chemical weapons, the lawyers at the 
Defense Department have expressed their concern that this language may 
be construed to prevent such a study.
  It is an important question, especially to the men and women of 
Pueblo, CO. The Pueblo Depot Activity located on the outskirts of 
Pueblo is one of those bases slated for realignment and for the 
destruction of its chemical weapons. But before we proceed with 
building a very expensive chemical weapons incinerator in Pueblo, it 
makes sense to thoroughly study other alternatives--especially the 
possibility of first neutralizing unitary chemical weapons and then 
transporting them for destruction at existing disposal facilities.
  Instead of offering a clarifying amendment to ensure that the 
neutralization and subsequent transportation of the neutralized 
portions can be studied despite restrictions in the bill, I would like 
to ask the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to enter 
into a colloquy with me that clarifies the intent of exiting bill 
language.
  Mr. INOUYE. As noted by the Senator from Colorado, there is a 
provision in the bill currently before the Senate restricting the study 
of transporting unitary chemical weapons for destruction. This 
provision was never intended to restrict the study of transporting 
neutralized chemical weapons for destruction. In my view, this 
provision in no way restricts such a study.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the distinguished chairman for his insights. It is 
clear to me that as it stands, the provision does not restrict the 
study of transporting neutralized chemical weapons. I yield the floor.


                 national presto environmental clean up

  Mr. KOHL. I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy on an issue he has 
worked on over the years, the environmental clean up of a site formerly 
used by the Army in Eau Claire, WI, now owned by National Presto 
Industries.
  During World War II, the facility was owned and operated by the Army 
as a manufacturing site for the production of small arms ammunition and 
radar tubes. Subsequently the facility was activated during the Vietnam 
conflict, and National Presto, working on contract to the Army, 
manufactured 105mm projectile metal parts.
  As a result of this production, the Eau Claire site is heavily 
contaminated with suspected carcinogens and is a Superfund site. In 
1988, the Army and National Presto signed an agreement in which the 
Army agreed to cooperate in seeking whatever funds might be required to 
complete the full remediation of the Eau Claire site. Unfortunately, 
the Army has not honored that agreement.
  Mr. INOUYE. I am familiar with the problem at the Eau Claire site and 
with the 1988 agreement signed by the Army and National Presto. Also, I 
am aware that the Army has not sought funds for clean up activities.
  Mr. KOHL. In acknowledging its responsibility to clean up the Eau 
Claire site, the Army and Congress made $12 million available between 
the years 1988 and 1993 for remediation efforts. Does the chairman 
agree that the Senate Appropriations Committee has tried to assist in 
meeting the requirement to restore the environmental damage at this 
site.
  Mr. INOUYE. The Senator from Wisconsin is correct. In its fiscal year 
1993 report accompanying the Defense appropriations bill, the Committee 
stated:

       The Committee is deeply disturbed by the failure of the 
     Army to comply with the direction in last year's conference 
     report to proceed with environmental restoration activities 
     at the National Presto Industries facility at Eau Claire, WI. 
     The Committee views the obstruction of the Army in this 
     matter as in direct contravention of Congressional intent.

  Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the chairman's willingness to take such a 
strong stand on this issue in the past. According to National Presto, 
$15 million would complete the clean up of this site and return it to 
productive use. The House fiscal year 1995 Defense appropriations bill 
includes $7 million for environmental remediation of the Presto site in 
its version of the bill. I am committed to seeing that the potential 
health and safety risks faced by my constituents are fully remedied at 
the earliest possible date. I urge my colleague to support this funding 
during the conference on the bill, and, as in the past, make it binding 
in bill language.
  Mr. INOUYE. I commend the distinguished Senator's desire to see the 
cleanup of this site completed expeditiously. I will give his views 
every consideration during the conference with the House.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Hawaii for his comments.


                        milstar satellite system

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday I supported an amendment offered 
by Senator Bumpers to terminate the MILSTAR satellite system. As an 
original cosponsor of this measure, I strongly feel that the Senate has 
an important opportunity to save billions of dollars without 
sacrificing national security.
  Mr. President, the Bumpers amendment brings the Defense budget in 
line with reality. Why should the American taxpayer spend billions on a 
system that was designed specifically to fight a protracted nuclear 
war?
  I know the Pentagon is having a rough time adapting to the realities 
of a post cold war. It is hard to put 45 years of East-West competition 
behind an institution as large as the Defense establishment. Slowly our 
defense leaders are focusing more on peacekeeping, joint operability, 
and the unique demands of the smaller conflicts that we are likely to 
face in the future.
  The amendment offered by Senator Bumpers offers a reality check for 
the MILSTAR program. Nobody in the Senate doubts that our military 
forces need secure digital communications. But the MILSTAR program the 
Pentagon is asking taxpayers to spend billions on over the next decade 
does much more than provide digital communications. The two satellites 
that my colleague from Arkansas proposes to cut weight too much and 
retain several of the costly capabilities designed for the cold war but 
that are no longer necessary.
  Our national security no longer requires communications platforms 
with maneuverability to avoid hostile satellites. No longer do our 
communications need expensive shielding from nuclear blasts. What they 
do need, and what will not be lost by my colleague from Arkansas' 
amendment, is the ability to digitally communicate with U.S. forces 
around the world without being jammed.
  This amendment deletes funding for two of the heavy satellites that 
were designed in the midst of the cold war. It takes half of the money 
saved and applies it toward the Pentagon's new MILSTAR satellites. The 
American taxpayer can save between $2.4 to $3.5 billion under this 
restructuring, and the military will have the capabilities that they 
need.
  I thank my colleague and friend from Arkansas for again bringing to 
the attention of the Senate and the country a prudent way to save the 
taxpayers money without compromising the capabilities of the military. 
He consistently evaluates defense programs against the stark realities 
of national necessity. I urge the rest of the Senate to vote for this 
amendment.


              kaiserslautern military community in germany

  Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, I would respectfully ask the 
distinguished Chairman, Senator Inouye, to clarify some essential 
points on section 8007. Before doing so, I would like to congratulate 
him and the Ranking Member, Senator Stevens, for their leadership on 
this legislation.
  Mr. President, section 8007 addresses opportunities for the United 
States coal industry as part of badly needed energy modernization at 
the Kaiserslautern Military Community in Germany, by far the largest 
concentration of American personnel overseas. The Senate committee 
adopted language identical to the House, a repeat of previous year 
provision language which emphasizes the cost-effective use of U.S. coal 
as part of such modernization projects.
  I ask the Chairman of the Subcommittee, since it is not mentioned in 
either the House or Senate reports, if the Committee is aware that 
within the next several weeks it is anticipated that the Air Force will 
complete an agreement with the City of Kaiserslautern for a major new 
heating system to serve the U.S. installations.
  Mr. INOUYE. The Committee is aware that this is the case.
  Mr. WOFFORD. I must presume that the Chairman is likewise aware that 
U.S. coal will be the base load energy for an expanded municipal system 
which will serve U.S. facilities. It must be noted with due regard for 
the efforts of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations that is was 
only the legislative language adopted in the 1992 annual act which has 
made this possible.
  Mr. INOUYE. I am aware of this fact.
  Mr. WOFFORD. Section 8007 once again references energy modernization 
for the American facilities at Landstuhl and neighboring Ramstein Air 
Base, both of which are a part of the large Kaiserslautern Military 
Community. I must state, however, that progress on these project areas 
has been extremely slow.
  Regarding an associated issue in section 8007, the pending completion 
of an agreement for modern heating service for U.S. facilities in the 
city of Kaiserslautern, when the cost effective data is available to 
the committees, would the Chairman be willing to address this data in 
conference as it pertains to any possible additional cost-effective 
agreements for the use of U.S. coal in the Kaiserslautern Military 
Community regarding Landstuhl and Ramstein Air Base?
  Mr. INOUYE. If additional information indicates that the precedent 
set for new hearing services for DOD facilities in the city of 
Kaiserslautern and the use of U.S. coal in third-party projects on a 
cost-effective basis is confirmed as reasonable, then certainly a 
comprehensive review would be in order.
  Mr. WOFFORD. I would like to bring to the further attention of the 
Committee that while the new report language stipulates that the intent 
of section 8007 concerning Landstuhl and Ramstein Air Base is for 
competition in energy procurement, that the Air Force, in fact, has 
already begun a sole source procurement for Ramstein Air Base.
  I respectfully note that Air Force-Europe discussions for an energy 
agreement with the community of Ramstein-Meisenbach call for the 
installation of a natural gas base energy system throughout our most 
important air facility in Europe. The local municipality is simply 
decreeing what forms of energy will be used on the air base. What is 
more disturbing under the terms of the act is that the municipality has 
made it very clear that it expects the Air Force to subsidize the 
purchase of a certain amount of U.S. coal for use at a non-military 
location in Germany.
  May I suggest that these merging developments warrant an updated 
evaluation prior to the completion of conference.
  Mr. INOUYE. I do agree that these matters should be further evaluated 
in light of emerging data.
  Mr. WOFFORD. I thank the Senator from Hawaii.


                             naval aviation

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, one of the provisions in this bill that 
gives me great concern is the funding for F/A-18 aircraft for the Navy. 
The administration requested $1.032 billion to purchase 24 F/A-18s in 
fiscal year 1995. These aircraft are critical to the Navy's aviation 
plan. Specifically, they are night strike fighters which will replace 
older aircraft which are slated for retirement in the near future. 
These aircraft are necessary to ensure that our carrier fleet can 
project sufficient power in the period until the newer version of the 
F/A-18--the E/F--is deployed in substantial numbers.
  Not only do we need these aircraft in the fleet, but it is important 
to note that the cut is unlikely to save any money. The cut will 
increase the unit cost, and significantly jeopardize several foreign 
military sales. If any of those are lost, that would further drive up 
the cost to the Navy.
  It is also worth noting that these 24 F/A-18s are the only fixed wing 
combat aircraft in the entire fiscal year 1995 DOD budget. That strikes 
me as a dangerously small number. To cut it further does not, in my 
opinion, make sense.
  Last month, I wrote to Secretary Dalton regarding this issue, and I 
would like to read from his response. He writes.

       A reduction in F/A-18C/D quantities not only increases the 
     Navy's cost for the remaining aircraft, but also raises the 
     cost for foreign military sales customers, thereby putting 
     these transactions in jeopardy. The Senate reduction shows 
     the Navy, Marine Corps, and Marine Corps Reserve F/A-18 
     modernization plan, forcing deployed airwings to prolong the 
     use of older, less capable F/A-18 aircraft and thereby 
     decreasing our warfighting capability.

  I am fully aware that the Appropriations Committee was constrained in 
writing this bill by the fact that only 17 aircraft were authorized. 
However, I have shared this information with our colleagues on the 
defense authorization conference, and I remain hopeful that they will 
agree to authorize 24 aircraft.
  I would ask the chairman and the ranking member if they would comment 
on this issue.
  Mr. INOUYE. I would agree with the Senator from Missouri that the F/
A-18C/Ds are very important to the Navy's ability to project power 
through our carrier fleet. It is important that we maintain capable 
aircraft on the carrier decks. This bill does that by fully funding the 
F/A-18E/F development program; and, in the near term, by funding as 
many F/A-18C/Ds as possible with the money provided. I share the 
Senator's concern about the small number of combat aircraft we are 
purchasing in this budget, and I assure him that I will work to see 
that the Navy gets all the F/A-18 aircraft it needs.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I share the view of the chairman. The 
Senator from Missouri has touched on an important issue. With the 
cancellation of the A/FX and the planned retirement of the A-6, the F/
A-18 has become the centerpiece of the carrier aircraft force. We must 
ensure that the Navy has the modern versions of the F/A-18 in 
sufficient quantities to perform its mission.
  Mr. BOND. I thank both of my colleagues, and I ask that the full text 
of the letter from Secretary Dalton be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                        Department of the Navy

                                   Washington, DC, August 8, 1994.
     Hon. Christopher (Kit) Bond
     United States Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: Thank you for your letter of July 11, 
     1994 concerning the Senate Authorization Bill recommendation 
     for procurement of 17 F/A-18C/D ``Night Strike'' fighters 
     instead of the 24 requested in the FY 1995 President's 
     Budget.
       We share your concern and have appealed to the Defense 
     Authorization Conferees, urging support for the House 
     position for 24 F/A-18C/D Night Strike fighters. Based on 
     similar Senate Appropriations Committee recommendations of 17 
     aircraft, we are also sending an appeal to the Defense 
     Appropriations Conferees urging them to support the 
     President's Budget request.
       A reduction in F/A-18C/D quantities not only increases the 
     Navy's cost for the remaining aircraft, but also raises the 
     cost for foreign military sales customers, thereby putting 
     these transactions in jeopardy. The Senate reduction slows 
     the Navy, Marine Corps, and Marine Corps Reserve F/A-18 
     modernization plan, forcing deployed airwings to prolong the 
     use of older, less capable F/A-18 aircraft and thereby 
     decreasing our warfighting capability.
       The request for 24 F/A-18C/Ds is based on the requirement 
     for the most modern Hornets to serve the front-line 
     operational squadrons. Modernization with the newest F/A-18's 
     is essential to provide the Fleet with capabilities of the 
     ``Night Strike'' F/A-18C/D's more powerful engines, upgraded 
     radar, AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles, a Forward-Looking Infrared 
     (FLIR) sensor with a laser for self targeting, multi-sensor 
     integration and growth provisions for a positive 
     identification system. Also, continued procurements of F/A-
     18C/D aircraft will provide an important industrial bridge to 
     the follow-on F/A-18E/F production.
       As always, if I can be of any further assistance, please 
     let me know.
           Sincerely,
                                                   John H. Dalton,
                                            Secretary of the Navy.

               DOD APPROPRIATIONS BILL AND THE B-1 BOMBER

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
B-1 1 Bomber. I am pleased to report that the readiness exercise 
involving the B-1 bomber, currently taking place at Ellsworth Air Force 
Base in my home State of South Dakota, is progressing impressively. For 
those of my colleagues who do not know, this test was mandated by last 
year's Defense authorization bill. Many doubters believed the test 
would put the final nail in the B-1 coffin. Fortunately, they were 
wrong. In fact, 2 months into the test the B-1 is demonstrating a 
mission capable rate of nearly 85 percent--approximately 10 percent 
above the standard established by last year's Defense authorization 
bill.
  Because of the success of the test currently being conducted, it is 
now clear that if the B-1 is provided the parts and logistical support 
it requires to perform its mission, it can do so with flying colors. 
However, with the exception of the ongoing test, the B-1 has never been 
provided adequate funding for spare parts or logistical support.
  I am concerned about the Senate version of the fiscal year 1995 
Defense appropriations bill. The language in the bill fully funds the 
request for bomber modification and modernization programs and then 
fences the funding for all new upgrades pending the completion of a 
cost and operational effectiveness assessment [COEA]. This fencing will 
disrupt the Conventional Munitions Upgrade Program [CMUP], which is the 
overall DOD plan for converting the B-1 to a conventional bomber, for 
at least a year. The B-1 industrial base will be disrupted during this 
time frame and a team of 300 dedicated engineers would have to be 
disbanded.
  The committee language fencing fiscal year 1995 appropriations for 
all new starts would halt the following modifications: first, Cluster 
Bomb Units; second, Secure Communications Radio; third, Global 
Positioning System; fourth, Joint Direct Attack Munition [JDAM]; and 
fifth, Electronic Countermeasures Upgrade [ECM].
  These programs are fundamental to converting the B-1 to a 
conventional bomber. I cannot understand why anyone would want to stop 
the conversion of the B-1 at this point in time.
  A robust bomber force is required for the defense of the United 
States and for the projection of American power worldwide. The adequacy 
of our current and projected bomber force is a matter of significant 
concern to many Members of Congress. I voted in favor of funding a 
contingency production industrial base program for the B-2. If we are 
going to consider contingencies to protect the B-2 industrial base, we 
should, in that same spirit give equal consideration to protecting the 
B-1. In the opinion of General Mike Loh, Commander of Air Force Air 
Combat Command, the funding restriction in the Senate Appropriations 
Committee language cripples the B-1 upgrade program. In order for the 
Air Force to perform wartime missions with a significantly reduced 
force the B-1 must be converted to conventional capability sooner 
rather than later.
  Mr. President, I strongly object to the inclusion of section 8101 in 
the fiscal year 1995 DOD appropriation bill. I urge my colleagues to 
reconsider the inclusion of the fencing language in this bill and to 
level the playing field for all bombers. I urge all conferees to 
consider carefully action taken today by conferees to the Defense 
authorization bill: they approved an administration request for $154 
million in procurement and $74 million in research to upgrade the B-1 
for conventional missions. I urge conferees to the Defense 
appropriations conference to reject any restriction on conventional 
upgrades to the B-1 Bomber.
  Mr. ROTH Mr. President, I intend to vote against this appropriations 
bill. But, before I get into the details of my concerns, I think it is 
important to recognize and applaud the Appropriations Committee for 
including $380 million in the bill to give military retirees their well 
deserved annual cost of living adjustment next April, instead of next 
October. I remain hopeful that the President will rectify the cost of 
living inequity through 1999 in next year's budget submission.
  Mr. President, I believe the treatment accorded the B-2 bomber 
typifies the failure of the Congress in tackling the national defense 
budget. Congress makes a great deal of noise about reducing the defense 
budget and focusing on core national security needs, but, when push 
comes to shove, very few Members want to make real cuts. Congress 
proudly announces to the public that we have cut the unneeded programs, 
while funding an additional $150 million to keep contractors working on 
the B-2 bomber, a program that is limited to 20 aircraft, all of which 
have already been funded. Meanwhile, the Congress is so committed to 
paying for military contractors to transition into the commercial 
marketplace that the appropriation bill shorts funds needed to defend 
against a very real ballistic missile threat in the Korean peninsula 
and elsewhere.
  Mr. President, I am also concerned about a growing double standard in 
this body. Members of Congress give speeches demanding ever deeper cuts 
in the defense budget and then rush to the floor to protect weapon 
systems which are manufactured in their States. If Congress continues 
with this business as usual approach Congress will, in effect, have 
arrived at a bipartisan consensus not to make needed adjustments to our 
national defense budget. Such a position is indefensible at a time of 
escalating international tension.
  Mr. President, 10 days ago, Senator Grassley and I released a GAO 
report which found that the Defense Department Future Years Defense 
Plan is underfunded by more than $150 billion. I am concerned that the 
administration and the Congress continue to avoid the tough decisions 
that need to be made, Meanwhile, the Clinton administration has sent 
troops into Rwanda and the Balkans, and we are openly discussing the 
invasion of Haiti and a major injection of troops into Bosnia. All the 
while, we face a real danger of a major military conflict in the Korean 
peninsula. Yet, only $1 billion is included in the 5 Years Defense Plan 
to cover these costs. The bottom line here is that there is not enough 
money to pay for the administration's national security strategy. 
Sooner or later the bills will come in. When they do, tens of billions 
of dollars will have to be found or the hollow Army of the 1970's will 
recur.
  If we are to avoid a return to the hollow Army of the 1970's, tough 
management decisions will have to be made. Programs will have to be 
terminated, not stretched out. Major management reforms will have to 
occur. To sum up, Mr. President, I cannot support this Defense 
appropriations bill because it does not incorporate the tough decisions 
needed to maintain our Nation's security.


                               impact aid

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy to 
clarify the Senate's intention regarding the impact aid appropriation 
to the Department of Defense.
  It is my understanding that this bill includes an appropriation of 
$119 million for impact aid assistance to school districts enrolling 
large numbers of military-connected children, and that this amount 
represents an increase of $61 million over the 1994 appropriation.
  Mr. INOUYE. The Senator from Nebraska is correct.
  Mr. EXON. I also understand that this increase was intended to 
compensate for a reduction in impact aid funding of the same amount in 
the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 1995.
  School districts in my State have expressed the concern that the most 
effective way to allocate these Department of Defense funds would be to 
transfer them to the Department of Education, which administers the 
lion's share of impact aid funding. It also seems to me that it would 
be better to let the Department of Education distribute these funds 
than to ask the Department of Defense to develop a larger, duplicative 
impact aid bureaucracy.
  So I ask the distinguished senior Senator from Hawaii if he would 
agree that the additional $61 million in impact aid funding included in 
this bill should be transferred to the Department of Education.
  Mr. INOUYE. I would agree with the Senator from Nebraska that the 
purposes of the Impact Aid Program--including meeting the needs of 
military dependent students--would best be met if these funds 
ultimately are transferred to the Department of Education.
  Mr. EXON. I thank the Senator from Hawaii for that clarification.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the Defense 
Subcommittee, Senator Inouye, and the ranking minority member, Senator 
Stevens, for the outstanding manner in which they have handled this 
very important legislation. I believe this is the earliest that we have 
reported and passed a Defense appropriations bill since I became 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee in 1989.
  Balancing the competing interests that vie for attention in the 
context of the defense bill is becoming a more and more difficult task, 
since not only are we continuing the down-sizing of the department but 
more and more activities, particularly in the foreign policy arena, 
that are looking for funding have come to the Defense Subcommittee for 
satisfaction. There may have been as many foreign policy amendments 
that we have addressed in the context of Floor consideration of this 
measure as there have been amendments dealing with the standard fare in 
procurement, operations, and research that is the cache of the usual 
legislative format.
  In the context of all these competing demands, however, the Senate 
could not have been better represented to adjudicate and make fair 
judgments as to the merits of all these competing claims than by the 
Senator from Hawaii and the Senator from Alaska, who manage the Defense 
Subcommittee so effectively. I with I could say the pressures on the 
subcommittee will be eased, but I fear they will grow in intensity into 
the future. Pressures on the defense budget and discretionary spending, 
in general, remain intense and until this government steps up to the 
agonizing task of reviewing and reforming our entitlement system or, if 
the economy does an unexpected burst into the black, the situation will 
remain difficult at best.
  Mr. President, I want to point out to all Members that there are some 
extremely time-sensitive matters, particularly involving our 
involvement in Rwanda that have been addressed in this measure. I hope 
that it will be possible to conclude a conference on this measure 
before the August recess but that is, at best, uncertain. In the 
alternative, a letter has been sent to the President, signed by me and 
the distinguished ranking minority member of the full committee, as 
well as the chairman and ranking minority member of the Defense 
Subcommittee, indicating our strong believe that the reporting 
requirements associated with the Rwanda matter that are included in the 
bill be addressed by the administration, even in the absence of a 
conference agreement. The timelines for the remainder of this session 
and what Congress will, I believe, accept as a duration of the Rwanda 
operation are very short, and I believe that the reporting requirements 
will be adopted by the conference committee. If we are going to 
disengage from Rwanda in a responsible and effective way around the 
time we adjourn sine die, the administration should act on the 
reporting requirements in the bill beginning today.
  Again, I commend the leadership of the subcommittee for a job well 
done.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter to the President 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Appropriations,

                                  Washington, DC, August 11, 1994.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: On July 29, 1994, the Senate 
     Appropriations Committee reported to the Senate a fiscal year 
     1994 Supplemental Appropriations measure incorporated in H.R. 
     4650, the fiscal year 1995 Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Bill. The supplemental would provide $170 
     million for the Defense Department's Rwanda relief efforts. 
     The bill also establishes congressional policy on the Rwanda 
     relief effort, and requests three time-sensitive reports from 
     the Administration on this matter.
       Earlier today, the Senate completed action on H.R. 4650 and 
     included the above-mentioned provisions. We firmly believe 
     that the Congress will adopt this language as it appears in 
     the Senate-passed bill. Therefore, we respectfully urge you 
     to take the necessary actions to ensure that these reporting 
     requirements are met.
           Sincerely,
     Robert C. Byrd,
       Chairman,
     Mark O. Hatfield,
       Ranking Minority Member,
     Daniel K. Inouye,
       Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense,
     Ted Stevens,
       Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Defense.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, during this debate, much has been said about 
the state of readiness of our military forces. And many of my 
colleagues have expressed their concern over the deep cuts the 
administration is making in defense spending. Both sides of the aisle--
Republicans and Democrats--are increasingly alarmed about the effects 
these cuts are having on readiness, the morale and welfare of our 
military personnel and their families, and on our industrial base.
  Let me briefly summarize what is going on here: According to the 
Defense Department, the number of Army divisions was cut from 18 
divisions under President Reagan, to 12 divisions under President Bush, 
with President Clinton cutting our Army further to 10 Active divisions. 
Navy ships will be cut from 546 under President Reagan to just 330 
under President Clinton. Air wings will be slashed by almost half--from 
24 to 13. And over 620,000 active duty military personnel will be 
slashed from the Armed Forces this decade. All the way down the line, 
our ability to fight and win is being dismantled.
  Even the Washington Post joined the Washington Times in noting that 
the President's Defense plan is both inadequate and massively under 
funded. The fact is, President Clinton's defense plan is simply not 
sufficient to maintain American security and American leadership. The 
fact is, the President's defense plan will not meet his declared 
objectives of fighting and winning two nearly simultaneous major 
regional conflicts. The fact is, even this inadequate force is not 
funded.
  According to the GAO, the budget shortfall of the so-called bottom-up 
review force is $150 billion.
  I would ask that the full text of these articles be placed in the 
Record accompanying my remarks.

  No doubt about it, the President's defense plan is hollow. His 
defense budget is hollow. And no one should be surprised when our 
forces become hollow. In fact, the administration's own blue ribbon 
panel on readiness recently revealed that pockets of unreadiness are 
already showing up in each of the services.
  What is needed is leadership. You cannot just wish threats away. You 
can't simply hope that other countries are going to meet the challenge 
for us. You cannot defer American leadership and American 
responsibilities to the United Nations. America must lead. And to lead, 
America must be strong.
  The administration has failed the test. This is not a serious defense 
plan--and this is not a serious defense budget.
  The distinguished chairman, Senator Inouye, and the ranking 
Republican, Senator Stevens have each sounded a clear warning. And I 
commend them for their efforts in trying to craft a responsible defense 
bill from an inadequate budget request. Yet in the final analysis, this 
is an inadequate bill.
  I want to send a message that it is time for the administration to 
face up to the facts and get serious about our national security.
  There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Times, Aug. 8, 1994]

         Defense Cutbacks Have Many Fearing a Loss of Readiness


                     alarm sounded even by liberals

                         (By Rowan Scarborough)

       Rep. Ike Skelton, pro-defense Democrat from America's 
     heartland, was doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations 
     one day this spring and was startled by what the numbers 
     showed.
       The Defense Department's so-called Bottom Up Review (BUR), 
     the Clinton administration's forecast of long-range spending, 
     left the Army with 495,000 active-duty soldiers by 1997, 
     about 306,000 of whom could be deployed to regional 
     conflicts.
       Since Operation Desert Storm used 275,000 Army troops, Mr. 
     Skelton wondered, how could the Pentagon possibly conduct two 
     regional conflicts nearly simultaneously--the BUR's central 
     thesis.
       ``It worries me. It worries me,'' said the plain-speaking 
     Missourian, who influences defense policy as chairman of the 
     House Armed Services subcommittee on military forces and 
     personnel.
       ``In the briefing I got early on from my friend [Deputy 
     Defense Secretary] John Deutch, it appeared to me you just 
     can't do that with the numbers he's talking about,'' Mr. 
     Skelton said.
       Mr. Skelton has long advocated a fleshy Pentagon budget. So 
     it is not surprising he is yelling ouch every time the 
     Pentagon lops off a few thousand more soldiers or cuts a 
     weapons production line.
       Others are giving similar warnings. Sen. Daniel Inouye, 
     Hawaii Democrat, the liberal chairman of the Senate 
     Appropriations subcommittee on defense, says the Pentagon is 
     buying so few new weapons that private industry may not be 
     able to produce future systems.
       Commenting on his panel's defense bill for next year, he 
     said: ``This bill will buy only 17 combat aircraft. This year 
     the Army will buy no tanks--unheard of. This year the Navy 
     will buy four ships. * * * We are staving off the collapse of 
     the defense industrial base.''
       Last month, a special task force on readiness comprising 
     eight retired generals and admirals issued a report to 
     Defense Secretary William Perry. Already, they wrote, 
     ``pockets of unreadiness'' are erupting in the Air Force, 
     Army, Marine Corps and Navy.
       The General Accounting Office, Congress' auditing agency, 
     concluded that the Pentagon is $150 billion short of paying 
     for the troops and weapons the BUR envisions.
       ``There is a general structural problem facing the 
     department,'' said Larry Seaquist, a former Navy captain who 
     recently retired from a Pentagon policy and is now a private 
     consultant. ``They've got the right objective, but continued 
     reductions in the amount of money is really going to continue 
     to place stress on readiness.''
       Added Mr. Skelton, ``Money. Money. It's all money. There's 
     no money for all this.''
       Some critics say the Pentagon has no intention of meeting 
     some of the BUR's procurement targets. For example, the plan 
     calls for an Air Force bomber fleet of 184 B-1Bs and B-2s. 
     But the Air Force actually plans to field no more than 120 
     bombers by the late 1990s, according to internal budget 
     documents cited by the Senate Armed Services Committee.
       The Clinton five-year plan projects a 346-ship Navy, down 
     100 from the post-Cold War fleet plan by President Bush. But 
     the figure is not correct there, either. The Navy really 
     plans a 300-ship fleet, deciding it can make do with fewer 
     repair ships and amphibious assault craft.
       No one at the Pentagon wants to utter that awful six-letter 
     word. But occasionally ``hollow'' is creeping into 
     discussions on how Mr. Clinton's military might look in 1997 
     as his first term ends.
       ``Hollow'' refers to military units in the post-Vietnam 
     1970s that lacked the weapons, equipment and trained 
     personnel to make them fully operational. The readiness task 
     force told Mr. Perry, ``We are convinced that unless the 
     Congress focus on readiness, the armed forces could slip back 
     into a hollow status.''
       The question is politically important for the president.
       Mr. Clinton campaigned on a platform of cutting the 
     Pentagon's five-year budget by $60 billion more than the Bush 
     plan. But once in office he ended up slashing $120 billion. 
     If the budgeting gamble leads to a damaged armed forces, 
     Republicans may make the state of the military a campaign 
     issue, much as Ronald Reagan did in his successful 1980 
     campaign.
       The Cold War's aftermath has not provided a breather. First 
     there was Desert Storm, requiring 550,000 U.S. troops--the 
     largest overseas deployment since the Vietnam War--to eject 
     Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Then came the 1992 deployment of 
     30,000 soldiers to Somalia. Now the Pentagon is deploying 
     3,000 troops to central Africa to care for more than 1 
     million Rwandan refugees.
       And Mr. Perry is talking about a larger role for U.S. 
     forces in Bosnia, seeing a U.S. peacekeeping contingent of 
     more than 20,000 troops if a treaty is signed. His staff has 
     drawn up an invasion plan for Haiti that will require more 
     than 15,000 personnel. And the department plans to bolster 
     37,000 troops in South Korea if trouble erupts with North 
     Korea.
       Humanitarian missions such as Somalia and Rwanda are 
     themselves a drain on readiness. While such operations hone 
     the skills of logisticians and cargo-jet pilots, they take 
     soldiers away from training.
       A Pentagon policy-maker said the Army has committed 25 
     percent of its logistics people to Haiti, Bosnia and Rwanda. 
     ``You'd be surprised by the large portion of active duty that 
     is absorbed in what appears to be fairly easy logistical 
     support,'' the official said.
       The task force of retired officers cited several ``pockets 
     of unreadiness'' that could spread across the armed forces 
     unless the Pentagon and Congress keep a vigilant watch. Their 
     report said the Army, for example, is putting soldiers into 
     jobs for which they are not trained, prompting a patchwork 
     response to servicewide ``turbulence'' throughout the 
     service.
       In an interview, a Navy flier disclosed another potential 
     ``pocket.'' He said carrier squadrons are cutting back on 
     pilot flying hours during the time the unit is awaiting its 
     next sea deployment. ``If you don't practice, you don't stay 
     proficient. We're getting minimal, minimal flight hours,'' 
     the flier said.
       A senior Navy official who requested anonymity confirmed 
     the cutback. He said the Navy needs the money to pay for 
     unanticipated steaming hours for ships in the Pacific in a 
     show of force for North Korea and in the Mediterranean to 
     support U.N. troops in Bosnia.
       He said the navy is keeping two carriers, the Kitty Hawk 
     and the Independence, on duty in the western Pacific, where 
     normally just one would be operating.
       ``Readiness will be severely reduced'' for some squadrons 
     that are weeks away from a sea deployment, the official said. 
     But he maintained that overall Navy readiness of 85 percent 
     of all forces was only expected to drop 2 percent because of 
     the money shortfall.
       Meanwhile, Mr. Skelton is trying to sell a plan for a 12-
     division Army, instead of 10.
       ``People should understand the military is an insurance 
     policy,'' Mr. Skelton said. ``You cannot shortchange it. Just 
     because the walls came down does not mean all is well in the 
     world.''
                                  ____


                   Can the Pentagon Afford Its Future


        goals of bottom-up review in doubt because of budget gap

                 (By Bradley Graham and John F. Harris)

       Nearly a year after the Pentagon unveiled its grand plan 
     for a slimmer, more versatile military to take the nation 
     into the next century, the strategy is questioned by skeptics 
     who see a growing mismatch between the Clinton 
     administration's national security aims and its ability to 
     pay for them.
       The cornerstone of the plan, known as ``the bottom-up 
     review,'' is the assumption that the United States should 
     retain the ability to win two virtually simultaneous regional 
     conflicts the scale of the Persian Gulf War. But doubters 
     within the Pentagon and outside ask whether such a blueprint 
     is workable.
       When the plan was released last fall by then Defense 
     Secretary Les Aspin, many skeptics of military spending said 
     it didn't go far enough in scaling back U.S. forces to 
     reflect the more benign post-Cold War world. Increasingly, 
     though, even those who agreed with the goals of the bottom-up 
     review doubt it can live up to its promises.
       The concerns center on two main questions: Is the reduced 
     force structure called for in the plan sufficient to fight 
     two major regional conflicts nearly simultaneously? And is 
     the $1.2 trillion the administration plans to devote to 
     defense spending between now and 1999 enough to support the 
     level of force proposed?
       The concerns came into sharp focus earlier this year at a 
     training center in Quantico when senior U.S. commanders 
     engaged in a war game to test the two-war scenario.
       Victory, they found, depended on assuming--rather 
     unrealistically--that the rest of the world would place no 
     additional demands on U.S. forces during the fighting. 
     Numerous peacekeeping and humanitarian operations in which 
     American troops now are engaged were left out of the 
     exercise.
       ``There were some soft spots'' in projected U.S. 
     capabilities, Adm. Leighton Smith, head of allied forces in 
     southern Europe, recalled at a recent Naval War College 
     forum. ``When someone says the plan will work if everything 
     else goes okay, I worry.''
       Even William J. Perry, who inherited the bottom-up review 
     as Aspin's successor at the Pentagon, concedes that reality 
     is falling short of the plan in some respects. Last month, he 
     told the Navy Times that the United States now couldn't win 
     two nearly simultaneous regional wars. But he said that 
     weapons modernizations--known as ``force enhancers''--over 
     the next few years will increase capability.
       The debate reflects the absence of consensus on how much of 
     a military the country needs now that the Soviet Union is 
     gone. Liberals were astonished and angry when President 
     Clinton said that there would be no further cuts than those 
     called for in the review. Many military leaders, meanwhile, 
     believed they were being asked to prepare for threats in a 
     still-dangerous world without sufficient resources.
       But both sides agree that the gap between Clinton's promise 
     of a robust force at reduced cost and the reality of 
     expensive post-Cold War operations--such as enforcing an 
     embargo of Haiti or helping refugees in Rwanda--is 
     undermining credibility in the bottom-up review.
       ``It just doesn't work,'' said Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), an 
     early critic. ``It just doesn't fit the way they say it 
     does.''
       Just last week, the General Accounting Office told Congress 
     that the Pentagon's $1.2 trillion estimate of the plan's cost 
     is $150 billion short of the real cost over the next five 
     years. The Pentagon agrees there is a gap but says it is 
     closer to $40 billion.
       Top Pentagon officials acknowledge that fulfilling the 
     bottom-up review will be a stretch but insist they have no 
     plans to back off it. Defending the program as realistic and 
     achievable, the officials say the plan's biggest virtue may 
     be its central role in structuring how the military, the 
     White House, Congress and others talk about defense in the 
     post-Cold War world.
       ``That's an enormous achievement,'' Deputy Defense 
     Secretary John M. Deutch said in an interview. ``We see no 
     reason to change the basic framework.''
       The Clinton administration inherited the two-war strategy 
     from the Bush administration and decided to stick with it, 
     out of both prudence and politics. It was prudent to let 
     potential adversaries know that if the United States got 
     embroiled in one major regional conflict, it could still 
     handle a second. And politically, it was difficult to win 
     congressional acceptance for anything less.
       But the Clinton administration is trying to carry out the 
     same strategy with about 200,000 fewer troops and $104 
     billion less funding over the next five years than President 
     George bush had proposed.
       Army divisions and Navy ships are being cut about one-third 
     from 1990 levels, and the number of Air Force wings has been 
     halved. Operating funds, down about a quarter, are not being 
     cut as much as force structure in order to preserve 
     readiness, but procurement has been curtailed 60 percent to 
     keep overall defense spending within limits set by Clinton 
     during the presidential campaign.
       Military officers say that has begun to pinch, and they are 
     worried especially about the decline in dollars for weapons 
     modernization.
       ``The smaller you make the Army, the more modern you've got 
     to make it, and that hasn't happened,'' said Maj. Gen. Jay 
     Garner, who works on force planning for the Army. He said 
     that there is little doubt the United States could defeat any 
     enemy, but he said reductions in preparedness mean ``more 
     casualties than the nation's willing to accept.''
       Other experts criticize the Clinton strategy as short-
     sighted, saying it is too focused on planning to refight the 
     1991 Gulf War more effectively. The real danger a decade or 
     so from now, these experts say, will come from aggressive 
     regional powers that by then will have adopted substantially 
     different strategies and force structures than those 
     anticipated by the bottom-up review.
       Andrew Krepinevich, a former Army officer who now heads the 
     Defense Budget Project, said that the military should use the 
     current period of relative peace to invest in new 
     technologies and military doctrines, rather than spending 
     money on the unlikely scenario of two regional wars.
       Others say that the bottom-up review calls for spending too 
     much developing new weapon systems, such as the $99 billion 
     F-22 fighter jet program. Expensive weapons development, 
     according to this argument, tends to force commanders to 
     skimp on more important factors, such as training and 
     readiness to use the weapons the military already owns.
       ``You start cutting on apples and oranges, when it's really 
     the mangoes and avocados that are draining you,'' said 
     retired Rear Adm. Eugene J. Carroll Jr., director of the 
     Center for Defense Information, a public interest group.
       Another frequent criticism of the plan is that it has 
     failed to set priorities between preparing for major regional 
     conflicts and preparing for unconventional operations such as 
     peacemaking. The plan assumes that forces trained for 
     conventional conflicts can be shifted readily to 
     unconventional operations with little or no loss of military 
     effectiveness.
       Harlan Ullman, a defense analyst with the Center for Naval 
     Analyses, a federally financed research group, estimates that 
     U.S. military capability will decline by a third by the end 
     of the century. ``It's death by a thousand cuts,'' he said.
       Senior Pentagon officials say whether the United States 
     could fight two regional wars nearly simultaneously isn't as 
     important as whether potential adversaries believe it could.
       ``We were trying to put a marker down,'' said Ted Warner, 
     assistant secretary of defense for strategy. ``It's a 
     planning projection, it's not a prediction.''
       Besides, as Pentagon officials like to point out, there is 
     a congressional consensus behind the two-war strategy, which 
     makes it particularly useful in trying to protect the defense 
     budget from additional cuts.
       But whether the country ultimately can afford the strategy 
     is indeed questionable.
       The plan fell more than $31 billion short almost 
     immediately after its unveiling when inflation projections 
     were raised and Congress refused to go along with a military 
     pay freeze recommended by the Pentagon.
       Clinton shifted more than $11 billion to the Pentagon in 
     his budget proposals, but a shortfall of $20 billion remains 
     over the next five years.
       Defense Department officials figure that higher-than-
     budgeted increases in military pay will add another $18 
     billion in unanticipated costs over the next few years, 
     bringing the total shortfall to nearly $40 billion during the 
     life of the bottom-up review plan. But other estimates of the 
     gap have run much higher, figuring lower savings from base 
     closings and management initiatives and higher costs in 
     weapon systems, environmental cleanup requirements and 
     peacekeeping operations.
       The funding problem could ease considerably if inflation is 
     lower than projected. Help also could come if substantial 
     savings result from the Pentagon's recent efforts to 
     streamline acquisition procedures and buy more off-the-shelf 
     commercial products.
       If not, Clinton faces some options, all unpleasant. He 
     simply could raise the top line on defense spending, although 
     that would mean trimming some nondefense programs.
       Alternately, he could further defer military modernization 
     or put off environmental cleanup projects. Or he could push 
     for an even smaller military.
       ``These would be very painful choices,'' said Pentagon 
     comptroller John Hamre, ``and they would mean that we 
     wouldn't have the same program we briefed on a year ago.''


               national center for manufacturing sciences

  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the National 
Center for Manufacturing Sciences. The NCMS helps to reengineer the way 
we design and build weapon systems by bringing what U.S. manufacturers 
have learned about commercial practices and global competitiveness to 
defense industrial base manufacturing.
  General Motors and the people of Tennessee design and build the 
Saturn. It is unquestionably one of the best success stories of the 
automotive industry. The Saturn program has blazed new trails in 
manufacturing--creating jobs and spurring economic growth in the 
process. The NCMS provides the forum in which the Defense Department 
and its contractors can access and utilize the know-how of General 
Motors and over 180 leading U.S. corporations to help benchmark, 
leverage, and modernize manufacturing processes. I hope my 
distinguished colleagues will support this important effort.


                          b-1b bomber upgrades

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to express my concern over a 
provision which, in my view, threatens the strength of our bomber force 
and our Nation's ability to project power. Section 8101 of the 
committee bill fences the conventional weapons modifications for the B-
1 bomber until the completion of a cost-effectiveness analysis.
  Now I support the prudent use of our scarce defense resources. But in 
my view, the question of the utility of our B-1 bomber fleet has been 
answered. The congressionally mandated test of the B-1 now under way at 
Ellsworth Air Force Base has demonstrated that the critics of the B-1 
are wrong. The readiness rate is running at over 81 percent, which far 
exceeds the requirement of 75 percent.
  The Air Force bomber roadmap and the administration's so-called 
``Bottom Up Review'' validate the requirement for 184 bombers--a 
logical mix of B-52's, B-1's, and B-2's. In my view, the language in 
this bill threatens the future capabilities of the B-1 and may result 
in a bomber force that can't do the job.
  The reason for my concern is that the fence applied by this provision 
prevents the obligation of funds which would outfit the B-1 with 
cluster bombs, secure communications, an enhanced navigation system, 
state-of-the-art smart weapons, and other modifications that would make 
the B-1 a fully capable conventional bomber. A total of $79 million in 
vital modifications are put in limbo until the completion of the 
required study. While the committee report ``anticipates'' completion 
of this study in time for the congressional budget cycle, no date 
certain is established. And our experience with such studies suggests 
that they often take a year or more. In the meantime, the critical 
industrial base that would support the conversion of the B-1 would be 
lost.
  I applaud the distinguished chairman's desire to build more B-2 
bombers, and I support him in that effort. But it seems to me that this 
provision has the unintended effect of pitting one bomber against 
another. And the ultimate outcome could be a much smaller and less 
capable bomber force. The fact is, we need all three bombers.
  I ask the chairman and the ranking Republican, Senator Stevens, if 
they will seek to remedy this problem in conference. I don't challenge 
the intentions of this provision; however, in my view, the unintended 
effects could be devastating.


                            jpats amendment

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered is crafted to 
preserve the commitment to future security. It is my understanding that 
the Secretary of Defense is considering slipping the Joint Primary 
Aircraft Training System for 7 years--over the loud objections of the 
Air Force. In my view, this would break faith with our future pilots. 
It would break faith with our future security. And it would break faith 
with industry.
  The J-PATS Program will select and build the next generation pilot 
training system that will train future Air Force and Navy pilots well 
into the next century. It is a good program and one that nearly 
everyone has agreed we desperately need. The reason for this proposed 
``slip'' is money, a problem the administration has inflicted upon 
itself. And while the administration talks a good game about readiness 
and training, their actions don't seem to square with the rhetoric.
  The President has made the verbal commitment to preserve the best 
trained, best equipped military in the world. But any decision to skip 
this program is a breach of that commitment. No one should be surprised 
when the GAO recently announced that the President's defense plan is 
underfunded by $150 billion. But the answer to that problem is not 
canceling more programs--there are very few left as it is. And 
canceling vital training equipment like J-PATS is even more wrong. It 
would be mortgaging the future.
  During World War II, I remember having to train with a broomstick. 
There were not enough rifles to go around because America was not 
prepared. The current primary trainer, the T-37, is nearing 50 years 
old, and the T-34, while not quite as ancient, has limited life 
remaining. In my view, these aircraft represent the ``broomsticks'' of 
the 1990's. With the current generation of sophisticated aircraft and 
the next generation soon to come into production, it is wrong to cut 
corners on training and expect that we will maintain superiority in the 
skies. We would be breaking faith with our future pilots, and breaking 
faith with our security.
  Slipping J-PATS also breaks faith with an industry which has invested 
heavily in this hard-fought competition. We can't continue stringing 
industry along, forcing them to spend millions to compete, and then 
pull the rug out from under them. I have heard a lot of talk about 
erosion of the industrial base, and this is a classic example of how 
that occurs.
  There is nothing wrong with the program. No one has cited it for 
abuse or mismanagement. To date, J-PATS has been a model program, and I 
think we should get on with it. We owe it to our pilots and to our 
future. I urge the adoption of my amendment.


                  army breast cancer research program

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, every one of us knows someone who has 
battled breast cancer. Every 3 minutes, another woman is diagnosed, and 
every 11 minutes, another woman dies from this terrible disease.
  We cannot bring back those we have lost to the disease. But we can 
renew our efforts to beat this enemy for those who are fighting it 
today and for all women who will face it tomorrow.
  That is why I urge Senators to support the continuation of the Army 
Breast Cancer Research Program, which Senator Harkin and I worked to 
fund at $210 million in 1992.
  This program has been a resounding success--increasing current 
research efforts as well as inspiring new efforts on the part of some 
of the Nation's best and most experienced researchers.
  The Army received over 3,000 proposals in response to a solicitation 
for breast cancer research projects. A successful peer review process 
funded over 400 of these innovative proposals with the original $210 
million appropriated by Congress.
  When Army officials briefed me on the program this spring, they 
pointed out that several hundred additional meritorious proposals were 
left unfunded. Clearly, there is tremendous interest in this program 
and many other avenues of research to pursue if we are willing to 
continue funding this effort.
  If funding is not continued in a consistent and committed way, the 
incentive to plan and pursue new research will be gone, the momentum 
will be broken, and I fear that we will lose the ground we have gained 
in battling breast cancer.
  As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I worked this year to 
include report language in the fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill 
that directs funding for the Army program to continue on-going efforts 
and encourage new breast cancer research. My language urges the Army to 
solicit a new round of proposals and initiate another peer review 
process.
  I know that Chairman Inouye was faced with many program requests and 
a limited number of dollars this year. I requested that the chairman 
include $150 million, the same level as the House, for the Army 
program.
  I look forward to working with the chairman and other Senators in 
conference to increase the current funding level of $60 million so that 
we can build on the research efforts that are currently underway.
  The eradication of breast cancer has become a national priority, but 
we have a long way to go in this battle. I want my voice to be heard 
with the many breast cancer survivors, their families and friends in 
Vermont and across this Nation.
  I join with Senators Harkin, Mikulski, Feinstein, D'Amato, Murray and 
others who have championed this effort to support and continue the 
valuable work of the Army Breast Cancer Research Program.


                    Megan Kanka--amendment no. 2541

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, last week, America was shocked by the brutal 
murder of 7-year-old Megan Kanka, who was raped and strangled to death 
near her home in Hamilton Township, NJ. The police have arrested a 
twice-convicted sex offender, a neighbor of the Kanka family, who had 
served just 6 years of a 10-year sentence.
  Unfortunately, the Kanka family and the residents of Hamilton 
Township had no idea that the beast who committed this horrendous crime 
was out loose in their community. If they had known about the criminal 
history of Megan's killer, there's a good chance that Megan would still 
have a childhood--and a future.
  The amendment I am offering today targets that small group of 
predators who terrorize our playgrounds and parks, seeking to harm the 
most vulnerable in our society. Even after a sexual predator has been 
apprehended, convicted, sentenced, and incarcerated, there's no 
guarantee that he will not strike again once he has been released onto 
our streets.
  the amendment is virtually identical to a bill introduced last week 
by Senator Slade Gorton and Representatives Dick Zimmer and Jennifer 
Dunn. Representative Zimmer, in particular, has been extremely helpful 
to me in explaining his proposal and sharing his insights on how best 
to target these vicious criminals and to keep local communities 
informed of their whereabouts.
  In a nutshell, the amendment directs the Attorney General to 
establish guidelines for State programs requiring a sexually violent 
predator to register a current address with the appropriate State law 
enforcement agency. Any State that fails to establish a registration 
program within 3 years could suffer a 10 percent reduction in Federal 
law enforcement funding. Any funds that are released in this way are 
then re-allocated to those States that do have registration programs.
  Registration with the State law enforcement agency must occur at the 
time the convicted sex offender is released from prison, placed on 
parole, or placed on supervised release. The State agency must then 
transmit this information to the FBI and to the local police department 
for the community in which the sex offender resides.
  The amendment also requires the sexually violent predator to verify 
his residence with the State agency on a quarterly basis. This should 
help ensure that local law enforcement officials are kept up-to-date on 
the whereabouts of those sex offenders who are subject to the 
registration program.
  In addition, the amendment contains a community notification 
provision. This provision requires State law enforcement agencies to 
release any information that is necessary to protect the public from a 
sexually-violent predator.
  I know that some of my colleagues view this public notification 
requirement as a violation of the criminal's privacy rights. Other have 
described it as a modern-day ``scarlet letter.'' But I happen to agree 
with one of the Kanka family's neighbors, who recently explained to the 
New York Times: ``An innocent child's rights outweigh a criminal's 
rights. Posting warnings is a way to extend control beyond the limits 
of the sentence.'' The bottom line is that communities like Hamilton 
Township, NJ, have a right to protect themselves. If someone is so 
concerned about being branded a sexually-violent predator, he shouldn't 
commit the crime in the first place.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Gorton and 
Representative Zimmer for their efforts on behalf of this amendment. 
This amendment is really their idea, and they deserve the credit for 
bringing this important issue to the Nation's attention.


               national center for manufacturing sciences

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the activities 
of the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences [NCMS]. The report 
accompanying the fiscal year 1995 Defense appropriations bill, which we 
are debating today, contains critical language questioning the 
appropriateness of continued Defense Department funding for the NCMS. I 
recognize and support the need for ever-increasing scrutiny of funding 
for Defense Department programs, especially those whose only rationale 
for receiving funds each year is that they had received funds the year 
before. There are many programs which fall into this category, but this 
Senator believes that NCMS is not one of them.
  The purpose of the NCMS goes right to the heart of DOD's goal, as 
stated by Dr. Anita Jones, the Director of Department of Defense 
Research and Engineering, when she testified before the Senate Armed 
Services Committee this past spring that centers such as the NCMS are 
what we need to assist in the transition from a defense-oriented 
economy. She stated that DOD's

       Vision for the 21st Century manufacturing is for an 
     integrated civil/military industrial base that can provide a 
     flexible response to our needs for a variety of product 
     demands at varying rates, and can reduce the cost of defense 
     components and subsystems from dual-use production lines.

  NCMS provides this type of integration. In fact, the program is 
designed to give the Department access to the manufacturing and 
research capabilities of all members of the NCMS.
  As we move toward refocusing the priorities of the military-
industrial complex which has served our Nation's Armed Forces so well 
for so many decades, we must carefully examine new methodologies and 
approaches to solve new problems. I think that the NCMS can make a 
positive contribution toward this end and I am hopeful that the Senate 
can move closer to the House position during conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Let me say, before I send amendment No. 2515 to the desk, 
that I do not intend to pursue the amendment. I am going to send it to 
the desk and speak on it briefly and then withdraw the amendment. I am 
trying to accommodate the managers of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 2515

     (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to undertake a 
   comprehensive review of the Bottom-Up Review and the Future Years 
  Defense Program and, upon completion of that review, report to the 
President and the Congress on the proper funding levels and priorities, 
                        and for other purposes)

  Mr. DOLE. 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 Kansas [Mr. Dole], for himself, Mr. 
     McCain, Mr. Roth, and Mr. Smith, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2515.

  Mr. DOLE. 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.   . REVIEW OF THE BOTTOM UP REVIEW AND THE FUTURE YEAR 
                   DEFENSE PROGRAM AND ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW 
                   FUNDING REQUIREMENTS AND PRIORITIES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds as follows:
       (1) Whereas the Administration commissioned the Bottom Up 
     Review to properly structure the Armed Forces of the United 
     States for the Post-Cold War Era;
       (2) Whereas the Joint Staff officer responsible for force 
     planning testified on March 1, 1994, that the Bottom Up 
     Review force structure exposes U.S. troops to a ``high 
     element of risk;''
       (3) Whereas the Secretary of Defense has testified that the 
     Department of Defense's Future Years Defense Program includes 
     $20 billion more in program funding requests during fiscal 
     years 1996 through 1999 than the defense funding levels in 
     the Administration's budget can support;
       (4) Whereas the General Accounting Office reported in July 
     1994 that the Administration's Future Years Defense Program 
     may be underfunded by as much as $150 billion;
       (5) Whereas, the Secretary of the Navy has testified that 
     the Department of the Navy will only operate 330 ships rather 
     than the 346 ships required by the Bottom Up Review;
       (6) Whereas, in January 1994, in his Annual Report to the 
     President and the Congress, the Secretary of Defense reported 
     that the Air Force will field approximately 100 heavy bombers 
     rather than the 184 required by the Bottom Up Review;
       (7) Whereas the Department of Defense's plans for a major 
     regional contingency in the Far East call for 5 Army 
     divisions and the plans for a major regional contingency in 
     Southwest Asia call for 7 Army divisions, while the Bottom Up 
     Review plans for an Army of only 10 active divisions;
       (8) Whereas the Administration's budget assumes the 
     Department of Defense will save at least $6 billion from 
     procurement reform;
       (9) Whereas the first and second rounds of the Base 
     Realignment and Closure Commission have not yet achieved the 
     level of savings initially estimated, and the 1995 base 
     closure round may cost significantly more than is assumed in 
     the Administration's budget;
       (b) Requirement.--
       (1) The Secretary of Defense shall, within 30 days after 
     enactment of this legislation, initiate a review of the 
     assumptions and conclusions of the President's Budget, the 
     Bottom Up Review, and the Future Years Defense Program;
       (2) Not more than 60 days after the review described in 
     (b)(1) is initiated, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
     the President and to the Congress a report detailing the 
     funding level required for the defense and national security 
     of the United States;
       (3) The President shall, when submitting to the Congress 
     the budget for the United States Government for Fiscal Year 
     1996, submit a defense budget for fiscal year 1996 and a 
     Future Years Defense Plan which represents the funding level 
     described in (b)(2).


                     amendment no 2515, as modified

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a modification to amendment No. 2515 
to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2515), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . REVIEW OF THE BOTTOM UP REVIEW AND THE FUTURE YEAR 
                   DEFENSE PROGRAM AND ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW 
                   FUNDING REQUIREMENTS AND PRIORITIES.

       (a) Findings--Congress finds as follows:
       (1) Whereas the Administration commissioned the Bottom Up 
     Review to properly structure the Armed Forces of the United 
     States for the Post-Cold War Era;
       (2) Whereas the Joint Staff officer responsible for force 
     planning testified on March 1, 1994, that the Bottom Up 
     Review force structure exposes U.S. troops to a ``high 
     element of risk;''
       (3) Whereas the Secretary of Defense has testified that the 
     Department of Defense's Future Years Defense Program includes 
     $20 billion more in program funding requests during fiscal 
     years 1996 through 1999 than the defense funding levels in 
     the Administration's budget can support;
       (4) Whereas, the General Accounting Office reported in July 
     1994 that the Administration's Future Years Defense Program 
     may be underfunded by as much as $150 billion;
       (5) Whereas, the Secretary of the Navy has testified that 
     the Department of the Navy will only operate 330 ships rather 
     than the 346 ships required by the Bottom Up Review;
       (6) Whereas, in January 1994, in his Annual Report to the 
     President and the Congress, the Secretary of Defense reported 
     that the Air Force will field approximately 100 heavy bombers 
     rather than the 184 required by the Bottom Up Review;
       (7) Whereas the Department of Defense's plans for a major 
     regional contingency in the Far East call for 5 Army 
     divisions and the plans for a major regional contingency in 
     Southwest Asia call for 7 Army divisions, while the Bottom Up 
     Review plans for an Army of only 10 active divisions;
       (8) Whereas the Administration's budget assumes the 
     Department of Defense will save at least $6 billion from 
     procurement reform;
       Whereas the first and second rounds of the Base Realignment 
     and Closure Commission have not yet achieved the level of 
     savings initially estimated, and the 1995 base closure 
     round may cost significantly more than is assumed in the 
     Administration's budget;
       (b) Requirement.--
       (1) The Secretary of Defense shall, within 30 days after 
     enactment of this legislation, initiate a review of the 
     assumptions and conclusions of the President's Budget, the 
     Bottom Up Review, and the Future Years Defense Program;
       (2) Not more than 60 days after the review described in 
     (b)(1) is initiated, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
     the President and to the Congress a report detailing the 
     funding level required for the defense and national security 
     of the United States;
       (3) The President shall, when submitting to the Congress 
     the budget for the United States Government for Fiscal Year 
     1996, submit a report to Congress stating whether the 
     national defense budget submission differs in any respect 
     from the funding level described in (b)(2), and if so, 
     describing in detail each such difference and the reasons for 
     such differences.

  Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Roth of Delaware and 
Senator Smith as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the amendment Senator McCain and I have 
introduced is simple and straightforward. The legislation requires the 
Secretary of Defense to reexamine both the Bottom-up Review and 
President Clinton's future years defense program and report to Congress 
on the force structure required to provide for an adequate defense for 
our Nation. It further requires the President to adequately fund that 
force structure. Senator McCain and I have raised this issue because 
despite all of the rhetoric, we have neither an adequate force 
structure nor Defense budget. According to the military experts, the 
force represented in the Bottom-up Review is inadequate to meet our 
stated national security needs. And according to the administration's 
own experts, even that force is massively under funded.
  I have heard the President's statement about providing a strong 
defense, fielding the best equipped fighting force, and supporting our 
fighting men and women. The President has stated that he would cut 
Defense no further. He has endorsed the Bottom-up Review as the guiding 
document for our Armed Forces for the post-cold war era. And he has 
assured us that the Bottom-up Review force is adequate for fighting two 
major regional contingencies, or MRC's, nearly simultaneously.
  While I have listened to the President's promises, I am concerned 
about the impact of his actions. In the State of the Union Address on 
January 25, 1994, President Clinton stated that the budget he would 
send to Congress would draw the line against further defense cuts. Let 
us be clear about what this means. It means that the President remains 
committed to the huge cut of over $127 billion which he sent the 
Congress last year. The President's 5-year defense plan calls for an 
additional decline in defense spending of 10 percent in real terms. 
Regarding these additional cuts, the distinguished chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee said, ``if these additional hidden reductions 
are not reversed, I believe that they will seriously erode the future 
capability of our military services.'' I share this view and that is 
what this amendment is all about--to put the Senate on record about 
this point.

  The fact is, we are entering the 10th consecutive year of defense 
cuts. The Defense budget before us, as reflected in this bill, 
represents a reduction of approximately 33 percent from the 1985 
Defense budget. By the end of the administration's future years Defense 
program, defense spending will have fallen by over 43 percent since 
fiscal year 1985. We are not cutting defense--we are gutting it.
  According to a recent GAO report, the President's Defense plan is 
under funded by about $150 billion. This is no surprise to Defense 
experts, but it is the first quantitative evidence of the actual 
magnitude of the shortfall. The fact is that President Clinton's 
Defense budget doesn't support his own force structure.
  The Secretary of the Navy testified that the Department of the Navy 
will operate only 330 ships, as opposed to the 346 ships called for in 
the Bottom-Up Review. Additionally, the President's budget request 
would have funded only 100 bombers during fiscal year 1995 and only 80 
bombers in the out years. This, despite the Bottom-Up Review's 
requirement for 184 bombers. It is a fact that the Bottom-Up Review is 
underfunded and it appears that this administration, while making 
statements about commitment to a strong defense and demonstrations of 
support for our troops, is willing to do little if anything to address 
that problem. The result is the exposure of our fighting men and women 
to a greater level of risk.
  The facts do not support the administration's assurances that the 
Bottom-Up Review force structure is sufficient to fight and win two 
major regional contingencies nearly simultaneously. One of the most 
glaring deficiencies is the fact that the number of army divisions 
called for by the president's strategy will not meet the military's 
stated needs for fighting and winning a major regional contingency in 
the Far East and a major regional contingency in Southwest Asia. During 
the gulf war, the United States deployed seven divisions plus two 
armored cavalry regiments to Southwest Asia. Recently, General Luck 
testified that a major regional contingency on the Korean peninsula 
would require at least 400,000 military personnel to reinforce the 
United States forces already assigned to south Korea. If the United 
States had to face these two wars ``Nearly simultaneously'', the Army 
would not be able to deploy all the troops required. Remember that at 
the same time the United States is fighting these major regional 
conflicts, it also would have to maintain at least one division in 
Europe to meet our NATO requirements. Additionally, we cannot forget 
the humanitarian missions and peacekeeping operations to which this 
administration has committed us. The administration's Army force 
structure simply will not allow us to fight and win two MRCs nearly 
simultaneously and meet all of our other responsibilities.

  In summary, the funding plan does not support the force structure, 
and the force structure will not do the job.
  During World War II, it took this Nation and our Allies almost 2 
years to amass the troops and material needed for victory. The simple 
fact of the matter is that we will never again have that kind of time 
to prepare for war. You can be sure that our enemies have learned from 
the mistake of Saddam Hussein. The next time we face an aggressor, that 
aggressor will not allow us 6 months to prepare for the fight.
  Look at the war in Bosnia, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the nuclear build 
up in Iran, and the situation on the Korean peninsula. It should be 
obvious to all of us that the world is still a dangerous place. The 
amendment Senator McCain and I have proposed goes a long way toward 
ensuring that our forces remain prepared to meet any future threat. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, ten days ago Senator Grassley and I released 
a General Accounting Office report that reveals a huge gap between the 
Pentagon's resource needs and the availability of funds. That report 
found that the current Future Years Defense Plan, which was derived 
from the Bottom Up Review, is unaffordable. The Clinton administration 
is reluctant to either get rid of the weapons and forces that are 
unaffordable or transfer the necessary funds into the Defense budget. 
So, rather than cutting costs, the Pentagon has cut the cost estimates. 
With the unrealistically low cost estimates, the administration is 
misleading itself and the American public on how much defense 
capability the Defense budget will buy.
  Mr. President, the Congress bears some of the blame for this problem. 
For example, the Congress refuses to kill one of the most expensive, 
outdated, poorly managed, cold war programs in the entire budget--
namely, the Seawolf submarine program. But, the administration must 
bear responsibility for not funding the forces its own Bottom-up Review 
determined to be needed to fulfill our National Security needs. The GAO 
report documents that the Defense Department Future Years Defense Plan 
is underfunded by more than $150 billion.
  Mr. President, I am concerned that the administration continues to 
avoid the tough decisions that need to be made, rather than correcting 
the problem. Less than a month ago, it was reported that the Deputy 
Secretary canceled his directive that $25 billion be cut from the 
Defense budget. Sooner or later the bills will come in. When they do, 
tens of billions of dollars will have to be found or the hollow Army of 
the 1970s will reoccur.
  Meanwhile, under the Clinton administration, troops have been sent 
into Rwanda and the Balkans, and we are openly discussing the invasion 
of Haiti and a major injection of troops into Bosnia. All the while, we 
face a real danger of a major military conflict in the Korean 
peninsula. Yet, only $1 billion dollars is included in the 5-year 
defense plan to cover these costs. The bottom line here is that there 
is not enough money to pay for the administration's national security 
strategy.
  If we are to avoid a return to the hollow Army of the 1970s, tough 
management decisions will have to be made. Programs will have to be 
terminated, not stretched out. Major management reforms will have to 
occur.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered 
by Senator Dole. The issue here is accountability. We trust the 
administration with providing a national security strategy and with 
costing out the forces needed to fulfill that strategy. The Bottom-up 
Review was a major undertaking for the administration. It determined 
the set of forces needed to achieve the President's national security 
strategy. But, it is nothing less than reckless for the administration 
to implement its strategy when it has not provided the requisite 
funding.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank Senator Dole for his continued 
efforts to stop the erosion of our Nation's defenses, our capabilities, 
and our readiness. Madam President, there are some lonely voices out 
there, but I believe that, in the viewpoint of people who are wiser 
than I, soon we are going to face a crisis in our national security 
interest, and our ability to protect our national security interest and 
the readiness of our Armed Forces, and the quality of the men and women 
that man it.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Warner be added 
as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, to repeat, the amendment would require 
the Secretary of Defense to review the defense budget as well as the 
Bottom-Up Review assumptions and force levels.
  The Secretary would be required to report to the President and the 
Congress on the funding required to ensure the national security of the 
United States.
  Finally, the President would be required to submit a fiscal year 1996 
defense budget which provides for the funding described in the 
Secretary's report.
  Madam President, one of the most respected organizations here is the 
GAO. The GAO released a study last month estimating that the future 
years' defense plan in order to comply with the Bottom-Up Review which 
was carried out by former Secretary of Defense Aspin and former 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell, we are $150 billion short, 
$150 billion less than what was required to maintain the forces that 
were envisioned after extensive review by some of the most respected 
men in America just about 2 years ago.
  It cites the following shortfalls in the administration's budget: 
$21.6 billion in inflation and negative adjustments in R&D $32 billion 
in projected savings that may be only partially realized; $112 billion 
in potential cost increases for base closures, weapons system costs, 
personnel pay, environmental remediation, and peacekeeping operations.
  The GAO report calls into question the Department of Defense's claim 
that they are only $20 billion underfunded. That they were $20 billion 
underfunded would be alarming in itself.
  I remind my colleagues for $243 billion in this bill, we are 
acquiring 17 fixed-wing combat aircraft, 4 combatant ships, total. That 
is what we get for $243 billion, 17 fixed-wing aircraft, 4 ships. In 
addition to that there are 63 Blackhawk helicopters, 6 Apache 
helicopters, and 6 C-17 airlift air carriers; no tanks, armored 
personnel vehicles, none of the other equipment you would think might 
come from a $243 billion defense budget.
  It reminds me a little bit of a story I read recently about the 
Cambodian Army. They have something like 3,000 generals and 7,000 
colonels, and no soldiers.
  What I am saying is that we are spending money on all kinds of 
things, except to procure the weapons of war and the capabilities with 
which to defend this Nation's vital national security interests.
  It is obvious that the Department of Defense's 5-year plan requires 
more money than is being provided. The amendment that Senator Dole 
proposed would require an indepartment study of the adequacy of funding 
in the 5-year defense plan to pay for the Bottom-Up Review force, and 
it would ensure that the President allocates sufficient resources to 
national security.
  Again, I was heartened not long ago when the President of the United 
States said: Tell Congress not to cut defense any more. And both sides 
of the aisle at the President's speech stood and applauded the 
President's statement.
  The fact is we continue to cut defense. In fact, we not only cut it, 
as we did because of the Exon-Grassley amendment, which cut $500 
million out of this year's defense budget, but we also shift moneys 
around in an incredible degree. And, of course, one of the worst and 
outrageous actions that I think has been taken recently is the movement 
of $490 million. Not only after $500 million was cut off the defense 
budget, there was the movement of $490 million out of other defense 
into military construction.
  Why is that so egregious? We know that military construction is 
needed on our bases. It is so egregious because we are about to convene 
a base closing commission which is going to close more bases ever in 
the history of this country, more than the last two base closing 
commissions did, and we know full well there will be bases that will be 
closed in your State, Madam President, and possibly in mine, and there 
are military construction projects going on while the bases are being 
closed. It does not make any sense.
  Meanwhile, the USS INCHON spent 6 months off of Somalia with 2,000 
Marines on board in that task force, sitting out there doing nothing, 
in the most difficult conditions. They come back to North Carolina to 
their home port. They spend 10 days with their wives, families, 
children, and friends, et cetera, and they are called back after 10 
days and sent to sea again where they still remain to this day.
  Why do they remain there? Because we did not have any other ships. 
The Department of Defense said we had to turn them around and in a 10-
day timeframe span at home.
  Madam President, do you know how much money these people are making? 
An E-1, that is the lowest rank, earns $9,533 a year, little more than 
$1,000 in allowances. Sergeants earn less than $20,000, while a few 
earn more than $25,000.
  The military services estimate that some 20,000 enlisted service 
members and their families are now eligible for food stamps. And we are 
putting them to sea and keeping them at sea and away from their 
families. Then we expect to maintain a quality All Volunteer Force. I 
am sorry. It does not compute. It does not match up. You cannot do it.
  So, yes, I thought it was outrageous, and I say this in all due 
respect to my friends on the Appropriations Committee that we would 
take $490 million out of overall defense and put it into military 
construction at a time when we knew that many, many bases are going to 
be closed in this country. We could have at least delayed that a year 
until we saw the results of the base closing commission. We could have 
waited.
  I gave the other day the percentages, I might add, of the members of 
the Appropriations Committee and the percent of those military 
construction add-ons in the House of Representatives. If my memory 
serves me correctly--I will get the numbers here--72 percent of the 
add-ons in the MilCon came from the projects in the Member's State--72 
percent of all dollars added for unrequested military construction 
projects will be spent in the States of the 60 Representatives who 
serve on the House Appropriations Committee, and 29 percent of the U.S. 
Senate. That is 66 percent of the added dollars. That is not 
coincidence.
  Madam President, the major weapons system is clearly underfunded. The 
defense bill, as I said, contains 17 fixed-wing combat aircraft, 4 
combatant ships. Procurement funding according to GAO is projected to 
$38 million shortfall to the next 5 years.
  As I mentioned already, the base closing commission in 1995 will be 
draconian. I do not like to see it. I do not want to see a base in my 
State closed. Those who oppose the base closing commission, let me 
point out we have reduced our forces by 40 percent and we have reduced 
the base structure by only 15 percent. That does not make sense either.
  These priorities in the administration and here hurt our national 
security, as I said, but most of all it impacts the men and women in 
the military.
  Military pay increases have lagged 8 percent behind inflation in the 
last 10 years and 12 percent behind the increases in pay in the private 
sector.
  I mentioned the lowest enlisted rank get $9,533 a year, sergeants 
earn less than $20,000.
  These servicemen are exceptionally dependent on the base exchanges 
and commissaries and other support facilities.
  The proposed budget last year called for a 1-year freeze on military 
pay and benefits in 1994 and a 1 percent reduction in the annual pay 
raise based on the economic cost index. And 200,000 military personnel 
last year left the military service. Enlisted voluntary separations in 
the Army--most of which involved no real choice by the individual 
involved--rose from 66,000 in 1992 to 128,000 in 1994. Air Force 
separations of all kinds rose from 43,500 to 63,000. Up to 400,000 
additional men and women and their families will now have to leave 
military service by the end of 1998. Up to 400,000 additional men and 
women and their families will have to leave the military service by the 
end of 1998. We cannot continue to ask our servicemen and women to 
continue in this fashion.


                         readiness is suffering

  The significant and continuing budget cuts have already resulted in 
the first signs of declining readiness.
  I am seriously concerned about the deleterious impact of the rapidly 
declining defense budget on the readiness of our military forces, as 
well as on the daily lives of the men and women who serve in our Armed 
Forces and their families.
  The report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Readiness--
which was appointed by former Secretary Aspen--dated June 1994, makes 
some very cautious statements concerning how to avoid a future 
``hollow'' armed forces. The report refers to ``pockets'' of 
unreadiness that exist today, and states: ``We observed enough concerns 
that we are convinced that unless the Department of Defense and the 
Congress focus on readiness, the armed forces could slip back into a 
`hollow' status.''
  I might add, as most of my colleagues know, that organization, that 
board, was composed of retired military people who are some of the most 
respected individuals that the military has had the privilege to have 
serve.
  In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee and in other 
public fora, our highest ranking military officers have expressed 
concern about the serious declines in readiness now evident:
  Air Force depot maintenance backlog is currently at $868 million, and 
Army's depot maintenance account is only funded at 62 percent of 
requirements.
  Marine Corps is suffering severe cutbacks in combat training and in 
sustainability because funds and time are being redirected to support 
peacekeeping operations.
  Navy afloat inventories have been reduced 40 percent since 1989 as a 
result of a desire to save money on spare parts by centralizing storage 
ashore; but this means that a ship at sea requiring repairs will now 
have to sit idly while the necessary parts are transported to their 
location.
  Army aviator training is funded at only 76 percent of requirements, a 
level insufficient to make any progress in redressing the shortfall in 
skilled Army aviators identified in Operation Desert Storm.
  Cuts in base operations funding have reduced the standard of living 
of our troops, which translates quickly into lowered morale and reduced 
readiness.


                 going hollow * * * a real life example

  The President recently ordered the deployment of soldiers and sailors 
of the U.S.S. INCHON Amphibious Ready Group to deploy to Haiti only 
days after their return from 6 months in Somalia. That decision, we are 
told, was necessary because we did not have another unit that was 
adequately prepared to take on the task.
  Last week, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs testified to Congress that a study had been undertaken in the 
Pentagon to review the possibility of decreasing normal 6-month 
deployments. This decrease in deployment time would be required in 
order to keep more assets on hand to react to the growing number of 
regional crisis in the world. We are already looking at changing the 
way the U.S. military conducts business in order to accommodate 
declining defense budgets and escalating commitments.
  These examples illustrate the need for increased operation and 
maintenance funding.


               nondefense spending in the defense budget

  Another disturbing trend in the defense budget is the inclusion of 
billions of dollars of spending which is not directly related to 
military capabilities.
  The cost of conducting peacekeeping operations consumes billions of 
dollars every year. The administration requested $300 million in this 
year's budget to pay our U.N. assessment for worldwide peacekeeping 
operations, traditionally funded out of the State Department budget. 
Fortunately, it appears that saner heads have prevailed and these funds 
will not be provided from the DOD.
  The Congressional Research Service recently prepared a study of the 
costs of nondefense activities funded in the Defense budget during the 
6-year period fiscal year 1990-95. Their results are astonishing: 
Environmental remediation--nearly $24 billion; defense conversion and 
dual use programs--nearly $12 billion. In total, the CRS reported $52 
billion in spending for nondefense programs.


                Other ``must-pay'' bills are underfunded

  DOD is forced repeatedly to seek supplemental funding or 
reprogramming authority to pay for day-to-day operations in support of 
expanding commitments throughout the world. Additional funding is 
required to offset the costs of sending troops to Rwanda, maintaining a 
no-fly zone over Bosnia, and forming a possible Haiti invasion force.
  More importantly, additional funds are necessary to reinforce our 
troops currently in South Korea and improve their readiness to repel 
any aggression from the North.
  There are many pressing military requirements that lack sufficient 
funding. These requirements must be identified, and resources must be 
provided to pay for them.
  I would like to commend the Appropriations Committee and the managers 
of the bill. There are a number of excellent provisions in the Senate 
bill.


                           Military Pay Raise

  The bill before the Senate fully funds a 2.6 percent pay raise for 
military personnel--redressing a serious shortfall in the President's 
budget submission.
  The full military pay increase is essential to maintaining the high-
quality All-Volunteer Force we have today.
  I would also like to express my appreciation to the Committee for the 
COLA Equity issue.
  The bill before the Senate also provides funding to redress the 
inequity in retired pay COLAs between Federal civilian and military 
retirees.
  The Authorization conference includes a provision to restore the 
military retiree COLA to April 1, the same date as that authorized for 
civilian retirees.
  I commend the Appropriations Committee for allocating full funding to 
pay these costs.


                                  TRP

  Since the inception of the program, I have been concerned that it 
would be used as a slush fund to prop up failing businesses or to 
reward politically connected organizations with defense grants and 
contracts.
  The Appropriations Committee has acted to establish controls on this 
giveaway program by including very strong language requiring the 
Department of Defense to certify that projects funded with TRP dollars 
must have served some military purpose.
  The authorization conference contains similar language and 
additionally requires the General Accounting Office to review TRP 
awards and identify the military utility, or lack thereof, of each of 
the projects funded in this account.
  Again, I commend the Appropriations Committee for acting to constrain 
the TRP program.


                          University Research

  In the past, these funds have been a source of pork barrel funding 
and were earmarked for specific universities.
  This year, the House halved the funding for this account, and 
resisted the impulse to earmark the remaining funds.
  While the Senate restored a significant portion of the House cut, it, 
too, resisted the urge to specify the universities to whom such funds 
were to be granted.
  I would support a lower level of funding for university research, 
because I believe these funds should be better spent for training, or 
modernization, or quality of life improvements for military personnel.
  I commend the Appropriations Committees of both Houses for their 
responsible approach to such funding. I hope that the conference 
agreement on this bill will reflect the same discipline.
  However, the bill provides, in my view, an inadequate level of 
funding for the Department of Defense.
  I cannot overlook the egregious examples of wasteful, unnecessary, 
and nonmilitary spending of scarce defense dollars that are contained 
in both the House and Senate versions of this bill.
  I have identified more $2.1 billion in earmarked and add-ons in the 
House bill, and nearly $1.9 billion in the Senate bill, which represent 
the most egregious examples of congressional pork barrel spending.


                     proliferating industrial bases

  The Congress has developed a proclivity to set aside slush funds to 
preserve so-called ``defense industrial bases.''
  This practice started with the Seawolf submarine, when Congress 
provided $540 million to preserve the submarine industrial base. Today, 
the American taxpayer is burdened with paying for two $5.2 billion 
submarines, and possibly a third boat, which have no military utility 
in the post cold war world.
  DOD has failed to provide any leadership in this area. Nearly 4 years 
ago, the Congress directed DOD to prepare a report on the defense 
industrial base--a report which has never been completed. Congress must 
have the benefit of DOD's views in order to make educated judgments 
about the need for the proliferating number of industrial base funds 
that are being set up.
  I say again, Madam President, the Department of Defense, 4 years ago, 
should have provided an industrial base report to this Congress. They 
have failed to do so, so they are responsible, to a large degree, for 
this proliferation of so-called defense industrial base funding.
  The House version of the Defense Appropriations bill included $481 
million for new industrial base set-asides.
  For example, as if $540 million for the submarine industrial base was 
not enough, the House included $1 million for a submarine main steam 
condenser industrial base, $2 million for a ship propulsion shafting 
industrial base, $4.5 million for a submarine navigation radar system 
industrial base, and another $13.5 million for other submarine-related 
technologies as an industrial base set-aside.
  The House also included $30 million for a radiation resistance 
electronics [RRE] industrial base.
  Rumor has it that an MRE industrial base is being established. The 
House bill does include $2 million for MRE cold pasteurization/
sterilization, perhaps a start on an MRE industrial base. It also 
earmarks $2.8 million for combat rations advanced manufacturing 
technology demonstration.
  The Senate bill is more restrained, but includes $150 million for a 
bomber industrial base, $35 million for a tank engine industrial base 
and $2.5 million for a reentry vehicle industrial base.
  We have to stop this business of calling everything an industrial 
base. We cannot fund everything in the world. We have a combat boot 
industrial base, I believe, or some version of the same in the House 
bill. We cannot keep this up. The Department of Defense has to tell us 
which defense industrial bases have to be maintained and the Congress 
has to respond in a responsible manner.
  This is an absurd waste of money to prop up faltering industries 
which may or may not represent vital sectors of American industry 
necessary for our future defense requirements. I hope the conferees on 
the Defense appropriations bill will drop these unwise provisions 
during their deliberations.
  While the House version of the bill contains only suggested uses for 
defense conversion funds, a thin ruse to avoid a charge of earmarking.
  Examples of such House non-earmarks include: $400,000 for Georgia 
Tech Center for International Defense Conversion, and $4 million for 
Georgia Tech Plasma Arc Remediation; $100,000 for Berkshire County 
Regional Employment Board; $5 million for San Diego State University 
Conversion Center; $2.5 million for San Gabriel Valley Community 
Development Corporation; $500,000 for Hunters Point Civilian Job 
Training in Environmental Remediation; $2.5 million for Southeast 
Regional College Network, Florida; $364,000 for Southwest Virginia 
Advanced Manufacturing Technology System; $10 million for Great Lakes 
Environmental Manufacturing Technology Center; and $3.5 million for 
California Goldstrike Program.
  Now we understand better, Madam President, why we are purchasing only 
4 combatant ships and 17 fixed-wing aircraft.
  The House included real earmarks in this account, totaling $102.65 
million. For example: $1 million for the Great Lakes Composites 
Consortium sonar production dome project; $6 million for the joining 
Center; $5.4 for the Gulf Coast Region Maritime Technology Center; $1 
million for the Manufacturing Producibility Center at the Louisville, 
Kentucky site of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division; and 
$1 million for the National Center of Excellence in Ship Hull Design 
and Electrical Systems.
  Again, the Senate bill does not contain such earmarks. I urge my 
colleagues to hold their position in conference.
  Madam President, I want to point out three of the committee 
amendments which cause me concern. I do not intend to challenge them 
but I am concerned about them.
  First, on page 23, lines 5 through 14:
  Committee amendment would provide $2.5 million to sustain operations 
at the William Langer Plant in Rollette, North Dakota.
  The plant is a government-owned facility which manufactures jewel 
bearings. The military requirement for jewel bearings is essentially 
nonexistent at this time, but Congress has been adding money to the 
defense budget for many years to support the continued operation of 
this plant.
  The Committee report notes the economic depression in this area of 
North Dakota and states that the funding is provided to allow the plant 
to continue to operate until it is converted to a privately owned fiber 
optic producer.
  The amendment takes money from the Armament Retooling and 
Manufacturing Initiative, effectively making it into a slush fund for 
failing businesses.
  It is highly likely that Congress will be asked to continue propping 
up this failing enterprise in the future. We cannot afford to spend 
scarce defense dollars to prop up failing businesses in economically 
depressed areas of the country. The funding should be deleted.
  Second, on page 135, lines 9 through 19:
  The Committee amendment directs the Navy to reimburse the Muckleshoot 
Indian Tribe Auburn, WA, for costs incurred in preparing and submitting 
a base reuse plan for Puget Sound Naval Air Station.
  If approved, this would set a precedent for any other Indian tribe, 
or homeless or community organization, to submit claims to DOD for 
their costs in preparing base reuse plans.
  The committee amendment should be deleted.
  Third, on page 137, lines 10 through 15:
  The Committee amendment appropriates $11.2 million to pay the cost-
of-living raises for Coast Guard uniformed personnel.
  Committee staff advises that this funding is necessary because the 
Defense authorization bill approved a full pay raise for all uniformed 
personnel, which is deemed to include Coast Guard. Further, Committee 
staff argues that, because of their military roles, Coast Guard 
personnel may be paid out of DOD funds.
  The last I heard except in time of war the Coast Guard was under the 
Department of Transportation. It seems to me that their pay should be 
taken care of out of the Department of Transportation budget. I think 
we are setting a very bad precedent if we are paying now for the 
salaries of members of the Coast Guard who fall under the authority of 
the Department of Transportation, except in time of war.
  Madam President, the hour is late. I know there are others who want 
to speak. In deference to the two managers of the bill who have been 
here for a very long time, I will resist further diatribe except to say 
that we better understand that we cannot afford these things. We are 
shortchanging our military in every way. It is not really sexy to vote 
for a cost-of-living adjustment for a man or woman in the military. It 
is not real exciting to spend more money on operations and maintenance. 
It does not do much good back home when you allocate more money so 
pilots can maintain and air crews can maintain their efficiency through 
increased training hours.
  But all of those things are what makes the difference between the 
U.S. military and every other in the world. I suggest that when we 
start this routine again next year, we be even more careful.
  I would also like to say to both the managers of the bill I think 
that this is a better bill than last year. I think there are some 
significant improvements. But I believe we have a great distance to go. 
And I believe, also, that we have that obligation as we continue to see 
reductions in our defense budget and an increase in our national 
security challenges throughout the world and an increase in deployments 
of our military to far-off places, many of which we never heard of at 
this time last year, and an increase in requirements to use U.S. 
capabilities in defense of peace and freedom throughout the world.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Domenici and 
Senator Smith as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent at this time to withdraw the Dole 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2515) was withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

                          ____________________