[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 13, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995 AND MILITARY 
 CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain].
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the pending 
conference report on the Defense Department authorization.
  I intend to speak at length about shortfalls that exist in this 
conference report, despite the fact that some very hard work and 
excellent craftsmanship has been a part of this legislation.
  But there is no better example of what we have done to emasculate our 
military capability than was carried this morning on the front page of 
the Washington Post entitled ``Clinton May Request Reservists for 
Haiti.''

       President Clinton may have to ask ``several hundred'' 
     military reservists to go on active duty to take part in any 
     invasion of Haiti * * *.

  Mr. President, when our defense establishment has reached such a 
stage that in order to invade a country like Haiti, which by last 
estimates has a force of some 7,000 men, which has no air force, which 
has no tanks, and which has no artillery, no air force, and we are now 
required in order to successfully carry out an invasion of Haiti to 
call up American reservists, men and women in the Reserves, there is a 
compelling argument that we have cut and cut and cut our defense budget 
to the degree where we are going hollow, where we are not ready. And in 
the memorandum of the Under Secretary of Defense, recently published, 
concerning the cuts that are being contemplated in next year's defense 
budget, virtually every new weapon system will be on the table for 
either severe curtailment or for being abolished. Mr. President, we are 
in serious, serious trouble.
  Mr. President, if we have to call up several hundred reservists in 
order to successfully carry out an invasion of what any military expert 
will tell you is a few hours' operation, what in the world would we do 
in the event of a conflict with Korea? What would we do in the event 
that the Balkan situation explodes and begins to spread into other 
countries in the area?
  Mr. President, I think it is clear from all news reports, from all 
unofficial sources, that we are going to invade the nation of Haiti. 
The prediction that I hear is that it could take place as early as next 
week.
  I am sure that that invasion initially will be a success. I have no 
doubt as to the efficacy and the capability of the men and women in our 
military to carry out this relatively easy military operation in a 
short period of time.
  The question, however, is what happens after that invasion takes 
place? Who is going to occupy Haiti? Will Mr. Aristide, who will return 
as part and parcel of this invasion, receive the support of the people 
of Haiti? Will those who will seek vengeance on the brutal and 
oppressive military dictators and their friends be protected by 
American troops, or will wholesale slaughter take place as we stand by 
and watch those tragic events take place?
  Will there be a repetition of the events of 1915 to 1934, when once 
before, the United States of America went to occupy Haiti for ``a few 
months'' and we stayed 19 years?
  No one can argue that Haiti was better off for the experience, nor 
was the United States of America better off for the experience.
  Mr. President, that argument is becoming almost academic, because it 
is clear again in the newspaper this morning, because the President's 
National Security Adviser, Mr. Lake, made the case for use of United 
States power in Haiti by saying that the Nation's ``essential 
reliability'' was at stake.
  Mr. President, I almost do not argue with that. There is a question 
of the United States' reliability and credibility because there have 
been so many threats of invading Haiti.
  But why is our credibility at stake? It is because we have 
threatened, because we continue to say that we are going to invade, 
that we are almost compelled to do so. And I say ``almost'' because I 
agree with the administration that there will be damage to the 
credibility of the United States if we do not invade after all the 
threats have been made and all the preparations have been made, and all 
the statements like ``Their days are numbered,'' ``They are going to 
go,'' et cetera, et cetera.
  But what happens to our credibility if we find ourselves in a 
quagmire, if we find ourselves in a situation where there is civil 
unrest, as there was the last time we were there, when we find 
ourselves in a situation where a mob of people confronts a group of 
U.S. Marine or Army personnel and we are called upon to fire?
  Mr. President, I would suggest to you that if you launch an invasion 
without the support of the American people, without the endorsement of 
the Congress of the United States, their elected representatives, and 
something bad happens, your credibility could not be worse if we have 
to leave in embarrassment and failure, as the United States ship a year 
or so ago had to leave the port of Port-au-Prince in disarray when 
threatened by an unruly mob.
  Mr. President, there are many lessons that are learned from the 
Vietnam war; some of them valid, some of them invalid. Everybody has 
their different view of the lessons of the Vietnam war and what they 
were. And there are few lessons of the Vietnam war that the American 
people are generally in total agreement about.
  There is one lesson that the American people are in agreement about, 
Mr. President, and that is you do not embark on a military exercise 
without the support of the American people.
  Mr. President, an ABC poll last night said, and I quote, ``Six out of 
10 Americans see no vital national interest at stake in Haiti; 73 
percent of the American people do not believe we should invade.''
  Mr. President, a lot of us give advice to the President of the United 
States. From those on this side of the aisle, it is usually, and 
understandably, disregarded.
  But I think that the President pro tempore of this body, the senior 
Members on the Democratic side and one of the most experienced Members 
of this body, clearly not only now but in its history, the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia, would agree with me that you 
must have the agreement of the American people.
  What is the best way to do that? The best way for the President of 
the United States to do that is to go to the American people and tell 
them why he is going to send their young men and women into harm's way, 
and then come to the Congress of the United States and ask for 
approval.
  Now, Mr. President, you and I may disagree as to the 
constitutionality of the President sending members of the Armed Forces 
into military involvement overseas. There is a valid constitutional 
argument about that issue. And I believe that it is a compelling reason 
why we should revisit the War Powers Act and have a clear and 
unequivocal provision on whether the President of the United States is 
required to receive the approval of Congress before he engages in 
military operations.
  There are valid arguments on both sides. I have read extensively and 
talked extensively to scholars on both sides of this issue. I happen to 
come down on the side that the President of the United States is not 
constitutionally required to do so.
  I respect and value the arguments of many of my colleagues on this 
side of the aisle who believe that the President is constitutionally 
required to do so. But that is not the argument here. The argument here 
is whether we expect any President of the United States to embark on a 
military enterprise without the approval of the American people. And I 
would strongly state that it is clearly in the President's interest, if 
this enterprise fails, to have done so with the endorsement of the 
Congress of the United States and the approval of the American people. 
Without that, his risks politically are dramatically increased, because 
his critics will correctly say that he embarked on this adventure--and 
it is an adventure--without the support of the American people and 
without the endorsement of Congress.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that this week--I hope this week, because 
all reports are that the invasion starts next week--the Congress would 
act, at least the U.S. Senate, in some fashion. And I would suggest it 
would be a sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
  I would point out that Congress has voted twice--voted twice--once by 
a vote of 98 to 2 in October of last year and once this past June by 93 
to 4, that encourages and urges the President of the United States to 
come to Congress for approval. I believe the overwhelming majority of 
the American people, although not well versed on the constitutional 
aspects of this issue, also strongly believe that Congress should 
approve or disapprove.
  Mr. President, I just want to talk for a second about Grenada and 
Panama. In both of those endeavors, the President of the United States 
did not come to the Congress of the United States for approval. I 
believe that the President of the United States should have, but he did 
not. But I would also point out that those military enterprises were 
somewhat different.
  In Grenada, there was clearly a dramatically worsening situation. 
Three hundred American medical school students' lives were at stake. 
There was a compelling situation that called for U.S. military 
involvement.
  In Panama, even there, the situation was worsening. There were 
American service personnel who were being harassed and mistreated by 
Noriega's people. We do have a special interest in Panama because the 
Panama Canal Treaty, passed through this body after a long and 
acrimonious debate, states that the United States must defend the 
security of the Panama Canal.
  So, although I do not defend President Bush's failure to consult with 
Congress and receive the approval of Congress, I would say that those 
situations were significantly different, where basically this 
administration can choose the time and place of this invasion. They 
could wait a week. They could wait a month.
  The only problem with delay, from their point of view, obviously, is 
this harsh embargo is literally starving innocent Haitians to death. 
Mr. President, I have opposed that embargo strenuously because I do not 
think it hurts the rich people that live in the hills near Port-au-
Prince. I think it hurts poor Haitians, people who really are innocent 
in this whole debacle.
  I would also like to say another word about Mr. Aristide. Mr. 
Aristide was a freely elected leader of his country. It is clear that 
Mr. Aristide did not, while in office, exemplify the principles of 
democracy that we would expect in a freely elected leader.
  Now, is Mr. Aristide a terrible person who should not be returned to 
office under any circumstances? No. But, Mr. President, I would 
strongly make the argument that Mr. Aristide should be willing to stand 
for new, free, and fair elections, and in that way I think we would 
remove one of the major impediments to the departure or at least the 
stepping down from power of the army militia.
  Mr. President, I want to point this out one more time here. We are 
basing this invasion of Haiti on the premise that the United States 
reliability is at stake. That is not my version of events. That is the 
words of the President's National Security Adviser.
  I agree that the United States credibility and reliability has been 
dramatically damaged not just by Haiti but by our actions not matching 
our rhetoric in places throughout the world.
  At least 10 times the President of the United States said we are 
going to bomb Bosnia. I do not know how many times he has said that we 
will remove the dictators from Haiti. I do not know how many different 
statements were made concerning Korea. And I am very concerned about 
the way that we seem to be making concession after concession to the 
North Koreans as we speak on an issue that is of vital national 
security interests, and that is the North Korean nuclear capability.
  We have said many things, and the President of the United States and 
this administration has said many things, and they have not carried 
through. They have viewed foreign policy statements the same way they 
view domestic policy statements, where we are basically free to make 
changes as we view the domestic political opinions shifting.
  On foreign policy, this administration has failed to appreciate the 
fact that the world's superpower is listened to, the world's superpower 
must be believed, and that the world's superpower cannot be believed if 
the actions do not match the rhetoric.
  So, Mr. President, I am not in the business of predicting. But I have 
read and studied enough history to predict the following: The invasion 
of Haiti will be a very efficient military operation. The men and women 
of our military and equipment that they have today--not in the future 
but today--is clearly so overwhelming and so superior that anything 
that ragtag mob of people the Haitians call an army do would be 
extremely brief. I believe the President will receive some increase in 
his popularity.
  But I want to state clearly and unequivocally I do not believe the 
President of the United States is doing this for political reasons. I 
do not believe that. I do not believe any President of the United 
States would send our young men and women in harm's way for political 
reasons, and I refuse to accept that premise unless there is some 
evidence to the contrary.
  At the same time, over time we will find ourselves involved in a 
country that basically has never known democratic traditions, has never 
had the foundations of a free and democratic society. We will try to 
put a layer of democracy on that country and start institutions which 
basically is an enterprise which will take many, many, many years. In 
the meantime, there will be unrest. How that unrest manifests itself in 
a worst-case scenario is confrontations between United States military 
people and Haitian civilians, semiarmed, semiguerrilla, semi-insurgent 
types of operations which will put us into a tar baby which would be 
most tragic in the result that American lives are lost.
  I wish the President's national security adviser, who is concerned 
about American reliability, would also ask the following question: How 
many American lives should we put at risk to restore Mr. Aristide to 
the Presidency of Haiti?
  The other question that needs to be asked by any Member of this body, 
and is being asked by the American citizens is: What vital national 
security interests are at stake besides American credibility?
  Perhaps the other significant question that must be asked is what is 
the exit strategy? How do we get out? We restore Mr. Aristide to the 
presidency of his country and then what? Do we believe the rosy 
scenario that some paint, that some kind of multinational force of 
people from all different countries will come in and be able to 
maintain order in Haiti? I doubt it. On Sunday I was on a program with 
the Secretary of State and he admitted that American troops would have 
to be a significant part of any multinational peacekeeping force.
  So far, except for the rather rosy scenario that there would be a 
multinational peacekeeping force, I do not see an exit strategy. I 
talked to many military people, both active duty and retired, and I 
have never detected such a level of nervousness about an enterprise as 
I do about this one. Again, not about our capability to invade but the 
way out.
  Mr. President, I and 33 other Senators wrote a letter to the 
President on July 12, 1994, concerning the invasion of Haiti, with some 
serious questions.
  The administration's response was, in my view, somewhat disingenuous. 
But one of the responses--and also a statement by Secretary Christopher 
on Sunday--has to be responded to. The President's letter says:

       My support for his [Aristide's] return is based on a review 
     of his overall record while in office and is consistent with 
     the policy developed by the Bush administration.

  The Bush administration had foreign policy failures. I can make an 
argument as to whether the Bush administration should have intervened 
in Bosnia earlier, and to have prevented the situation that evolved 
there. But let us kid no one. The Bush administration never 
contemplated an invasion of Haiti. Yes, the overthrow of Aristide was 
totally unacceptable. Yes, the situation in Haiti was deplorable. Yes, 
it was condemned by the Bush administration. But no one in the Bush 
administration contemplated an invasion in order to rectify that 
situation any more than we contemplate an invasion in many other parts 
of the world where tragically we have dictatorial and oppressive 
governments. So let us not kid the American people. Do not take my word 
for it, ask former President Bush, former Secretary of State Jim Baker, 
or former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft.
  It is with some sadness that I discuss this issue because I am afraid 
that the American people's wishes are going to be overridden next week. 
I am afraid there is going to be some family somewhere--perhaps in my 
State--somewhere in this country who is going to receive a knock on the 
door and the chaplain is going to be there to tell that family that 
their son or daughter or their husband or wife has sacrificed his or 
her life in the invasion of Haiti or perhaps in the effort to 
democratize that country that has known no democracy. And I suggest the 
situation in Haiti, as deplorable as it is, as distasteful and odious 
as those people who are running that country are, is not worth the 
sacrifice of any American lives.
  Mr. President, I would also like to mention in the case of being 
required to call up reservists for this enterprise, there is also a 
significant expenditure that again will come out of the defense budget. 
Estimates are--and the estimates are always low, as the President 
knows--of some $500 million. We are again seeing the defense budget 
cut. We are seeing our commitments expanded. We are seeing them 
stretched thin. I believe we are cutting the defense budget too fast 
and too deeply. Since 1985 the defense budget has declined by nearly 35 
percent with another 10 percent reduction planned by 1999. But that is 
only the surface aspects of it.
  When you look at where the defense dollars are being spent, not only 
are the cuts in defense spending alarming but then where you look at 
where all the dollars are going that really have very little to do with 
the defense of this Nation, it is indeed alarming. I intend to talk 
about, in my statement, things like environmental cleanups, 
peacekeeping missions, maintenance of defense-industrial base. We are 
even going to spend money to keep an industrial base for combat boots. 
We are going to keep an industrial base for MRE's. We are going to keep 
an industrial base for submarines that so far has cost us at least $12 
billion and it will probably cost us several billion dollars more.
  I am seriously concerned that the decline in the defense budget 
reflected in this document that we are debating today will result in a 
hollow military force that will be unready to fight and win in future 
conflicts. The significant and continuing budget cuts have already 
resulted in the first signs of declining readiness. I am concerned 
about the deleterious impact of the rapidly declining defense budget on 
the readiness of our military forces as well as the daily lives of the 
men and women who serve in the Armed Forces and their families.
  A report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Readiness, which 
was appointed by former Secretary of Defense Aspin, which was dated 
June 1, 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.''
  Mr. President, I believe the Under Secretary of Defense and Secretary 
of Defense have taken those warnings to heart. And in response to that, 
Secretary Deutch wrote to the members of the Defense Resources Board 
directing that the services explore the idea of terminating the major 
procurement programs in their budgets. The memorandum directs the 
services to propose terminating the Comanche helicopter program and the 
advanced field artillery system for the Army, deferring JPATS, F-22, 
the TSSAM programs for the Air Force, canceling the V-22 and advanced 
amphibious assault vehicle programs and significantly slowing the DDG-
51 and new attack submarine programs in the Navy.
  Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, translated from 
Pentagonese, that means basically terminating or contemplating 
terminating every new modernization program in our military--basically 
terminating them.
  The same memorandum directs the Office of the Secretary of Defense to 
identify potential reductions in overhead and infrastructure, including 
personnel reductions and related support offices, of more than 4 
percent a year. The reason given for these Draconian cuts is, and I 
quote, ``The desire for the pay raise and for improvements in other 
areas, such as readiness, sustainability and quality of life may 
require us to shift resources from other POM priorities''--that is 
future priorities.
  Mr. President, what we have done here is present the planners in the 
Pentagon with a Hobson's choice, the Hobson's choice of either 
maintaining the high-quality men and women in the military and their 
readiness by giving them pay raises, by providing them with decent 
housing, by providing them with quality of life, which is absolutely 
vital to maintaining an All-Volunteer Force, or cutting virtually every 
new program that is necessary for the future modernization of our 
military establishment.
  Frankly, as one who has been a strong advocate of maintaining the pay 
raise and decent housing, et cetera, I find that an unacceptable choice 
because we can have the highest quality men and women in the world and 
as ready as they can be, but unless they have the equipment which gives 
them the overwhelming superiority, such as we saw in Operation Desert 
Storm, then those men and women are going to die needlessly.
  So, I do not think we should be faced with an either/or situation. I 
think we should maintain readiness. I think we should maintain the 
quality of men and women, but we should also very carefully understand 
that, first, we cut out the unnecessary spending. With all due respect, 
we do not need to increase Milcon, we do not need to increase military 
construction by some $500 million and, at the same time, cut virtually 
every new weapon system that we are contemplating.
  We cannot spend as much money on environmental cleanup as we have. We 
cannot spend so much money for peacekeeping that we have in the past. I 
know the President has stated his strong and deep concerns about 
continuing funding out of the defense budget of the peacekeeping 
operations that, frankly, should come from some other source. And also 
then we get to all this unnecessary spending, ranging in huge size from 
the B-2 bomber and the Seawolf submarine, which are unnecessary--I will 
not say unnecessary--which are less necessary in today's threat 
environment than they were during the cold war. And in a very serious 
setting of priorities, we have to understand that our first priority 
has to be readily deployable, capable forces that we can send anywhere 
in the world on short notice in order to fight a conventional conflict.
  Mr. President, Seawolf submarines and B-2 bombers are nice to have. I 
was a strong supporter of both before the cold war ended. But we just 
simply cannot afford it. We have to set priorities. If there is any 
message in this bill, in this National Defense Authorization Act of 
1995, it is that the administration and the Congress have failed to set 
priorities in keeping with the dramatic reductions of 35 percent 
reduction in 1985 and an additional 10 percent that is planned by 1999. 
We have to set priorities or we will end up with kind of a Third World 
military which has a lot of things to show but really cannot do the 
job.
  Unfortunately, we as a Congress, and the administration as well, have 
failed to make those tough decisions. We can talk about all the reasons 
why--the power of different lobbyists, how, when a weapon system is 
finally adopted, there are subcontractors in basically every district 
and every State in America and how each of those create jobs and are 
important, et cetera. Many of those arguments were valid in the days of 
the early 1980's when we were basically spending whatever it took to 
fight and win the cold war. And I am very proud of that expenditure. 
Yes, we are paying the bill for it in the form of an over $4 trillion 
debt that we have given not only to ourselves but to future 
generations. But I think it was probably worth it in order to win the 
cold war, which we did.
  But we cannot do it anymore. We have to stop. We have to set 
priorities. We have to go back and review and pay attention to the 
Bottom-Up Review, which was carried out by some of the most respected 
men and women in the military, including former Secretary of Defense 
Aspin, including former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin 
Powell and many others, and stick to that. When the Bottom-Up Review 
was briefed to the Congress and the American people, I neither saw nor 
heard any objection to it. Maybe some people had slightly different 
priorities, but I believe for the first time in a long time it was a 
document that was well received and said, yes, this is what we need in 
the post-cold-war era. Why? Because it meets the threats of the post-
cold-war era: proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the rise of 
Islamic fundamentalism, the spread of this kind of national strife that 
we see all over the world from the Balkans to Africa and many other 
places where it is incipient.
  That Bottom-Up Review, unfortunately, if the memorandum of the Under 
Secretary of Defense is followed, cannot be achieved and, if achieved, 
which it cannot be, then there is no way it can be sustained.
  So we have to go back, Mr. President, and do one of two things: 
Either re-evaluate this Nation's vital national security interests and 
change them --and I do not see how you do that, but perhaps there may 
be some intelligent and well-versed and knowledgeable people who can do 
that--or we have to do away with the spending which is absolutely 
peripheral, or not necessary, in order to maintain the Bottom-Up 
Review, eliminate that spending and, at the same time, if necessary, 
come back to the Congress of the United States and do what President 
Clinton said in his last speech before the joint session of Congress. 
He said, ``Do not allow Congress to cut defense spending any more.'' 
Let us just do what the President said and, if necessary--and if 
necessary--increase defense spending to maintain some certain level of 
capability and readiness.
  In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee and other 
public fora, our highest ranking military officers have expressed 
concern about the serious declines in readiness now evident. Mr. 
President, the Air Force depot maintenance backlog is currently at $868 
million. The Army's depot maintenance account is only funded at 62 
percent of requirements. The Marine Corps is suffering severe cutbacks 
in combat training and in sustainability because funds and time are 
being redirected to support peacekeeping operations. The Navy afloat 
inventories have been reduced by 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 translate quickly into lowered morale and reduced 
readiness.
  Mr. President, I think the American people would be astounded to know 
that this bill, this very important document, represents the new 
acquisition of 4 ships--4; 1, 2, 3, 4--4 ships and 24 fixed-wing combat 
aircraft. A $260 billion authorization of expenditure of funds will now 
authorize 4 ships and 24 fixed-wing aircraft.
  I should add that there are additional helicopters and there are 
additional systems, et cetera, but when we have reached the point where 
we are procuring a grand total of 4 ships and 24 fixed-wing aircraft, 
we are spending a lot of money on the wrong things.
  Training and operational mistakes are becoming evident in the tragic 
shootdown of two Black Hawk helicopters by United States fighters over 
the Iraqi no-fly zone and in the C-130 training crash in Georgia.
  September used to be known as the month where the services scrambled 
to spend funds which would expire if not obligated before the end of 
the fiscal year. This was known as the 11th hour spending spree.
  Now, in the last month of fiscal year 1994, there is no spending 
spree. Rather, there is not even sufficient money to conduct normal 
training and maintenance operations.
  On the issue again, Mr. President, of the 4 new ships and 24 fixed-
wing combat aircraft, the U.S.S. Inchon was stationed off the coast of 
Somalia for approximately 6 months. Those men and women in the Marines 
on board steamed off the coast of Somalia for approximately 6 months.
  Now, Mr. President, I do not know if many Americans know what it is 
like to sit on a ship, in the heat, off the coast of Africa for 6 
months, and I hope that they never have to know. But I do know that it 
is a very unpleasant, and in some ways debilitating, experience.
  Finally, their mission was finished. In Somalia, for all intents and 
purposes, the United States was gone. The United States was not going 
to be called upon to carry out any military operations in Somalia. And 
they came to their home port on the east coast of the United States.
  Obviously, they had a very happy reunion with their families, and 12 
days later--12 days, count them, 12 days--after they were at home with 
their wives and husbands and family and friends, guess what? Guess 
what? They had to go to sea again, Mr. President, and they sat for 
about 2 months off the coast of Haiti, again sitting there under very 
difficult conditions.
  Mr. President, we cannot keep men and women in the military if you 
subject them to that. No one in their right mind would stay.
  Mr. President, people will not stay in the military under those 
conditions.
  Reports are now coming in that many units are, essentially, shutting 
down operations. Navy pilots at North Island Naval Air Station are 
being told they will have no flying time this month. Mission essential 
equipment is being mothballed to save on maintenance and training 
costs. Other equipment is being guarded against cannibalization because 
of a lack of spare parts. Twenty percent of the Army's spare parts bins 
are empty. Troops are being used at many bases across the Nation to cut 
the grass, because money is not available to hire civilians. These 
troops are foregoing training time to do base maintenance. The Army's 
training and doctrine command, known as TRADOC, has been directed to 
cut $20 million from its budget during these last few weeks of the 
fiscal year, funding which means a base operations cut of $1.5 to $2 
million from nearly every Army base in America.
  Essential base operations funding is being diverted to pay for 
peacekeeping in Somalia, humanitarian assistance to Rwanda and, of 
course, the impending invasion of Haiti. These cuts will create a 
readiness nightmare across the services, especially in the first part 
of next year.
  Training loss cannot be regained. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff has warned repeatedly in the past few weeks that we are cutting 
into readiness to fund nontraditional operations throughout the world. 
These warnings need to be taken very seriously before the damage to our 
military force is irreparable and before the first American life is 
lost.
  I understand that the Army's 10th Mountain Group is preparing to 
deploy in support of the Haiti operation. This unit returned from 
Somalia in March and has been home less than 6 months. Further, the 
10th Mountain Group, which is the only available unit for Haiti 
deployment, is trained for mountain terrain and not the terrain of 
either Somalia or Haiti.
  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 crises in the world. We are already looking at changing the 
way the United States military conducts business in order to 
accommodate a declining defense budget and escalating commitments. It 
is apparent that the Department of Defense does not have sufficient 
funding to maintain its current level of military capabilities.
  Mr. President, the most immediate impact of defense budget cuts has 
been felt by the men and women in the military. They have already 
suffered a major drop in living standards as a result of past failures 
to provide pay increases for inflation, or to keep military pay 
comparable with increases in civilian pay.

  For example, the services estimate annual military pay increases have 
already lagged 8 percent behind inflation in the last 10 years and 12 
percent behind private sector pay increases. The military services 
estimate that some 20,000 enlisted service members and their families 
are now eligible for food stamps.
  I want to repeat that, Mr. President. Twenty thousand enlisted 
service members and their families are now eligible for food stamps.
  President Clinton's proposed budget called for a 1-year freeze on 
military pay and benefits in fiscal year 1994, and a 1-percent 
reduction in the annual pay raise based on the economic cost index. 
Fortunately, the Congress has corrected this authorization to provide a 
2.6-percent pay raise in this conference report. In addition, the 
Congress acted to provide funding to redress an inequity in retired pay 
COLA's between Federal civilian and military retirees. All retired pay 
COLA's will be calculated in April rather than putting military 
retirees at an unfair disadvantage by withholding their raise until 
October.
  Many defense experts have concluded that the already reduced budget 
does not contain adequate funding for even those programs included in 
the 5-year plan.
  Early this year I released a study prepared by Dr. Anthony Cordesman, 
which contained Dr. Cordesman's detailed analysis of the Bottom-Up 
Review force and the 5-year budget. The report concluded that the 
current future years' defense plan is underfunded by as much as $100 
billion. In July, the General Accounting Office estimated that the 
Department of Defense future years' defense plan may be underfunded by 
about $150 billion. The General Accounting Office cites shortfalls in 
the administration's budget from inflation, overstated projected 
management savings, and potential cost increases for base closures, 
weapons systems cost, personnel pay, environmental remediation, and 
peacekeeping operations.
  Mr. President, I wish to mention the base closure issue. There have 
been a couple of, fortunately, aborted efforts in this body to delay 
the 1995 base closings. I feel very strongly that unless we contemplate 
a significant increase in the defense budget, it does not make sense to 
delay the base closings.
  We do have to look at the increasing costs associated with 
environmental remediation, which have been dramatically higher than 
originally estimated. But at the same time, no reasonable business 
person would run a business with overhead costs three or four times 
above the level of business actually being done. We have, for the size 
of the defense budget, too many bases, and the 1995 Base Closing 
Commission will probably propose the largest base closing in the 
history of this country.
  I regret that. I regret the impact that may be felt in my own State 
or in other States. But it does not make sense for us to maintain a 
huge base infrastructure that does not match up with the level of our 
force structure.
  Returning to the budget shortfall, in a recent response to the GAO 
report, Comptroller John Hamre noted:

       We do have a problem ranging from $26 billion to as much as 
     $40 billion because of inflation and Congressionally-directed 
     pay raises.

  Mr. President, I have great respect and even affection for Mr. Hamre. 
I think he was one of the very outstanding members we had on the Armed 
Services Committee staff. I do not agree with Mr. Hamre's numbers. I 
think that the shortfall probably lies somewhere between the $150 
billion that the General Accounting Office estimates and the $40 
billion that Mr. Hamre points out. But it is a bit disingenuous to 
blame a shortfall on ``congressionally directed pay raises.''
  Mr. President, Mr. Hamre and Mr. Deutch and Mr. Perry and everyone 
else over there in the Pentagon know that we cannot maintain an All-
Volunteer Force of high quality unless we raise their pay at least to 
keep level with inflation.
  So to put the blame on Congress for a $40 or $26 billion shortfall 
for directing pay raises is disingenuous at best, because the 
administration should have come over with a request for a pay raise as 
part of their budget. They know they should have. But instead, in the 
decisionmaking process, what they did in the Pentagon was to say, we 
will leave the pay raise out of the budget that we send over because we 
know full well that the Congress will add it on.
  So do not blame Congress, I say to Mr. Hamre and others. By the way, 
I know he does not mean to do so. He is an outstanding individual. But 
let us not have the impression that we are blaming Congress for a $26 
or a $40 billion shortfall because the Congress of the United States is 
going to raise the pay of the men and women in the military by 2.6 
percent. Let us make sure we know how much that percentage is, 2.6 
percent, which in the case of an enlisted person, Mr. President, is 
very little money. Yet, the Department of Defense has acknowledged its 
serious shortage in funding situation, as I pointed out.
  Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch has directed the services to 
explore the idea of terminating virtually every major procurement 
program in their budgets. I am concerned about that, Mr. President, as 
I said. I think we are given a choice of two unacceptable options. And, 
clearly, we cannot take either course without paying a severe penalty 
for it over time.
  (Mr. DASCHLE assumed the chair)
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I fully support the administration's focus 
on military readiness as its number one defense priority. I do not 
believe it is their exclusive priority, however. I have been concerned 
for a number of years now that the funding and attention of readiness 
have been seriously neglected, and I am alarmed at the continuing 
downward trend in many readiness indicators. In my view, funding for 
readiness is still too low. I hope to work with the administration to 
restore these accounts to the appropriate level.
  I believe that the Department of Defense, in recognizing its funding 
shortfall, is unfortunately focusing on the wrong remedy.
  Our military services cannot afford to halt every major procurement 
program in the budget. Modernization and maintaining our technological 
edge are nearly as essential to future readiness as training and 
maintenance are to our near-term readiness. Terminating modernization 
programs puts in jeopardy the ability of our Armed Forces to fight and 
win in any future conflict.
  Mr. President, the great advantage we have over any other nation is 
the technological advantage in our weapons system, which is a result of 
the best minds in the world and the finest defense industries. Despite 
the unceasing attacks that are made on them, our defense industries 
have produced the finest weapons systems that the world has ever seen. 
And an ample affirmation of that is the fact that everybody wants to 
buy them.
  So you cannot just cut every major procurement program without paying 
a severe penalty. The most preferable option, in my view, would be to 
insist the President allocate additional resources to the defense 
budget to make up for shortfalls.
  The issue here is one of strategic sufficiency.
  Is this administration willing to pay the cost of being a superpower? 
Is this administration willing to pay the cost of ensuring our future 
national security? Is this administration willing to invest sufficient 
resources in national defense today in order to avoid the necessity of 
fighting to restore our security in the future?
  I am a realist. I recognize that it is very unlikely that the 
administration and OMB will increase the defense budget top line. 
Therefore, I believe that a more feasible approach would be to look for 
savings in low priority programs in the defense budget.
  I have often spoken on the many nonmilitary expenditures funded in 
the defense budget programs, such as support for international sporting 
events, defense conversion, and technology reinvestment projects, 
nonmilitary university research, environmental remediation, 
peacekeeping operations, humanitarian assistance, and the like.
  Another area of the defense budget that could yield significant 
savings would be the military construction accounts. Again, I would 
recommend a temporary moratorium on all military construction. The 1995 
base closure round is expected to close more bases than all the 
previous rounds combined--perhaps as many as 100 bases--and it is 
ridiculous to begin construction projects on bases which may be closed.
  Mr. President, I guarantee you that as bases are in the process of 
being closed, we will see construction projects taking place on those 
bases. This is outrageous. It will be throwing defense budget money out 
the window.
  In addition to saving the nearly $1 billion in Member add-ons for 
unrequested projects, the Department could also save approximately $2 
billion in other projects if all construction were halted right now. 
These areas of the defense budget are not essential to our current and 
future military readiness and effectiveness. Procurement of modern 
weapons systems is essential. The Department should look for savings in 
nonmilitary expenditures of scarce defense dollars.

  Again, Mr. President, we should declare a temporary moratorium on all 
military construction until the 1995 Base Closing Commission makes its 
recommendations.
  I congratulate the authorization conferees for retaining a Senate 
provision which requires the administration to review the assumptions 
and conclusions of the Bottom-Up Review and the FYDP to determine the 
adequacy of resources allocated to national defense. This provision of 
the bill also expresses the sense of Congress that the President should 
ensure that the defense budget he submits to Congress provides 
sufficient resources to support the forces necessary for our national 
security.
  Republican members of the Armed Services Committee have asked for 
hearings on adequacy of defense funding. I urge the administration to 
conduct a full and complete review, especially in light of the GAO's 
estimate of a $150 billion shortfall in future year defense programs 
and the programmatic decisions that are facing the Department today.
  Mr. President, Congress must share a large part of the blame for the 
skewed priorities in this bill. This year, this budget resolution cuts 
$500 million in expenditures from overall discretionary funding as a 
result of the Exon-Grassley amendment, which cut $5 billion over 5 
years. Then, it was the decision of Congress to take all of those cuts 
out of defense; nowhere else. There was nowhere else in this $1.4 
trillion budget where we could cut a single penny. We had to take it 
all out of defense. Mr. President, that was a decision which is almost 
reprehensible.
  Then, to compound the problem, the Appropriations Committee cut the 
allocation for the Defense Subcommittee and increased the allocation to 
the Military Construction Subcommittee by $490 million. We increased 
military construction by nearly $500 million at the same time that we 
are going to close 100 bases. This transfer was made solely to 
accommodate congressional add-ons. Rather than protecting the future 
security of our Nation, we are protecting people's political futures.
  We must exercise discipline in our spending habits to ensure that 
increasingly limited defense budget dollars are spent for high-priority 
military requirements necessary to our ability to fight and win any 
future conflict, and not for pork barrel projects.
  At the same time, the Department of Defense must take a firm stand in 
opposing these congressional add-ons. I intend to continue working with 
Senator Glenn and other members of the Armed Services Committee to 
ensure that Congress' appetite is restrained.
  I want to point out again, Senator Glenn and I set up criteria for 
military construction projects and also for Federal land transfers. And 
we had no support from the Department of Defense. I say to the 
Department of Defense, if they are concerned about things like $500 
million cuts in outlays and $490 million being transferred from defense 
to military construction, they had better stand up.
  Another disturbing trend over the past several years is the inclusion 
of billions of dollars of spending in the defense budget which is not 
directly related to military capabilities. The Congressional Research 
Service recently prepared a study of the costs of nondefense activities 
funded in the defense budget during the 6-year period of 1990 to 1995. 
The results are astonishing, including environmental remediation of 
nearly $24 billion. Nearly $24 billion has been spent on environmental 
remediation. That means environmental cleanups at bases around the 
country. For defense conversion and dual use programs, nearly $12 
billion.
  Mr. President, we have found a new word, a new phrase for ``pork 
barrel.'' It is called ``defense conversion.'' We are using defense 
dollars to keep companies in business that cannot stay in business and 
should not stay in business. There are a few that we are helping to 
really convert. But when I read a list of the money that has been spent 
on so-called defense conversion, it is nauseating.
  In total, the Congressional Research Service reported $52 billion in 
spending for nondefense programs within the defense budget over the 
last 6 years--$52 billion. That is not the estimate of the Senator from 
Arizona, that is the Congressional Research Service's.
  This conference agreement funds a number of programs which, in my 
view, should not take precedence over programs of critical importance 
to the ability of our military forces to fight and win in the event of 
a future conflict. For example, the conference agreement includes $400 
million for the Nunn-Lugar Former Soviet Threat Reduction program. This 
program has been funded at about this level for 4 years now, for a 
total of $1.4 billion, most of which has only recently been committed 
for any particular purpose, and most of which has not been spent in the 
past 3 years. The purpose of the Nunn-Lugar Former Soviet Threat 
Reduction program is good. The fact is that very little money has been 
spent that has been appropriated and authorized in past years, and it 
is time we stopped until that money is spent.
  This bill also contains $3.5 billion for defense conversion--a 
melting pot of programs designed to assist individuals and industries 
which have suffered as a result of the defense drawdown. Again, these 
programs have been funded at a significant level for many years. Let me 
tell you that the problem with defense conversion is that there are 
really no criteria or parameters under which we should be spending this 
money.
  So it becomes rife with spending on unnecessary projects, industries, 
and individuals.
  The bill also contains: $13 million--not a lot of money, Mr. 
President--for Department of Defense support for the Summer and Special 
Olympics, which was not requested, and I believe should be reimbursed 
if those games make a profit; $40 million for the Defense Women's 
Health Center, which was not requested, and which may take away from 
other ongoing research programs.
  The cost of 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 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 Department of Defense.
  These misplaced spending priorities must be corrected to ensure that 
funding is available for the modernization and maintenance of an 
effective fighting force.
  Mr. President, this 1995 Defense Authorization Act authorizes only 24 
fixed-wing aircraft and 4 combatant ships, and it is unclear whether 
the appropriators will set aside sufficient funding for these limited 
buys.
  Procurement funding is at a historically low level. The General 
Accounting Office projects a $38 million shortfall in funding for the 
limited number of procurement programs in the defense budget for the 
next 5 years. The military of the future cannot operate effectively 
without modern, capable equipment. This budget does not provide for our 
future technological superiority.
  The conference agreement sets aside $510 million for new aircraft and 
other equipment for the Guard and Reserves. These were not requested by 
the Guard and Reserves, and the funding for them was taken from other 
high-priority requirements included in the budget request.
  About half of these individual funds are authorized for generic 
categories of miscellaneous equipment. But the bill specifically 
authorizes $240 million for the procurement of 10 tactical airlift 
aircraft for the Guard, for C-130 aircraft. Over the past 5 years, 
Congress added almost $1.7 billion for C-130 aircraft which were not 
requested by the President. When will this stop? I fully support the 
important contributions of the Guard and Reserves to our Nation's 
security. However, I believe it is unwise to spend money on new 
equipment for the Guard and Reserves which is not requested by the 
Pentagon, especially when the Department of Defense is contemplating 
terminating every major weapons modernization program in the active 
duty forces, and when there is insufficient funding for training, 
quality of life, and other necessities.
  As I have said, the 1995 base closure round will affect more 
facilities than all of the previous rounds combined. Some estimates are 
that the 1995 round will close as many as 100 bases. In addition, the 
GAO report states that DOD savings estimates from base closings may be 
vastly overestimated. If these savings are not realized, the Department 
of Defense will have to cut other programs in order to pay its bills.
  Last month, the Senate passed the 1995 Military Construction 
Appropriations Act, which contained nearly $1 billion in Member add-ons 
for unrequested military construction projects. I voted against the 
bill because it is irresponsible to be spending $1 billion for 
unnecessary building on bases that may be closed during the 1995 base 
closure round. In fact, as I said earlier, we should institute a 
temporary moratorium on all military construction during this year 
pending the outcome of the base closure round.
  I find it an interesting coincidence that most of the projects added 
in that bill just happen to be in the States of Members who sit on the 
Appropriations Committee. In the Senate, 66 percent of the additional 
military construction dollars fund projects in the States of the 24 
Senators who sit on the Appropriations Committee. In the House, 72 
percent of the add-ons were for projects in the States of the 60 
Representatives who sit on the House Appropriations Committee. I am 
sure, Mr. President, that is a pure coincidence.
  This 1995 defense authorization conference report before the Senate 
contains $974 million in Member add-ons for unrequested military 
construction projects. This is an appalling concession to pork barrel 
politics.
  At the same time, the authorization conferees dropped language in the 
Senate bill which would have required an expedited screening process 
for conveyance of Federal lands to State or local entities. This good-
Government approach was rejected by the conferees who preferred to put 
off until next year discussions on establishing some checks and 
balances in the process of legislating Federal land giveaways. I intend 
to work with Senator Glenn to develop and enact such a process as 
quickly as possible.
  Mr. President, I want to talk about the defense industrial base for a 
minute. While there is a continuing decline in the defense budget, many 
defense firms are suffering financially. The Department of Defense and 
the Congress have a responsibility to ensure that the essential 
elements of our defense industrial base are preserved or can be 
regenerated in the future, if made necessary by issues of national 
security.
  In 1990, the Congress included a provision requiring the Department 
of Defense to produce a comprehensive defense industrial base report 
which could be used to assess future industry requirements. 
Unfortunately, for almost 4 years, the Department of Defense has 
effectively ignored the law and has failed to produce a report. I am 
now told that the Department will provide a report to Congress on 
September 30, but I understand that the report will address only a 
portion of the issues required by the law. Apparently, the Department 
of Defense has decided that the report required by the law is not only 
too difficult to prepare, but they have identified an alternative 
methodology for addressing this issue.
  What the Department must recognize is that the law is the law. A 
report required under the law must be filed unless the law is changed. 
I look forward to receiving the report on September 30. Many deadlines 
have been set and then ignored. This is one which I urge the Department 
to meet.
  Further, while this report will not technically comply with the law, 
I urge the Department of Defense to provide its response to as much as 
possible of the requirements of the legally mandated report. Perhaps 
Congress will find that DOD's proposed methodology is better than that 
prescribed by law, and then the Congress can work with DOD to amend the 
law in order to produce the most useful analysis.
  At present, in the absence of a recommendation from DOD, the Congress 
has taken action and 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 taxpayers 
are burdened with paying for two $5.2 billion submarines, two $5.2 
billion submarines, and possibly a third submarine in the future, all 
of which have no military utility in the post-cold-war world.
  The defense authorization conference establishes the following 
defense industrial base set asides: $93 million for a small arms 
industrial base; $125 million to preserve the bomber industrial base 
for 1 year, just 1 year for $125 million.
  Mr. President, need I point out a bomber is an airplane?
  There is $35 million for the tank engine industrial base, and $2 
million for the meals ready to eat industrial base. Now we need to 
spend $2 million to maintain a production base for food.
  The Department of Defense has failed to provide any leadership in 
this area, and porkbarrel projects are filling the void created by that 
lack of leadership.
  Nearly 4 years ago the Congress directed the Department of Defense to 
prepare a report on the defense industrial base. That report has never 
been completed. Congress must have the benefit of the Department of 
Defense views in order to make educated judgments about the need for 
proliferating numbers of industrial base funds that are being set up.
  This bill does include a provision which prohibits expenditures of 
certain testing dollars until the legislatively mandated report is 
submitted to Congress. Let us hope this gets the attention of the 
Department of Defense.
  Mr. President, unfortunately, it appears that the authorization 
conferees may be moving in the direction of earmarking funds for 
particular institutions or entities which enjoy the favor of some 
members of either Armed Services Committee. I refer particularly to 
language in the university research section, the defense conversion 
section, and in the Department of Energy division.
  In each of these areas, institutions are either named specifically or 
are included by reference to the House report on the bill. This is a 
shameful move for a committee which has long been opposed to earmarking 
in the appropriations process.
  The Department of Defense is forced repeatedly to seek supplemental 
funding or reprogramming authority to pay for day-to-day operation in 
support of peacekeeping commitments throughout the world. Additional 
funds for offsetting the costs to send to Rwanda, the no-fly zone over 
Bosnia, and the forming possibility of a Haiti invasion force. More 
important, additional funds are necessary for the troops in South Korea 
because of additional aggression from the north.
  Many pressing military requirements lack funding. These requirements 
must be identified and resources must be provided to pay for them.
  Rather than leave the impression that this bill is entirely without 
merit, let me note a few of the very many provisions which I fully 
support. I previously mentioned the conference report fully funds the 
2.6 percent pay raise for military personnel addressing a serious 
shortfall in the President's budget submission. The full military pay 
increase is essential to maintain the high quality All-Volunteer Force 
we have today.
  The conference report provides funds to redress the equity in COLA's 
for retired and civilian retirees. I commend Chairmen Nunn and Dellums 
after much debate for insisting on authorization for full funding to 
pay those costs.
  The technology reinvestment project. Since the inception of the TRP 
Program, I was concerned it would be used as a slush fund to prop up 
failing businesses or reward politically connected organizations with 
defense grants and contracts. Both this bill and the Senate version of 
the defense appropriations bill will establish controls on this kind of 
program by requiring the Department of Defense to certify that projects 
funded with technology reinvestment project dollars must have some 
military purposes.
  The authorization conference additionally requires the General 
Accounting Office to preserve TRP requirements and identify the 
military utility or lack thereof for each project previously funded in 
this act. The conferees included the Senate language limiting the cost 
for two Seawolf submarines under construction to $4.76 billion. This 
instituted some measure of fiscal responsibility into a program where 
costs increased out of control since inception.
  The conferees also included a sense-of-the-Senate language provision 
which establishes criteria concerning military construction projects 
not included in the budget request. These criteria constitute a 
fiscally responsible approach. The House has also informally agreed to 
consider these criteria during their deliberations next year.
  The conference report fully funds the aircraft carrier. The conferees 
correctly characterized the ongoing debate over the issue of funding 
the peacekeeping operation out of the defense budget. This issue is and 
the larger issue of U.S. military participation in the U.N. 
peacekeeping operation are matters of great importance on which the 
Congress is deeply divided. I strongly oppose this administration's 
proposals and I congratulate the conferees for refusing to authorize 
defense dollars for peacekeeping.

  There are many good programs funded in this bill. I cannot support 
the bill, however.
  First, I cannot endorse the inadequate funding level provided for 
national security programs.
  Second, the spending priorities reflected in this bill are 
unacceptable. Unnecessary spending for industrial based set asides, 
questionable grant programs, military construction pork, and other 
nondefense programs is a waste of scarce defense resources and an 
embarrassment for the Congress as a whole. The American taxpayers and 
servicemen and women simply deserve better.
  Mr. President, I would again say there are many good things in the 
bill. I applaud the efforts of the members of the committee and the 
conferees and the staff. At the same time if we continue to cut defense 
spending in the way and fashion that we are, not only the overall 
numbers, but the way that we are spending these defense dollars, we are 
going to have a national security crisis in this Nation. I have no 
doubt about it.
  The Bottom-Up Review cannot be funded. For the benefit of the Record, 
the Bottom-Up Review envisioned a force structure that specified 
numbers of ships, planes, Army divisions, Air Force wings, that would 
be necessary to meet the challenges to this Nation's security well into 
the next century. That Bottom-Up Review was conducted by the most 
highly qualified men and women I know. That force structure as 
envisioned by the Bottom-Up Review cannot be maintained by this bill, 
and in the view of the General Accounting Office is as much as $150 
billion underfunded in the future.
  My major opposition to this bill is for that reason. Unless we change 
our priorities, unless we change our vision, and our view of the 
threats to our national security we, therefore, cannot meet those 
challenges the Bottom-Up Review describes and, therefore, we may see 
the sacrifice of the lives of young men and women in the military in an 
unnecessary fashion.
  Mr. President, let me return for 1 minute, and I note my friend from 
Pennsylvania has been waiting with great patience. Let us return for 
the moment to the issue of Haiti.
  Mr. President, I do not believe the President of the United States is 
constitutionally obligated to receive approval of the Congress before 
invading Haiti. I do believe that the President for every other good 
reason should receive a vote of approval or disapproval from the 
Congress of the United States.
  The lesson of the Vietnam war which is the most compelling is that 
you cannot embark on a military enterprise without the support of the 
American people, and right now 7 out of 10 Americans believe we should 
not invade Haiti.
  I am not in the business of giving advice to the President of the 
United States primarily because it would not do any good. But I 
strongly recommend that the President of the United States go to the 
American people in a nationally televised address and tell the American 
people why he is going to send young Americans into harm's way and lose 
the lives of some of them, and why there is a compelling reason to do 
so, and then he should come back to the Congress of the United States 
and receive an affirmative vote for doing so.
  If he does not, he is setting himself up for a very, very dangerous 
turn of events. If this invasion, which we all know initially will 
succeed, causes us to be bogged down in the kind of a tar baby which 
many military experts predict will happen, civil unrest, urban 
guerrilla warfare, attacks by certain factions upon other factions for 
which the United States would have to intervene, the role of the United 
States military being a palace guard for Mr. Aristide, and the ensuing 
costs of American lives, can cause this President to see the end of his 
political career.
  So, Mr. President, I believe that if the President of the United 
States would come forward to the American people and to the Congress of 
the United States, then he would be best served and the American people 
would be best served.
  So I would hope, Mr. President, that this week knowing there is a 
religious holiday, knowing it is a short week, we could fully debate 
and vote on this important issue since all indicators are there will be 
an invasion of Haiti next week.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues, and I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair, and I acknowledge at the outset my 
appreciation to my colleague from Texas for permitting me to precede 
her. I will do so with relative brevity.

                          ____________________