[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 129 (Friday, August 4, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11372-S11437]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Exon 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Can we get the yeas and nays on all the amendments?
  Mr. EXON. I will be glad to incorporate that. I ask for the yeas and 
nays on all of the amendments with reference to the matter that we have 
been debating.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. So there will be the yeas and nays on four amendments.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield back any time remaining, and I 
am going to move to table the Exon amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. EXON. I make an inquiry of the Chair. I thought that the yeas and 
nays on the Exon amendment had been ordered.
  Is that not correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. EXON. Then a tabling motion would not be in order at this time, 
would it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is advised by the Parliamentarian 
that a tabling motion would be in order.
  Is there a sufficient second on the tabling motion?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Exon amendment 
is set aside. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] is recognized to offer 
an amendment, on which Senator Reid will control 40 minutes and Senator 
Thurmond will control 20 minutes.
  The Senator from Nevada.


                Amendment No. 2113 to Amendment No. 2111

 (Purpose: To strike the provision designating the location of the new 
        tritium production facility of the Department of Energy)

  Mr. REID. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself and Mr. 
     Bryan, proposes an amendment numbered 2113 to amendment No. 
     2111:
       On page 29 of the amendment, strike lines 18 through 21.
  Mr. REID. The record should read as on the amendment that this is 
offered on behalf of both Senators from Nevada.
  Mr. President, I object to the section of this amendment that directs 
the Department of Energy to site its new tritium production facility at 
Savannah River.
  For Members of the Senate, let me explain briefly what we are talking 
about. Tritium is an element that is critical to all modern nuclear 
weapons. However, it is radioactive and decays. Our weapons will cease 
to work if we do not periodically replace the tritium. We do not now in 
the United States have the ability, the capability to produce tritium. 
We must develop a new tritium source.
  We are, in this amendment, striking from this Thurmond amendment the 
specification that this new producer of tritium shall be in Savannah 
River. This is not an appropriate action and certainly it is not an 
appropriate issue for legislative action.
  Decisions like this belong with the administrative branch of our 
Government. Decisions like this must be based on a complete analysis of 
many complex technical and economic decisions. A fair and impartial 
assessment of alternatives for different techniques and sites is what 
is called for. To think that we, as a Senate, can step in without 
hearings, without any procedures at all to indicate what would be the 
proper site for this production facility would be absolutely wrong.
  It is clear the reason that this is in the bill is because of the 
chairman of the committee being from South Carolina. There is no other 
reason. The fact is there are a number of sites that the Department of 
Energy and this administration generally are looking at to determine 
where would be the best place to put it. One of the sites, of course, 
is at the Nevada test site.
  If there were a vote taken today with the people in the Department of 
Defense, people in the Department of Energy who are making the 
decision, Nevada would probably win, but that is not how these 
decisions are made. It is not by a vote. It is by people who are 
administrators, who listen to the experts who work under them and for 
them and with them to determine where would be the best place to site 
this production facility. It certainly should not be done in a site 
specific amendment as we are now asked to consider.
  Why does South Carolina feel that they must legislate the outcome of 
this issue? Why should not South Carolina and the Members of this 
Senate be willing to take their chances that their site is the best 
site?
  The junior Senator from New Mexico earlier today in his remarks on 
the underlying Thurmond amendment indicated that he would not approve 
of the site specific section of the bill. He said that he would support 
the Reid amendment, and I think that is the way it should be.
  This is not some small project that you can put any place you want. 
This is a multibillion-dollar project. This is not a project that costs 
a few million dollars, a few hundred million dollars. This is a project 
that costs a few billion, and it is simply wrong to site it as has been 
done by the committee in this bill. This is a multibillion-dollar 

[[Page S 11373]]
project upon which our nuclear deterrent critically depends.
  As we all know, funds for all Federal projects are limited. We should 
not be taking such a large and significant project and turning it into 
a local jobs project.
  I have already stated that Nevada is one of the places that is being 
considered for this project, and I say ``considered'' because I do not 
know what ultimately, when all the merits are added up, where this 
project would go. Nevada has a shot at it, of course. But we certainly 
cannot eliminate good science and good administration and in this bill 
simply say it is going to South Carolina. It is wrong. This is one of 
the types of things that gives Congress the name it has now. If there 
were ever an example of congressional pork, this certainly would be a 
good example.
 I also realize that Nevada's chances are eliminated if we do not pass 
this amendment that is now before the body. So, Mr. President, this is 
not a parochial issue, it is an issue of good Government. We all agree 
that we have to balance the budget. We have a different method of doing 
that. We have priorities that seem to be bantered around here which 
would be the best way to go to balance the budget. We all agree it 
should be balanced. But one of the things we have to stop doing is 
legislating as we are doing in this manner. We simply cannot put a 
multibillion dollar project in a certain State or district because the 
chairman of the committee is from that State or district. That is 
wrong.

  This is an issue for all of us who care about spending our limited 
dollars wisely. This is not an appropriate way to spend our money. The 
amendment that I have offered to preclude the earmarking of the site 
for this new tritium project is an amendment for good Government and 
saving the Government money. I ask all Senators to join me in defeating 
this attempt to bypass the ongoing process to choose a technology and a 
site for our Nation's future tritium production.
  The language from the bill, that is from the Thurmond amendment, 
says, ``* * * shall locate the new tritium production facility of the 
Department of Energy at the Savannah River site, South Carolina,'' 
before we know the technology, before we know the cost, before we know 
the suitability of the Savannah River site for the project. It is 
regardless of NEPA reviews; that is, the environmental impact that it 
would have on that part of the country. It is regardless of the cost of 
alternatives. What if we find an alternative that will save 10 percent? 
That is hundreds of millions of dollars. What if we find an alternative 
that will save us 5 or 3 or 20 percent? Should we not be given the 
latitude, should our administration not be given the latitude of 
looking at what would be best environmentally, what would be best from 
a cost basis? What about the ability of the facility to start producing 
tritium? What if one site, that is, the one in South Carolina, would 
take 8 or 9 years to develop this production capability? And let us 
assume another one would take 2 years. Should the administration not 
look at which would come on line the quickest? Of course.
  But what we are doing, we are citing it in this amendment, regardless 
of the environmental impact, regardless of the cost, and regardless of 
when it will be able to come on board, when we will be able to start 
producing tritium. Does this mean we are forgoing the option of using a 
commercial reactor for tritium production? It appears that way.
  Mr. President, we have no tritium production today. Any production 
facility will therefore be a new facility. It seems that we have just 
precluded the commercial reactor option; that is, are we going to use 
some of the commercial reactors that are now available for tritium, and 
we would buy it from the commercial producer? That is an alternative. 
Should we not be able to take a look at that to see if that is most 
appropriate way to get our tritium for our nuclear weapons? Why are we 
forcing a decision now?
  Mr. President, the question is the answer. We all know why the 
decision is now being forced. We are needlessly constraining the 
decision process for what? Again, the question assumes the answer. It 
is very obvious.
  Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Who yields time?
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to table the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the motion to table the amendment, is there 
a sufficient second?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is a unanimous consent request that 
has been----
  Mr. THURMOND. After we vote on the Exon amendment, not now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion would not be in order until after 
all the time is expired or yielded back.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. I will make it after the time expires.
  I rise to oppose the Reid amendment and point out to my colleagues 
that the Savannah River site has had the tritium production mission for 
over 40 years. Why change? The U.S. Government has invested heavily in 
a unique infrastructure at the site for handling that naturally 
decaying radioactive gas and for recycling tritium throughout the U.S. 
nuclear weapons stockpile.
  For this reason, it would not be cost effective for the new tritium 
source to be placed at any other location regardless of the technology 
used for production. The taxpayer, who is frequently mentioned here on 
the floor, would have to duplicate the recycling infrastructure 
required to handle the radioactive tritium and the gas bottles which 
contain it in our nuclear weapons. Additionally, transporting this 
radioactive gas across the land from separated production and recycling 
sites does not make sense either.
  The colocation of tritium recycling facilities and the new tritium 
production facility is the only solution that makes economic sense for 
the American taxpayer.
  I wish to point out to the Senate that the Savannah River site is 
located on the border between the States of Georgia and South Carolina. 
The people of both States have, after the land was condemned for this 
facility, supported this mission of the site for the past 45 years and 
cooperated fully with the Government in every way possible in its 
important mission to sustain the nuclear stockpile.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from South Carolina, if all these 
arguments are valid, then why should we have this in the bill? If all 
his arguments are valid, then the people who are making the decision, 
the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense, I am sure, will 
take all those facts into consideration. If he is right, South Carolina 
would wind up getting it.
  I will yield whatever time the Senator from Nevada may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank my senior colleague for his 
leadership in providing this amendment, which I strongly support.
  Mr. President, as Senator Reid has indicated, he and I clearly have a 
vested interest in the outcome of this amendment. The Nevada test site 
is also being considered as the location for a new tritium source. 
Frankly, our view is it is far superior to any other location that is 
being considered. But I hope, Mr. President, my colleagues will 
understand that this is not just a battle between two States that seek 
to acquire a new major project which Senator Reid has indicated is of 
the magnitude of several billions of dollars.
  The Department of Energy's efforts to build a new tritium supply is 
probably one of the most important current programs to ensure our 
continued confidence in our nuclear stockpile. The tritium supply 
program is absolutely essential to our national security program. 
Senator Reid alluded to it, but I would like to embellish on it a 
little bit. Tritium is a radioactive gas and tritium is used in almost 
all of our nuclear weapons to achieve a so-called booster effect; that 
is, to magnify or to amplify the full impact of the nuclear yields. And 
our national defense planners, strategists, have come to rely 

[[Page S 11374]]
upon those projections. So the premise undergirding our national 
defense strategic deterrence is predicated upon yields that can be 
achieved only with the use of tritium.
  Tritium, however, has a relatively short half life, a little over 12 
years, which means that it decays at a rate of about 5 percent a year 
and needs to be replenished on a regular basis.
  Recent reductions in our nuclear weapons stockpile have allowed us 
during this interim period of time to recycle tritium from retired 
weapons and has reduced the pressure to build a new tritium supply 
somewhat. But the need in terms of a long-range supply is still quite 
critical.
  Even if we take advantage of the tritium made available by retiring 
weapons, if we do not have a new tritium supply on line by the year 
2011--that is just 16 years away--we will need to start to dip into our 
tritium reserve.
  By 2016, even using the reserve, it will not be adequate to meet our 
needs.
  Mr. President, since I think most everybody acknowledges it will take 
about 15 years or more to get a tritium supply facility up and 
operational, we need to act now to make sure we will have a viable 
nuclear deterrent capability after the year 2011.
  There are two ways, as I understand it, that you can produce tritium. 
There is the traditional way that we have produced it in the past with 
a nuclear reactor, and there is a new way which offers considerable 
hope and promise. It is a linear accelerator. Scientists tell us that 
either way is feasible, and the Department of Energy is in the process 
of evaluating these two options, including an evaluation of numerous 
options within the nuclear reactor category.
  A decision on which technology will provide us the most confidence 
and will be the most fiscally responsible is to be announced soon by 
the Department of Energy.
  In addition to evaluating the technology options, the Department is 
going to decide where to site this new tritium facility. Several sites 
are considered including one in Idaho, Savannah River, Oak Ridge, 
Pantex, and the Nevada test site. This will be primarily research 
oriented. I do not consider the naming of the site at this time an 
urgent matter.
  Nevertheless, the Secretary of Energy is committed to the announcing 
of a preferred site for the tritium supply technology in the near 
future.
  The Department recognizes the seriousness of this decision and has 
devoted a considerable amount of time and a great many resources to 
ensuring that the final decision will result in a viable cost-effective 
tritium supply program.
  Mr. President, this is not the time for Congress to meddle in what is 
essentially a technical and scientific decision process. I realize that 
some of my colleagues may be frustrated with what they perceive to be 
delays in moving forward with the tritium supply decision, and given 
the Department's track record in a number of programs, it is all too 
easy to place the blame for delays in a program on the Department of 
Energy.
  In this instance, however, I simply do not believe the criticism is 
justified. Since 1988, when the New Production Reactor Office was 
established to develop a new supply for tritium, there have been 
incredible changes in the environment in which the Department is 
acting: The Soviet Union has imploded. The cold war is over, and 
President Bush's three announcements during 1991 and 1992 of 
significant reductions in the nuclear weapons stockpile program has 
dramatically changed the picture with regard to a new tritium supply.
  When the Bush administration, under Secretary of Energy Watkins, 
decided not to pursue the new production reactor, an entire new plan 
had to be developed for the production of a tritium resource.
  The Secretary of Energy was required under the fiscal year 1994 
Defense Authorization Act to issue a programmatic environmental impact 
statement by March 1, 1995. This draft PEIS for tritium supply and 
recycling issued by the Department last February complied with the 
requirement and is the latest product of a 7-year process to develop a 
rational, cost-effective, scientifically based program to ensure the 
capability of our nuclear weapons well into the next century.
  No preferred site or technology was identified by the February 1995 
document, nor is one required under the NEPA process. At that point, 
the Secretary of Energy committed to executing a record of decision by 
November of this year.
  By Government standards, that is a reasonably quick turnaround. The 
Secretary also made it clear that a decision on the preferred 
technology or site may be announced prior to the November record of 
decision.
  That is where we stand today, Mr. President. The PEIS is on the 
street and the Secretary is committed to a decision by November of this 
year. The Secretary, clearly feeling she did not have sufficient basis 
to make a decision on site or technology prior to March 1, is currently 
evaluating the technical and scientific evidence gathered through the 
NEPA process. That is as it should be.
  To give you some indication of the magnitude of the PEIS, this 
indicates the voluminous nature of the information that is being 
compiled, that is currently being reviewed and analyzed by the 
Department. These are two volumes entitled ``The Draft Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement for Tritium Supply and Recycling.''
  It is my view that the Secretary ought to be permitted to move 
forward in that evaluating process. It is hard to understand how 
Congress, on a matter of such importance to our national defense, could 
even consider substituting its judgment on a parochial basis for the 
scientific and technical expertise that is being considered by the 
Department of Energy.
  I realize that the language our amendment seeks to strike only 
specifies the site for the new tritium source. The language presumes to 
leave the technology choice to the Secretary of Energy and only 
identifies the site for the new facility.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, it is not quite that simple. In order 
to obtain the most reliable and cost-effective results, the Department 
of Energy must maintain the flexibility it needs to determine both the 
site and the technology for the new tritium resource.
  As the draft PEIS makes abundantly clear, each of the sites being 
considered for the new tritium source has its own advantages and 
disadvantages.
  Should the DOE decide to build a new reactor, whether it is a so-
called triple-play reactor, advocated by the senior Senator from South 
Carolina, or any other type of reactor, Savannah River appears to be 
the most likely site. The Nevada test site is less suitable and, 
parenthetically, I would oppose building a reactor anywhere in Nevada. 
On the other hand, given the freedom to make the most rational 
decision, the Nevada test site would be the preferred alternate, if the 
chosen technology turns out to be an accelerator. Others would 
disagree, and I acknowledge this is a debatable proposition, but at 
this point, the best course we in Congress can pursue is simply let the 
NEPA process run its course.
  In supporting the Reid-Bryan amendment, that is what the Senate is 
pursuing: To allow the course which the Congress set in motion in 1994 
by directing that a programmatic EIS be developed to make the 
determination as to site and technology for the new tritium supply. 
That is what we allow to occur.
  By leaving the language in the bill as it currently is, we preempt 
that process, and in the interest of a parochial decisionmaking 
process, foreclose the Department from making a determination both, in 
my view, on technology as well as site.
  Mr. President, I yield my time back to the distinguished senior 
Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I will make brief remarks on this amendment. 
I support the Senator from South Carolina and his position. Savannah 
River has been the tritium production complex since the dawn of the 
nuclear age. It has the infrastructure, it has the trained work force, 
it has the experience, it is a logical place for the new tritium 
facility, whatever technology is being chosen. 

[[Page S 11375]]

  We do not have in this bill now, as I understand this amendment--I 
have not been a part of working on this amendment--but as I understand 
it, there is nothing in the bill now, after this amendment is adopted, 
that would tell the Secretary of Energy what kind of reactor to have. 
She still has that choice--the light-water reactor, the gas reactor, 
the multipurpose reactor, heavy water or even the accelerator. All of 
those technologies are available.
  The Secretary of Energy said she is going to make this decision 
sometime in late summer or early fall. That means that this bill is 
bound to be in conference in September, and if the Secretary of Energy 
makes any other decision, other than Savannah River, then certainly we 
will have a time to study that carefully and to react to that in 
conference.
  So I support the Senator from South Carolina on this. I urge the 
defeat of the second-degree amendment.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. I yield the able junior Senator from Georgia such time 
as he may require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, as my good colleague from Georgia 
noted, the Savannah River site has been the site for weapons tritium 
production for nearly half a century--specifically 40 years. Obviously, 
given the importance of the production of that plant in terms of our 
nuclear policy, a very large capital investment has already been made 
by the taxpayers of the United States on the Savannah River site's 
unique, extensive tritium handling, tritium bottle recycling and 
production infrastructure--a huge capital investment.
  If the new tritium production facility which DOE was planning were to 
be located at another site other than Savannah River, the large tritium 
bottle recycling facilities and the tritium production handling 
facilities would have to be replicated, rebuilt at a new site. This 
would be very expensive, cost-ineffective, and not wise.
  Another alternative, I guess, would be to transport radioactive 
tritium to the Savannah River site bottle recycling from a distant new 
production site. This would require expensive, unique transportation, 
and would be perceived as a potential negative public health risk in 
the States transversed. On this basis, it is both logical and cost-
effective for the Congress to designate this longstanding facility, a 
facility uniquely prepared to deal with this production as the location 
for the tritium production facility.
  The bottom line here is, if you are talking about a change, you are 
talking about spending millions and millions of dollars, and you are 
talking about breaking the continuity chain of preparedness that the 
Savannah River site represents.
  Mr. President, I yield back my time to the Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, how much time is left on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 13 minutes remaining for the Senator 
from South Carolina, and the Senator from Nevada has 19\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend, the ranking member, the former 
chairman of the committee, said the only question is what kind of 
facility. Well, that really is not the only question. But, in fact, if 
that were the only question, why in the world would you want to site in 
South Carolina, no matter what kind of facility, a reactor accelerator?
  If the Secretary of Energy is going to make this decision late 
summer/early fall, why would Congress want to meddle with what is 
already in the process of being decided? If there were ever an example 
of congressional meddling, this certainly would be it.
  Mr. President, this is a big project. I am reading from one 
newspaper:

       The new tritium production facility would be the Nation's 
     first since the 1960's. Cost estimates range as high as $10 
     billion, and the project could create more than 2,000 jobs.

  In the other body, something like this was tried and, again, I read 
from the Energy Daily of June 1995, where over there it was referred to 
as ``radioactive pork.''
  Well, thank goodness the House in its wisdom got rid of that 
radioactive pork, and that was deleted from their legislation.
  If the Savannah River site is so good, why do they not let it compete 
on its merits? If the threat that I heard--namely, if the Department of 
Energy sites it someplace else, we will take a look at it in 
conference. This is a threat to the Secretary to site it on the 
Savannah River, or we will take care of it in conference. That is 
wrong.
  My amendment lets the system of Government work the way it should, 
not with ``radioactive pork.'' It would be with the orderly process of 
Government. Let me repeat, Mr. President, the language in the 
underlying amendment of the Senator from South Carolina that I and 
Senator Bryan are attempting to delete States, ``shall locate the new 
tritium production facility * * * at the Savannah River Site, South 
Carolina.''
  We are subverting, standing on its head, making a mockery of the 
system of Government that we have, where the Director of the Department 
of Energy--the Secretary--will make a determination after due 
consultation with the Department of Defense, with the people that work 
for and with her, as to where it should go.
  But in this Thurmond amendment, we are going to site it in South 
Carolina before we know the technology that will be used, the cost, or 
the suitability of the Savannah River site for the project. There may 
be technology that should only go to Savannah River that the Secretary 
will decide on. Or she may find that that is technology that they want 
to use and should not go to Savannah River for many reasons. Maybe the 
cost of the Savannah River, because of all the pollution from the 
failed reactor, for over 45 years, makes that site so expensive, so 
unreliable, that it should go someplace else.
  This language sites it in South Carolina, regardless of the 
environmental concerns, regardless of the need for reviews, regardless 
of the cost alternatives, and, of course, as I have mentioned before, 
regardless of the impact on the schedule to produce tritium. What if we 
need to get tritium produced quickly. Does this mean that we are 
foregoing the option of using an existing commercial reactor for 
tritium production? Yes, it does. That may be the decision the 
Secretary will make, saving the taxpayers of this country billions of 
dollars.
  We have no tritium production today. Any production facility will 
therefore be a new facility. It seems that we have just precluded the 
commercial reactor option. That is wrong, and that is not what we 
should want or what this Congress should be up to. We have certain 
budget constraints that we have all been working under. This flies in 
the face of that. Why are we forcing a decision now when we know, as 
indicated by the senior Senator from Georgia, that the Secretary is 
going to make this decision in late summer? Late summer is upon us. 
This decision could come within a matter of weeks.
  We are needlessly constraining the decision process. For what? We are 
doing it for ``radioactive pork,'' and that is wrong.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to take a minute or two more. I 
want to just recall that in 1946, when I was Governor of South 
Carolina, the project was announced to build this plant in Aiken, SC, 
on the Savannah River between Georgia and South Carolina. I moved to 
Aiken to practice law. I guess I represented over 90 percent of the 
landowners down there. They had the land condemned and taken away, 
whether they wanted to or not. The Government said, ``We need this land 
for this plant.'' The Government needed it. They sacrificed a lot. They 
underwent many hardships. The plant was built.
  Why now do we want to take away the opportunity for those people who 
sacrificed like they did to help the Government to build this plant for 
the good of our country? We are not asking that they use any particular 
kind of technology. They can use the accelerator or they can use the 
reactor, or whatever they want to.
  We are merely saying it should not be taken away from these people 
who 

[[Page S 11376]]
sacrificed so much in their lifetime for this plant and for the 
Government.
  We feel it should not be moved, regardless of what the technology is. 
It ought to remain at this site. It has been there for 45 years. Why 
take it away? They have done a good job. They have the infrastructure. 
They have the workers. They have everything to make a success.
  I do hope that this amendment will be defeated.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the proponents of sight infrastructure costs 
as their main argument, but this facility will produce training for 50 
years.
  I say, what is the lowest life cycle cost of 50 years? Do we care? We 
should care, Mr. President.
  I yield to my colleague from Nevada whatever time he desires.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague.
  It seems to me, Mr. President, that we have heard what essentially 
are three arguments by the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. One is that it has been there for 45 years, and 
therefore it should continue in perpetuity for 45 years.
  Mr. President, I think the answer to that question is self-evident. 
We are considering prospectively what is the best location for the 
tritium production facility in the future. That is the entire purpose 
of the problematic environmental impact statement.
  Indeed, they may make and come to the same conclusion that our 
friend, the senior Senator from South Carolina made. But that is not an 
analytical or rational argument for a policy that has always been 
there, always been that way, and therefore we should continue that way 
forever in the future.
  The second argument that my friend made was to suggest that somehow 
the recycling operation has been at Savannah River and that by 
colocating the new production facility, somehow we would ease or 
eliminate the transportation of tritium.
  Mr. President, that is simply not true. As my colleagues, I am sure, 
know, we do not move nuclear bombs around the country, to have the 
tritium components of them added in second. When we are talking about 
retrofitting or adding the tritium component, you are talking about 
doing that at a facility that has the capability of doing that.
  That is, first and foremost, the facility at Pantex. No one should 
have the impression that by having a recycling and production facility 
in South Carolina that we eliminate the necessity of transporting that 
new tritium product to either Pantex, or there is a facility at the 
Nevada test site that could handle the disassembly.
  My friend makes the argument of sacrifice. While I am sure he recites 
the history, nobody quarrels with the senior Senator from South 
Carolina when he describes the history of the state that he has 
represented so long and so ably, and which I know he has great personal 
affection.
  If we are talking about sacrifice, he is talking about the few 
thousand acres at Savannah River. Nevada is the mother of all 
sacrifices--the mother of all sacrifices. The Nevada test site alone is 
larger than the entire State of Rhode Island. Just the Nevada test 
site. If you want to talk about Federal sacrifice, 87 percent of the 
entire land mass of the State of Nevada is under the jurisdiction of 
the Federal Government, either the Department of Energy, the Department 
of Defense, the Bureau of Land Management, or the Forest Service.
  I must say that I do not think any of those three arguments are 
compelling.
  Finally, I return very briefly to, I think, the argument that my 
senior colleague makes so ably. That is, we started the process in 
1994. We said, ``Let's look, see how we should handle future tritium 
production. Let's have a problematic EIS.'' Added into that mix is the 
fact there is a new technology we want to take a look at, the linear 
accelerator technology.
  There are different types of reactor technologies that we want to 
consider, as well, some four technologies within the rubric of the 
reactor option, which is the other option other than the accelerator. 
All of those ought to be considered rationally as part of an evaluation 
process and ought not to be the subject of micromanagement by the 
Congress.
  Let this process work its course. We in Nevada have a vested 
interest. We would like to see it in Nevada. I would like to see the 
linear accelerator, but I am willing to take my chance. I think that is 
the best policy.
  I urge the Congress and this Senate to allow that course to work its 
way, as well, and let the experts make the decision. I yield the floor.


                Amendment No. 2114 to Amendment No. 2111

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to make certain technical amendments to the Thurmond-Domenici 
amendment. These have been agreed to by both sides. I send them to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2114 to amendment No. 2111.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       Page 8, line 17 strike out ``$2,341,596,000 and substitute 
     in lieu thereof $2,386,596,000''.
       Page 8, line 20 strike out ``$2,121,226,000 and substitute 
     in lieu thereof ``$2,151,266,000''.
       Page 9, line 1 strike out ``$220,330,000'' and substitute 
     in lieu thereof ``$235,330,000''.
       Page 9, line 25 strike out ``$26,000,000'' and substitute 
     in lieu thereof ``$41,000,000''.
       Page 13, line 6 strike out ``$550,510,000'' and substitute 
     in lieu thereof ``$505,510,000''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  Mr. REID. I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2114) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2113

  Mr. THURMOND. I move to table the Reid amendment and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  Could the Presiding Officer indicate what the parliamentary status is 
now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first vote will occur in relation to the 
motion to table the Exon amendment.
  Mr. THURMOND. I am informed Senator McCain is not going to offer an 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote on the motion to table the Exon 
amendment can occur now.
  Mr. REID. Immediately following that will be the Reid-Bryan 
amendment.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on the motion to table.
  Mr. EXON. Yes. If I understand the agreement right, the Senator from 
Nebraska has 2 minutes, as does the Senator from South Carolina.
  I ask unanimous consent, as previously agreed to, that immediately 
preceding the vote on the Exon amendment, 2 minutes be allocated to the 
Senator from Nebraska and 2 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2112

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, there can be no question that we are about 
to cast a critically important vote. We will send a signal that will 
resonate around the world and have far-reaching implications on 
mankind's chances of moving further away from a reliance on nuclear 
weapons and a possible nuclear holocaust, or we can reverse course, 
abruptly and shamefully. As the world's leading nuclear superpower, we 
can send a signal loud and clear that, notwithstanding our 
protestations about the spread of nuclear devices, notwithstanding our 
supposed commitment to a nuclear test ban treaty, we are going to 
reverse course. 

[[Page S 11377]]

  The Exon-Hatfield amendment assures a constructive policy of gradual 
and very deliberate thought processes, and offers the nuclear olive 
branch, if you will, to potential friend and potential foe alike, that 
the United States of America offers a hand of nuclear understanding.
  If we vote down, if we table the Exon-Hatfield amendment, it is going 
to be a significant step backward for which we will not forgive 
ourselves, I suggest, for centuries to come. It is the time we 
reemphasize our restraint, our vigilance, and agree to the Exon-
Hatfield amendment as we have explained in great detail during debate 
this morning.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I just want to say that every weapons 
system, indeed every machine in our technological society, requires 
testing. The hydronuclear testing is the only tool left to assess our 
confidence in the safety and reliability of the shrinking nuclear 
stockpile.
  Mr. President, we need to do this. We are living in a dangerous 
world. It is important that we be informed as to the reliability and 
safety of our weapons. They may have to be used. I do not need to cite 
the situations that could be dangerous in various parts of the world. 
We know about North Korea. We do not know what Russia is going to do, 
what China is going to do. We do not know what certain nations like 
Iran or Iraq and Libya will do, the terrorist nations. We must be 
prepared. And to be prepared we have to know what our weapons will do. 
We have to know they will be safe and reliable, and that is the purpose 
of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion to table the 
Exon amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 359 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
  So, the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2112) was 
agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2113

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business is amendment No. 
2113, and under the previous order there are now 4 minutes of debate 
equally divided between the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. 
Thurmond]----
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from South Carolina and I have 
agreed to yield back our time.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I agree to yield back the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  All time is yielded back.
  The question is now on agreeing to the motion to table the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 43, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 360 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Conrad
     Craig
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 2113) was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business is the vote on 
amendment No. 2111.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas 
and nays be vitiated on amendment No. 2111.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Do all Senators yield back their time?
  Mr. THURMOND. I ask for a voice vote on that amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, is all time yielded back?
  Mr. THURMOND. We yield back all time.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2111

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. With all time yielded back, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 2111.
  The amendment (No. 2111) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. COHEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business is an amendment to 
be offered by the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], dealing with 
defense firewalls, with 1 hour of debate equally divided.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I hope the time will not start running 
until we have order in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas directs that the 
time not begin until the Senate is in order. The Senate will be in 
order, please.
  The Senator from Arkansas is recognized to offer his amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2115
  (Purpose: To restore a common sense approach to the appropriations 
  process by repealing the defense firewalls established in the FY96 
                           Budget Resolution)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself, Mr. 
     Simon, Mr. Wellstone, and Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2115.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC.    REPEAL OF DEFENSE FIREWALL.

       (A) Strike Section 201(a) through 201(b)(1)(B) of H. Con. 
     Res. 67, as passed by 

[[Page S 11378]]
     both Houses of Congress and insert in lieu thereof the following:

     SEC. 201. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       (A) DEFINITION.--As used in this section and for the 
     purposes of allocations made pursuant to section 302(a) or 
     602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, for the 
     discretionary category, the term `discretionary spending 
     limit' means--
       (1) with respect to fiscal year 1996, for the discretionary 
     category $485,074,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $531,768,000,000 in outlays;
       (2) with respect to fiscal year 1997, for the discretionary 
     category $482,430,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $520,295,000,000 in outlays;
       (3) with respect to fiscal year 1998, for the discretionary 
     category $490,692,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $512,632,000,000 in outlays;
       (4) with respect to fiscal year 1999, for the discretionary 
     category $482,207,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $510,482,000,000 in outlays;
       (5) with respect to fiscal year 2000, for the discretionary 
     category $489,379,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $514,234,000,000 in outlays;
       (6) with respect to fiscal year 2001, for the discretionary 
     category $496,601,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $516,403,000,000 in outlays;
       (7) with respect to fiscal year 2002, for the discretionary 
     category $498,837,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $515,075,000,000 in outlays;

     as adjusted for changes in concepts and definitions and 
     emergency appropriations.
       (b) Point of Order in the Senate.--
       (1) In General.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it 
     shall not be in order in the Senate to consider--
       (A) any concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
     years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002 (or 
     amendment, motion, or conference report on such a resolution) 
     that provides discretionary spending in excess of the 
     discretionary spending limit for such fiscal year; or
       (B) Within 30 days of the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the House and Senate Appropriations Committees shall meet to 
     consider the reallocation of the fiscal year 1996 
     suballocations made pursuant to section 602(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I know this psychologically is a terrible 
way to open a debate, but I have no delusions about the possibility of 
winning on this amendment. Given the makeup of the Senate right now, it 
is going to be several years before an amendment like this will take 
root, but it will take root when the American people focus not only on 
their misery but what caused it.
  Everybody here is aware of the fact that we treat defense as not only 
the highest priority but everything else is secondary to it.
  Not to be trite, but the truth of the matter is that we, like so many 
civilizations, from the Israelites on, may very well find that the 
strength of this Nation is not all in planes, tanks, and guns. How we 
treat our people, the kind of health care they get, the kind of 
education they get, the kind of environment they live in, those things 
determine what a powerful nation is, too. It usually takes me about an 
hour or two after I read the Washington Post in the morning to get 
enthused sufficiently enough to come to work. This morning it was 
especially depressing.
  Here were three front page stories: House votes to prohibit States 
from paying for an abortion in cases of rape or incest. Mr. President, 
to me, that is a form of barbarism, to say that a child who may be 
pregnant by her father, or the most innocent housewife who is raped, if 
she has the money, no problem. If she is poor, she will birth that 
child. You remember the beatitude, ``Blessed are those who are 
persecuted.'' If that is not a form of persecution, I do not know what 
is.
  The second story was: Senate votes to abrogate antiballistic missile 
treaty. That is not entirely true, but figuratively and, down the road, 
literally it is true. We will decide the interpretation of the treaty; 
we will decide whether it is abrogated or not, and if the Russians 
happen to disagree, so be it. The language of the bill itself said the 
Senate, not the President, will decide whether the ABM Treaty is in our 
interest or not. We will decide whether we want to live by it or not. 
And that solemn document that we put our names on in 1972 will be for 
naught. Who else wants to sign a treaty with us knowing that that is 
the way we treat our treaties? We simply cannot give up on the cold 
war. We just love it too much. Dr. Strangelove. Another beatitude is, 
``Blessed are the peacemakers.'' Not too many people are blessed in 
this body.
  The third story was: House cuts $9 billion in education, health care, 
and food for the poor. ``Blessed are the poor,'' unless one of them 
happens to get pregnant at the age of 17. What do we do in the Senate? 
We add $7 billion more than the Secretary of Defense and our chiefs of 
staff want. Can you imagine that? We are adding $7 billion more than 
our defense authorization asked for.
  It was depressing. And as I read those three stories, I pondered on 
what else. Medicare? No firewalls around Medicare, health care for the 
elderly; there are no firewalls there. We are going to cut $270 billion 
over the next 7 years. We are going to give the States block grants on 
Medicaid and AFDC, not necessarily because we think it is more 
efficient, but because we are going to cut back on Medicaid. All that 
is health care for the poorest of the poor.
  We are going to cut PBS, which is one of the few things that provide 
a little enrichment for our children. ``Sesame Street'' and Big Bird, 
adios. ``All Things Considered,'' which every Member of the Senate 
listens to going to and from work on NPR, adios. No commercials. We 
need to privatize this so we can get some commercials on PBS and NPR. I 
want to see, right in the middle of the Civil War series, a bunch of 
youngsters running down the beach with a Budweiser in their hands. That 
is what I call cultural enrichment.
  And the arts--how I wish that guy Mapplethorpe had never received a 
grant. You see, he does not have anything to do with the repertory 
theater in my State. But we will be lucky to make it in my State with 
our symphony without some help from the National Endowment.
  Food stamps. We did not develop food stamp programs willy-nilly. We 
did it because we made a conscious decision that we did not want 
anybody in this country to go hungry. Everybody acts as though it was 
some sort of a Communist conspiracy that should have never been put in 
place. We are going to cut that. If you do not happen to have a PAC or 
a $1,000 check, you are not getting anything out of this crowd.
  Eliminate affirmative action. I have heard so many anecdotes on 
affirmative action that make my blood boil, and some of them are true. 
It has been an abused program. But do not say that the time has come 
when we have a level playing field when 14 percent of the black males 
in this country are unemployed, and 40 percent of the black teenagers 
are unemployed, compared to about 5 percent white.
  You know, if we were to eliminate this famous tax cut I hear so much 
about--that is what the Medicare cut is, $270 billion; and $250 billion 
of that--virtually all--is for a tax cut, 70 percent of which goes to 
people who make over $100,000 a year. When I was a young practicing 
lawyer, I yearned for the day when I would make $100,000 a year. So now 
I am going to get a nice healthy tax cut. Every Senator gets $133,000 
or $135,000 a year, a big fat pension, a health care plan second to 
none, and we are going to get a tax cut when 50 percent of the people 
in this country over 65 cannot sleep at night because they are in 
abject terror of getting sick and not being able to pay their bills.
  If we just cut Medicare by half that amount and eliminate the tax cut 
and spend the other $135 billion on education and things that make us a 
great nation, we can still balance the budget in the year 2002 and do 
what we know we ought to do.
  No, we are going to reward those who have already been richly 
blessed. And we are going to further abuse those at the bottom of the 
ladder. Indeed, we will step on their hands if they happen to be 
reaching for the first rung. We have become so cynical and indifferent. 
So we have to put firewalls around defense to make sure none of it ever 
gets out of the Pentagon into the hands of some poor soul who might 
need it for an education.
  Senator Kohl is going to offer an amendment later today which would 
cut the $7 billion which was added on to this bill. Even if he were to 
prevail, which he will not even come close to doing, you could not take 
that money and use it for any other purpose.
  Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 minutes and 50 seconds 
remaining.

[[Page S 11379]]

  Mr. BUMPERS. Will you kindly notify me when I have used a total of 20 
minutes.
  Mr. President, here is a chart which shows what is going to happen 
from 1995 to the year 2002, in defense. We go from $264 billion in 1995 
to $280 billion in 2002.
  What do we do with everything else--what is known as domestic 
discretionary spending--education, health care, you name it, medical 
research, law enforcement? What happens to that? It goes from $241 to 
$218 billion over 7 years.
  Of the spending cuts that are projected to be made over the next 7 
years to reduce the deficit and pay for the Republican tax cut for the 
wealthy, domestic spending, the things that make us great will absorb 
43 percent of all the cuts. What in the name of God are we thinking 
about? We will spend $400 billion more for defense spending than 
domestic programs over the next 7 years. Mr. President, $400 billion 
less to take care of the real needs of the people of this country, that 
we are going to spend on defense.
  How much are we spending on defense? Are we looking for two wars, as 
the Bottom-Up Review said?
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Not until I finish this statement.
  This chart demonstrates what we spend for defense in comparison to 
our eight or nine most likely adversaries, Russia, China, North Korea, 
Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Cuba--name somebody else. I do not care who 
you name. Our defense budget is twice as big as all nine of them put 
together. If you add NATO, twice as much as the rest of the world.
  What are the proponents of the bill we are considering today 
proposing? That we add $7 billion to the defense budget.
  We get so hairy chested around here when defense comes up. Everybody 
favors a strong defense. Nobody wants to ever be vulnerable. This is 
what you call piling on. You just cannot pile on enough money. Even the 
Pentagon is trying to shovel it back to us, and we will not take it.
  I appreciate the Defense Department. When we have a crisis, I am glad 
we have aircraft carriers. I am glad we have all the sophisticated 
weaponry. All I am saying is, there ought to be some kind of balance, 
because it is not going to make any difference how much we spend on 
defense if we are not careful about what we are doing back home.
  Mr. President, I saw a poll of high school seniors about 5 years ago. 
Who are your heroes? About the only one I can remember is Tom Cruise. I 
think Mr. T was on the list. It was a list of rock stars. Michael 
Jackson was high on the list. That is who the high school seniors 
revere in this country. Mother Theresa did not make it. The Pope did 
not make it. Poor old George Bush did not make it. Not even mom and 
pop.
  Senators, can you imagine somebody asking you that question when you 
were in high school, who were your heroes? I would have popped out my 
father so fast it would make your head swim. You talk about a hero. I 
worshipped the ground he walked on. Mom and pop did not make this list. 
If we keep going the way we have gone this year in the U.S. Congress, 
Tim McVeigh and David Koresh will be on the list next year.
  I am not trying to take the money away from the Pentagon with this 
amendment. I am simply saying the people of this body ought to be more 
thoughtful about where the real strengths of the Nation are. We ought 
to be more thoughtful about people who have not had the luck we have 
had.
  I know a woman who is very wealthy and she is always saying, ``Can't 
everybody be rich and beautiful like me?'' The truth of the matter is, 
most people who have made it, and especially if you come from a town 
during the Depression with a population of 851, have had a lot of help. 
I did not become a Senator just because I am such a great person. I 
tell you why I did it. I did it because this same Congress, back when 
they were a little more sensitive about things like this, gave me a 
free education.
  That is right. My brother went to Harvard. I went to Northwestern. My 
father was a poor man. He could no more have afforded that than he 
could fly to the Moon. I was fortunate and received a little Government 
help after World War II, and had a teacher who taught me to speak and 
read well, did something for my self-esteem. The main thing I did, and 
what most people that make it did, is choose my parents well.
  Mr. President, I just want to say I am not trying to move money out 
of the Defense Department into any of these other programs. I am saying 
as a psychological thing we ought not to be sitting here and saying you 
cannot touch defense for anything, no matter how critical it may be.
  If we continue the way we have started this year, and especially that 
Contract With America, this country is in for a terrible shock. That is 
not what the people were voting for, they wanted change, but this is 
not the change they were voting for, I do not think.
  When they begin to feel the pain, they are going to begin to wonder 
what they voted for. I am telling you, if we keep going the way we are 
going now, trying to tinker with the Constitution, spending every extra 
dime we can get our hands on on defense, that age of know-nothingism 
back in the middle of the 19th century will be known as the age of 
enlightenment.
  As you know I have such a reverence for the freedom of religion in 
this country, but there is a great quote of Isaiah, admonishing the 
Israelites when they got sort of cynical about all their people.
  He said to them:

       Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, 
     judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.

  Maybe that is just good for the Senate prayer breakfast or on Sunday 
morning. It does not seem to be terribly relevant here.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator will yield 6 minutes?
  Mr. THURMOND. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do we have in opposition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first let me suggest to my good friend, 
Senator Bumpers, he has given a very great speech about what he thinks 
we ought to be doing in the United States. But I must tell those who 
are listening, very little of it has to do with the amendment he is 
talking about.
  The amendment he is talking about is very, very simple. In 1990 I was 
privileged to have an idea--that I had been thinking about and worrying 
about--become the law. In that year, 1990, and 3 years thereafter, we 
decided that once the Congress of the United States voted in an amount 
of money that they wanted spent on the defense of the United States, 
that during that year they only had two options regarding defense: 
First, if they did not want to spend all of the defense money, they 
applied what was saved on the deficit; and, second, if they want to 
spend defense money on anything else, they had to get 60 votes to do 
it.
  That is a pretty reasonable approach, when you consider the 
propensity of legislators to want more and more for programs that they 
love, or that they need, or that they want for their constituents. And 
you put it up against a big defense budget and everybody can say, ``Oh, 
take a little bit away for this. Take a little bit away for that.'' 
Frankly, if we had not seen that happen in the processes around here, 
we would not have been concerned about it. But whenever the pressure is 
tough on nondefense spending, the nest egg of defense is looked to as 
the savior for every other program you want.
  Mr. President, I believe this year we did the right thing. We decided 
that once we voted on a budget resolution, which was indeed a 
compromise--between the House that wanted more, and the Senate that 
wanted less--once you compromised on that, you can only spend defense 
money if you get 60 votes in the U.S. Senate, a supermajority.
  I believe that is very good law for the United States. It is 
practical. And if there is a real emergency and you want to move money 
from defense, you can get 60 votes. But otherwise you leave defense for 
defense.
  These arguments about how much do we spend versus the rest of the 
world--

[[Page S 11380]]
let me remind Americans right off the bat, we decided on an All-
Volunteer Army, and we pay our military well. So the first thing you 
have to do, to all the other militaries in the world, is adjust what 
they are spending to what we are spending because we pay our men and 
women good wages. In fact, we are hopefully moving toward the 
marketplace. And few other countries do that. So we are proud to pay 
our people who serve in the military a living wage and give them 
benefits and other things, because we are depending upon them and their 
high quality.
  My last point will be on Medicare and Medicaid. If it was relevant, I 
would suggest that a comparison of the next 7 years compared to a 1995 
freeze will tell you that defense will go down $13 billion, Medicaid 
will go up $149 billion, Medicare will go up $349 billion. That is the 
reality of the current budget.
  Having said that, the truth of the matter is if you took the firewall 
down--which is what this amendment would do--you could not spend any of 
that money on Medicare or Medicaid in any event. These are 
entitlements. That money would be controlled by the appropriators and 
spent on a myriad of domestic programs which feel pinched and which 
Members of Congress might decide in an appropriations process they want 
to take from defense to spend.
  My last point, and it is quick. First of all, the Senator should know 
the Bumpers amendment is subject to a point of order, and I will make 
that when we are finished with our debate. That means it will take 60 
votes to agree to that amendment. I think that is fair, too, because it 
is consistent with the firewall.
  But I just did some quick numbers on domestic spending versus 
military spending, and I will just quickly share them with you all. In 
1990, nondefense discretionary was $202 billion. In 1995 it will be 
$274 billion. That is a 36 percent nominal change upward. Defense was 
$300 billion. It went to $270 billion, which is minus $30 billion, 
which is minus 10 percent during the same period of time. In fact, the 
only part of the discretionary budget that went down is defense. 
Nondefense went up.
  I am willing to admit, as one who is familiar with the budget, that 
the next 6 years will be tougher on nondefense. But I submit that it is 
not right for us, during a calendar year when we have said this is what 
we need for defense, to leave it vulnerable to an appropriations 
process which will take from it whenever and wherever it is deemed 
necessary, not because of defense needs but because of other program 
needs. I submit, in closing, the more pressure there is on domestic 
spending, nondefense, the more you ought to keep the walls if you are 
satisfied that what you need is represented within the defense number 
for defense.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 3 minutes?
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the able Senator 
from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this issue has already been raised and voted 
on just 2 months ago on the budget resolution, as the Senator from New 
Mexico said. That was the appropriate place to debate this.
  These firewalls are part of an overall Senate and House budget 
agreement. I think just to pick out one part of it and say we are going 
to pull it apart, either from the defense point of view or overall 
point of view--contrary to what the Senator from Arkansas may be 
assuming, these firewalls also protect domestic spending for the next 3 
years. There are many Members of this body in the House and the Senate 
who feel that defense spending should be higher and are willing to take 
it out of domestic spending. We saw the House vote last night to cut $9 
billion out of the domestic budget. Believe me, if we take down the 
firewalls, within a year or so you may find just the reverse, I say to 
my friend from Arkansas, than what you assumed. Because what the 
Senator from Arkansas assumes is if you take down the firewalls, you 
are going to take money out of defense and put it in domestic. Not 
necessarily so. That has been the indication in the past. I am not sure 
that is the case now.
  I think, Mr. President, though, the main point I want to make is the 
firewalls do keep a separate account between defense and domestic. But 
there is nothing in the firewall provision of the Budget Act that in 
any way prevents defense from being cut. Anyone who wants to cut 
defense can come on the floor, propose an amendment to cut defense, 
either on this bill or the appropriations bill, and defense will be cut 
if a majority approve that amendment. What the firewalls do, and I 
think this is very important, they say if you cut defense it goes to 
deficit reduction, it does not get shifted to another spending account. 
That is what the firewalls do. I think they are very important. I think 
they preserve both defense and domestic spending, as the Congress 
decides on the budget resolution.
  It is not as if we do not make decisions here. We make decisions on 
the budget resolution. We decide what goes within those firewalls. We 
do it every year. So that is the key place to make these changes.
  I urge the Bumpers amendment not be agreed to.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as may be 
required.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered today by 
the distinguished Senator from Arkansas.
  I am concerned about defense spending levels. I have argued for years 
that defense was under funded. Even this year's budget resolution 
recommends defense budget levels lower than those I have advocated. As 
the search for precious dollars intensifies, I anticipate more and more 
attempts to divert defense funds to nondefense programs. We have seen 
attempt to fund nondefense programs in the last 2 days.
  The Department of Defense has done more than its share in the budget 
reduction efforts. Defense has contributed more to achieving the 
deficit reductions outlined in the 1990 budget agreement than any other 
executive branch agency.
  Establishing the caps will not prevent reductions in defense 
spending. It will, however, discourage raids on the defense budget by 
those seeking to fund domestic programs at the expense of our Nations' 
security.
  With the caps on defense and nondefense spending levels, any 
reductions in these categories would have to go directly to reduce the 
deficit. This was the case when the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 was 
passed. In fiscal year 1994, the cap on separate categories was 
eliminated allowing funds to be transferred between defense and 
domestic programs. As a result, we saw transfers out of defense to pay 
for some domestic programs from the Defense authorization and 
appropriations bill last year.
  Since 1990, the defense budget has been reduced more than any other. 
We have asked thousands of service men and women to end their careers 
earlier than they had planned. DOD drastically scaled back procurement 
as well as research and development. The Joint Chiefs have testified 
that we are on the brink of return to the hollow force of the 1970's 
and early 1980's. At the same time, we are increasing the number and 
type of missions assigned to our forces. The Armed Services Committee 
worked very hard this year, within the defense levels in the concurrent 
resolution on the budget, to reverse these trends. In order to maintain 
these initiatives, I support the efforts of Senator Domenici and the 
Budget Committee to establish firewalls or caps on domestic and defense 
discretionary spending.
  Mr. President, the Bumpers amendment would remove the protections we 
have worked hard to achieve. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
amendment.
  Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). Who yields time?
  
[[Page S 11381]]

  Mr. THURMOND. I yield such time as he may require to the 
distinguished Senator from Indiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Arkansas for the reasons that have been previously stated 
relative to the contribution of defense spending to reducing our 
deficit over the past decade, the limitations on commitment to defense 
spending for the next 7 years as opposed to the significant increases 
in spending that will go to a number of programs but particularly to 
Medicare and Medicaid, and for the reasons stated by Senator from 
Georgia, and the Senator from South Carolina. However, what I would 
like to do is to discuss this proposal to allow further reductions in 
defense spending in a broader context.
  There are some on the left who view every defense dollar as a dollar 
that is taken from social spending. And in all candor there are some on 
the right who view every defense dollar as a dollar taken from deficit 
reduction.
  I submit, Mr. President, that neither can understand why we are 
asking for more money in this legislation than the President requested, 
albeit a very small amount more, $7 billion. Both I think the left and 
the right are missing the big picture of history by focusing on the 
small print of the budget.
  There is a great deal at stake in this debate. Defense spending must 
be placed in a broader context. That context is outlined with 
exceptional clarity by historian Donald Kagan in his new book ``On the 
Origins of War''. In case after case, he argues, war has been ``The 
product of the failure of the victors * * * to construct a solid basis 
for peace.''
  He goes on to say, ``A persistent and repeated error through the ages 
has been the failure to understand that the preservation of peace 
requires active effort, planning, the expenditure of resources, and 
sacrifice, just as war does.''
  This historical fact should sober us. Great, victorious powers have a 
special burden, and are especially prone to misjudgment. They have a 
tendency, Kagan says, to be either too hard or too soft, or both in 
succession. They can be motivated by the highest ideals, but still lack 
the will to secure them. In this way, leaders who desire peace can 
encourage war. Sustaining the peace is always an act of will and 
design--based on diplomatic and military strength.
  The history of America has become the central feature of the history 
of the world. We did not seek that position through imperial ambition--
but we have been selected, nonetheless, for great responsibilities. 
This should focus our minds, and focus this debate.
  I'm looking at this we are not left without guidance from the past. 
Every generation imagines itself exempt from the laws of history, and 
every generation is forced to follow them. Those laws can be respected 
or resented, but not changed or ignored. It is a useful exercise to 
clarify and repeat them, as Donald Kagan and others have done.
  Listen to his rules.
  The first rule is that peace is not a natural condition. The New 
World Order is destined to disorder. Moments of international calm have 
never prevented future conflict. Every prediction of perpetual peace 
has been disappointed. The reason is rooted in human character. British 
military historian Michael Howard comments, ``We have not improved as 
people, however much we have improved as technologists.'' That should 
be obvious from the 50 conflicts that rage in the world at this moment.
  The second rule is that war is always a surprise. Strategies that 
depend on long warning periods or time for preparation, are bound to 
fail. Deterrence with current power is the only adequate insurance 
against the unknown. During the cold war, the experts said that the 
likely warning time of a Warsaw Pact attack on NATO was somewhere 
between 3 days and 3 months. After German reunification, we discovered 
that Warsaw Pact readiness would have allowed for an attack in 3 hours.
  Paul Wolfowitz of Johns Hopkins draws this lesson from our experience 
in Korea in 1950. Just 5 years after the height of American power in 
World War II, he says, ``A third-rate power almost kicked the U.S. off 
the peninsula.'' It was not until 4 months later that General MacArthur 
was able to launch the Inchon landing that started a 3-year fight back 
to Korea's original borders.
  In a regional conflict, an enemy does not judge America's potential 
power, but our actual force. ``The bottom line,'' says Wolfowitz, ``is 
that people are judging your will, your capability to deliver.''
  The third rule is that war is prevented by creating a prohibitive 
cost for disturbing the status quo, and exacting that cost cannot be 
done by international institutions. The United Nations is sometimes 
useful, but it is not an alternative to American power.
  In September of 1993, President Clinton declared that ``U.N. 
peacekeeping holds the promise to resolve many of this era's 
conflicts.'' Six days later a company of U.S. Rangers under U.N. 
command was decimated in Mogadishu.
  In the last few years, we have had a short but decisive experiment 
with what Madeleine Albright called ``aggressive multilateralism.'' 
That experiment has failed miserably and millions of people have been 
subjected to war and humanitarian failure.
  Fourth, Kagan says the ability to take swift, firm, early action 
against aggressors is the best way to prevent large, protracted, 
painful action in the future. He argues that tentativeness among great 
powers is one of the principal causes of war. He analyzed a series of 
avoidable conflicts and concluded:

       Unwilling to commit themselves clearly and firmly to the 
     price of defending the peace that they so badly wanted to 
     maintain, they had to pay the price of a long, bloody, 
     costly, devastating, and almost fatal war.

  The history of this century bears out the truth of that statement. 
Unable, unwilling to commit ourselves clearly and firmly to the price 
of defending peace, millions in this world in this century have been 
subjected to long, bloody, costly, devastating, almost fatal wars.
  Defending that peace depends, ironically, on not a defensive but an 
offensive military capability. A defensive posture, no matter how 
strong, is not sufficient.
  At the beginning of World War II, neither France nor Britain deployed 
a credible offensive force because the Western leaders and many of 
their people, again quoting Kagan:

       . . . did not examine their situation objectively and 
     realistically but emotionally and hopefully. They were moved 
     by the horror of war, the fear of its reappearance, and the 
     blind hope that a refusal to contemplate war and prepare for 
     it would somehow keep the peace.

  Our concept of cost effectiveness must be deeper and more serious 
than it often is today. Our choice, our real choice is not between the 
B-2, for example, and Head Start. Our real decision is between a 
cutting edge military capable of offensive operations and an 
unthinkable, immeasurable future cost in American lives and American 
resources.
  Kagan's fifth rule is that democracies are not particularly good at 
making and keeping these commitments. Kagan comments that they are 
motivated by ``an ethical system that is commercial, individualistic, 
and libertarian.'' Their governments are under continual demand to 
``satisfy domestic demands at the expense of the requirements of 
defense.''
  That is what we are seeing in the amendment of the Senator from 
Arkansas and what we have seen year after year in amendment after 
amendment.
  It can lead us to a dangerous situation, because democracies can be 
handicapped in the maintenance and use of power. They invite 
challenges, and when those challenges come they are often not fully 
prepared.
  Kagan's final rule is that politicians have always had the tendency 
to interpret history to fit their budgets, not the other way around. 
They have a vested interest in the assumption of peace because the 
assumption of peace matches domestic fiscal need.
  These facts of history, of course, are not a strategy by themselves, 
but they should inform our strategic approach. And I would suggest it 
is time we had a strategic approach.
  Some of the delay in creating a vision for America's role in the 
world is understandable. We are still emerging 

[[Page S 11382]]
from the conceptual grip of the cold war for four decades that consumed 
our attention and consumed our creativity, but now the absence of a 
self-confident American self-image is beginning to create risks. It 
does not take much imagination to imagine what our threats are. Eighty 
percent of North Korea's forces are within 100 kilometers of the DMZ. 
Tensions between India and Pakistan are high. Iran is more assertive. 
Iraq is unpredictable. Algeria is on the edge of Islamic revolution, 
threatening Egypt as well. Will there be conflict in Macedonia? Will we 
face a bad outcome in Russia?
  Some of the categories of threats against international stability 
ought to be evident to all of us: The proliferation of conventional 
weapons; the disintegration of political order; the proliferation of 
biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. All of these threats can be 
controlled with decisive, aggressive action, but if they are allowed to 
run their course the consequences would be hard to contain and the 
costs could be terribly high.
  I suggest, Mr. President, that containing the crises that face us in 
the post-cold-war era depends on two things. First, it depends on 
American superiority in new weapons, something that is costly to 
maintain. America, for example, has held the lead in Stealth 
technology. The price was high--$65 billion over 20 years. No one can 
now argue that this investment was wasted.
  Second, early decisive, decisive American involvement depends on a 
commitment to act, not just react. We need to aggressively shape the 
security environments of the gulf area, Asia and Europe, not just 
respond to crisis after crisis, emergency after emergency. This is the 
best way to minimize our future commitment.
  This presents a challenge. America's lead in military power and 
technology can easily result, if we are not careful, in complacency. 
Historically, the United States has made the error of excessive 
downsizing again and again. Each time has resulted in tragedy, and I 
fear that we may be starting down that path once more. Never in the 
history of this country have we successfully downsized after a 
victorious conflict--never. Each time, we have paid a significant price 
in terms of the loss of American lives, the commitment of resources 
that otherwise would not have had to have been committed, the lack of 
preparedness that had led to the subsequent conflict.
  Next year, as has been pointed out, will be the 11th consecutive year 
of real decline in defense spending. When President Clinton took 
office, he doubled his projected defense cuts to get deficit reduction 
without a net increase in domestic spending. We have reduced military 
personnel by 23 percent. We are headed for a 33 percent cut by 1999. 
Our military is a third smaller than it was just 10 years ago.
  To suggest that the Defense Department has not done its share in 
addressing the budget deficit or freeing up funds for domestic 
discretionary spending is factually totally inaccurate. As was pointed 
out by the Senator from New Mexico earlier, since 1990, defense 
discretionary spending has decreased 10 percent and all other 
nondefense discretionary spending has increased 36 percent. In the next 
7 years, while defense will decrease $13 billion in real spending, 
Medicaid will increase $149 billion and Medicare $349 billion. How can 
we begin to suggest that after 11 years of reductions, after reducing 
our Air Force and Navy and Marines and Army by a third, defense has not 
done its share? I ask the Senator from Arkansas to name one program, 
one Federal program that has cut anything, that has even begun to match 
what the Department of Defense has done. I doubt that he can.
  In October of last year, Anthony Lake from the administration argued, 
``The Cassandras attacking our readiness are wrong.'' But just a few 
weeks later an audit revealed that one-fourth of the Army's active 
combat divisions were less than combat ready and that one armored 
brigade and one mechanized brigade, both quick-reaction units, could 
not carry out their missions on short notice. With projected levels of 
spending, America could soon be short of the resources to fight on two 
fronts by 3 army divisions, 6 tactical air wings, 4 carriers, and 
40,0005 marines.
  Meanwhile, the Pentagon is spending less on new weapons and equipment 
than at any time in the last 50 years.
  Let me repeat that. The Pentagon is spending less on new weapons and 
equipment than at any time in the last 50 years.
  To suggest there is some kind of spending binge going on over at the 
Pentagon is factually and totally inaccurate. In 1996, the Navy will 
purchase just three new ships. The Army will not even order one new 
tank. All four services combined will buy only 20 replacement jet 
fighters compared to 458 they bought in 1980.
  Now, the theory behind this pattern is clear. We are living off the 
procurement of the Reagan years, weapons that were designed in the 
1970's and procured in the 1980's. We are depending on military 
technology that is already in the pipeline. We are not even spending 
enough to replace existing equipment before it wears out.
 We are often preserving force structure by gutting procurement and 
research and development funds. All this has left us in the early 
stages of a predictable decline. American forces have more commitments 
than ever before, but those commitments are not matched by sufficient 
resources. Our soldiers, sailors, and airmen are asked to patrol more 
broadly, with decreasing force, while trying to keep acceptable 
personnel rotations and operations tempo in attempting to prolong the 
life of older equipment. It is a challenge they meet, but with great 
sacrifice, and a challenge they cannot meet forever.

  The price. The price, as usual, is paid by the men and women who 
serve their country--a particular concern of mine. Deep cuts have 
reduced training, put pressure on military pay, forced longer 
deployments. This has encouraged many able people to leave and has 
weakened the spirit of those who remain.
  In Armed Services hearings before our committee, and in discussions 
with personnel around this country and the world, I have heard a number 
of disturbing reports--snapshots of the military on the verge of a 
serious problem. Last year, in order to stretch its forces, the Navy 
started gapping its presence in the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf and 
the Western Pacific. For a third of each year, two of those theaters 
will have no aircraft carrier.
  Since Navy officials were short last year of $300 million in 
operations funds----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. COATS. I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Since Navy officials were short last year of $300 million 
in operations funds due to increased tempo of operations, they reduced 
flying hours for squadrons aboard carriers. Marines getting home from a 
6-month deployment to Somalia aboard the USS Inchon were sent to Haiti 
12 days after they reached home.
  One general reports, ``Strategic lift in this country is broken right 
now.'' He warns that most U.S. military capability would not begin to 
arrive at a regional conflict for 3 months after it began. Yet the 
administration pretends the charade that it has a military capability 
to respond to two major regional crises at nearly the same time.
  The Marine Corps is using 50-year-old canvas tents and wearing boots 
from the Korean war era. These instances are isolated, but they are not 
uncommon. They represent an emerging trend. The inspector general of 
the Marine Corps commented to me, ``At some point in the near future, 
the current funding strategy will ultimately undermine the corps' 
ability to meet war-fighting and peacetime presence requirements.'' It 
is the same story in every branch.
  Mr. President, in conclusion, the reason that we must be concerned is 
simple. We cannot afford as a nation to repeat the patterns of the 
past, a pattern of American withdrawal followed by major costly 
commitments. We need the ability to consistently shape our strategic 
future, not just to respond when it falls in disorder. And that 
requires both readiness and continued technological advances.
  There is no simple formula for avoiding war, but some things clearly 
do not 

[[Page S 11383]]
work. Again, Donald Kagan observed, ``Good will, unilateral 
disarmament, avoidance of alliances, teaching and preaching the evils 
of war are of no avail.'' Denying our leadership and power will not 
keep the peace. The peace is kept by ``active effort, planning, the 
expenditure of resources, and sacrifice.'' It is reinforced by the 
possession of superior force and the will to use it skillfully.
  It was World War I poet Siegfried Sassoon who said 76 years ago, 
``Look down, and swear by the slain of war that you'll never forget.'' 
We best preserve that memory by recalling how war is prevented. It is 
not a task for the weak. It rests on a large vision of our Nation's 
role. And it involves the inescapable necessity of American leadership.
  We can save money by shirking from this duty. Yes, we can. But we 
will not in the long run save the peace or save American lives. Kagan 
concludes in his ``On The Origins of War,'' with a warning:

       The United States and its allies, the states with the 
     greatest interest in peace and the greatest power to preserve 
     it, appear to be faltering in their willingness to pay the 
     price in money and the risk of lives. Nothing could be more 
     natural in a liberal republic, yet nothing could be more 
     threatening to the peace they have recently achieved.

  This is worth remembering in this debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. COATS. There will be no excuse.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me say, the Senator from Indiana has said, name one 
program that suffered with the cuts that defense has taken. I am sorry 
I did not prepare for that particular question. But let me tell you why 
I am up here today. Right here on this chart--and figures do not lie; 
liars can figure--defense goes from $264 billion this year, goes up 
every year, to $280 billion in the year 2002.
  Where are they suffering in all these big budget cuts?
  Mr. COATS. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. COATS. If the Senator had incorporated figures from 1985 to the 
present, you would see an entirely different picture. By drawing the 
line at what might happen in the next 5 years, you are ignoring what 
happened in the last 10 years. There has been a dramatic decrease in 
real dollars in defense spending for the last 10 straight years. But 
that is not on the Senator's chart.
  Mr. BUMPERS. In the next 7 years, they will more than make up. You 
said ``Name one program.'' I will name them.
  Mr. COATS. Taking cuts in defense.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Nondefense discretionary spending. Of all the spending 
cuts over the next 7 years, poor little old nondefense, domestic 
discretionary spending--education, health care, law enforcement, you 
name it--takes 43 percent, 43 percent of the total spending cuts over 
the next 7 years.
  The Senator said this is not about B-2 versus Head Start. That is 
precisely what it is about. I supported the B-2 much longer than I 
should have. For years I voted faithfully for it. I voted for the 
Trident submarine, the F-15's, the F-16's, the F-18's, the F-111's, the 
F-B-111's, the F-117's, you name it. I voted for all of them. And I 
tried to cut a few, too.
  I have stood at this desk for 20 years saying, for example, that we 
ought not to bring 40 rust-bucket battleships out of mothballs. Boy, 
the herd of instincts flew through here. The ``evil empire'' was about 
to come up the Potomac and get us. We even bring battleships out of 
mothballs, the ones the Japanese surrendered 50 years ago on, and we 
spent almost $2 billion on them. What do you think happened? They 
floated the high seas for 2 years and we put them back in mothballs. 
But our $2 billion is gone. You could not say anything here without 
being considered a dove.
  Senator Domenici told you a moment ago what all would go up. He did 
not tell you what would go down. What will go down is $250 billion a 
year in taxes--$250 billion over the next 7-year period for people who 
make over $100,000 a year. They get 75 percent of it. Is that where 
this country's values are? We are going to cut Medicare for the elderly 
$270 billion and cut taxes by $250 billion.
  He told you about nondefense discretionary spending. I just got 
through telling you that will take--that nondefense discretionary 
spending is going to absorb 43 percent of all the cuts. And in the year 
2002, nondefense domestic discretionary spending will fall to 2.4 
percent of our economy, the lowest since 1954.
  The Senator from Georgia said this same amendment was brought up on 
the budget resolution. And it was. But it was one of those amendments 
that could not be debated. You just had to throw it out and let people 
vote on it. And on that same budget resolution, incidentally, that came 
out of the Senate and went to conference, you know what happened to it 
in conference? It came back with $33 billion tacked onto it from the 
time it left the U.S. Senate.
  We gave in to the House on everything and added $33 billion to the 
budget resolution after it left the Senate.
  Year after year, as I stood here and said, ``Don't bring those old 
battleships out of mothballs,'' and a host of other things, I always 
got run over like a Mack truck. And here I am again. I always come back 
hoping that somebody across America might be paying attention, might 
even be listening.
  But the argument always was, ``The Secretary of Defense wants this,'' 
``The President wants it,'' ``The Joint Chiefs want it.'' And this year 
I say the Secretary does not want it, the President does not want it, 
and the Joint Chiefs do not want it. And the argument on the other side 
is, ``Well, what do they know?'' It does not make any difference what 
you do, whether you want it or do not want it, you get it.
  Mr. President, this ought to be compelling. It ought to be absolutely 
compelling. The figures are stark. They are staggering. I told the 
Senator from Georgia awhile ago, I do not have anything to lose. I know 
how many votes we are going to get on this and how we are going to come 
out on it. It is going to be years before this U.S. Senate is going to 
listen to this kind of argument. I only pray that it will not be too 
late.
  So, Mr. President, let me just close--and I am prepared to yield back 
my time and let the Senator make his point of order.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Might I ask Senator Bumpers a question?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the Senator have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We are out of time. I wonder if the Senator will object 
to my taking 30 seconds at this point, and then I will make the point 
of order.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I yield the Senator 30 seconds of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields to the Senator from New 
Mexico 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think with reference to the years 1995 
to 2002, the Senate should know that in 1995, we will spend $270 
billion on defense, and in 2002, we will spend $271 billion--$1 billion 
higher 7 years later, almost 8 years later.
  The numbers the Senator is using have to do with ups and downs in 
between. The truth of the matter is, we entered this budget period at 
$270 billion; we leave it at $271 billion.
  I thank the Senator for the 30 seconds.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, my chief cosponsor on this amendment is 
Senator Simon, who happily has laryngitis, so I get to do all the 
talking. My cosponsors are Senators Wellstone, Moseley-Braun, Kohl, and 
Feingold. I am prepared to yield back such time as I have remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back his time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the pending amendment contains matters 
within the jurisdiction of the Senate Budget Committee. Pursuant to 
section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act, I raise a point of order 
against the pending amendment.


                     Motion to Waive the Budget Act

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act for 
purposes of the Senate's consideration of this amendment, and I ask for 
the yeas and nays. 

[[Page S 11384]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive section 306 of the Budget Act. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  (Disturbance in the galleries.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sergeant at Arms will restore order in the 
gallery. The clerk will resume calling the roll.
  The legislative clerk resumed the call of the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 63, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 361 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--63

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 37 and the nays are 
63. Three-fifths of the Senators present and voting having voted in the 
negative, the motion to waive the Budget Act is rejected.
  The pending amendment No. 2115 contains matter within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget, and therefore violates 
section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act. The point of order is 
sustained. The amendment falls.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. As I understand, the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, 
is prepared to accept the 20 minutes equally divided time agreement; so 
I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain be recognized to offer his 
amendment regarding the Olympics, and there be 20 minutes equally 
divided prior to a motion to table, and that no second-degree 
amendments be in order prior to the vote on the motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. After that, as I understand it, the Senator from Vermont is 
prepared; if not, the Senator from Wisconsin is prepared to proceed.
  Mr. LEAHY. I am prepared to proceed under a time agreement. I believe 
it is similar to the one--I must admit, I was distracted on the one you 
gave about the Senator from Arizona, but it sounds about the same.
  Mr. DOLE. We will do the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin 
first, then.
  Following disposition of the McCain amendment, Senator Kohl be 
recognized to offer his amendment; that he have 1 hour and 15 minutes, 
and 15 minutes on this side.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object----
  Mr. DOLE. No second-degree amendments will be in order.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I will not object. I just 
had a question for the majority leader.
  I have an amendment that has been cleared on both sides. I only need 
5 minutes on my side to describe it. If we could work that in sometime 
soon, I would be very grateful to the Senator.
  Mr. DOLE. Will there be a rollcall vote?
  Mrs. BOXER. I would like a rollcall, but it could be stacked at any 
time that managers feel is a good time to stack.
  Mr. NUNN. We need to take a look at that amendment. I believe it is 
probably cleared on both sides. We can get to them quicker if there is 
not a rollcall vote.
  Does the Senator from California have to have a rollcall vote?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes; I have been working on it for a year and a half.
  Mr. NUNN. We will look at it.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I shall not 
object, but if I may have the attention of the majority leader.
  The question was asked earlier by the majority leader, and I am 
willing to go forward on my amendment, following the Senator from 
Arizona, under the same time agreement. I just had a chance to read the 
agreement made with the Senator from Arizona. I advise the 
distinguished majority leader that I am happy to follow him with a 
similar agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request on the Kohl 
amendment by the majority leader?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I believe the amendment of the Senator from 
California has been cleared on both sides. I believe she wants 5 
minutes of discussion. I do not think we will need over 1 minute, so we 
could get a unanimous-consent to have that in order, with about 6 
minutes on it, and have a rollcall vote. We could do that, and perhaps 
even have a 10-minute rollcall vote after, following either the Kohl 
rollcall or the McCain rollcall.
  Mr. DOLE. We will work that out if we can.
  What is your time agreement?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the request for 20 minutes evenly divided 
in the usual order. I would accept that, to follow after the Senator 
from Arizona and the Senator from California.
  Mr. DOLE. There may be a second-degree amendment to yours. Is that a 
problem?
  Mr. LEAHY. My understanding is that there be no second-degree in 
order prior to a motion to table. Obviously, if the motion to table is 
lost, they reserve their rights.
  Mr. DOLE. Can I get back to the Senator from Vermont?
  Mr. LEAHY. I am just trying to be helpful.
  Mr. DOLE. So, following the debate on the Kohl amendment, but prior 
to the vote, we will take up the amendment of the Senator from 
California, Senator Boxer; 10 minutes equally divided. Then we will 
have back-to-back rollcall votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, as someone who has been engaged in 
attempting to move this bill forward, I would hope Members will accept 
reasonable time agreements. We have been working long days and long 
nights for a lot of weeks now. Most of us have not been home with our 
families for meals for weeks, and the Senate is going to be in session 
tomorrow. We take up the welfare debate next week, which will be a long 
week.
  If there is a way we can avoid the time it takes to have rollcall 
votes on amendments that are already accepted, or if there is a way 
that Members can reduce the amount of time they speak on issues that 
have been debated over and over and over, time after time after time, 
and everybody knows how they are going to vote, I think everybody would 
appreciate that.
  My experience is that no matter how articulate and eloquent my 
speeches might be--and they are not all that articulate and eloquent--
it does not change any votes. So to the extent any of us can summarize 
our arguments, realizing that no matter how passionate or eloquent they 
might be, it is probably not going to do anything except make us more 
tired and irritable and probably produce more votes against us than 
when we started speaking. I hope everybody, in the interests of those 
of us who have families at home and would like to see them once in a 
while, could take those situations into their consideration.
  To the extent we can move along with these bills and people can 
summarize their statements in the interests of providing some comity 
for their colleagues, I would certainly appreciate that and I am sure 
others would also.

[[Page S 11385]]

  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. For the information of all Senators, I think it would be 
helpful if the President might give us the sequence, now, as was just 
agreed to in the unanimous consent. Is it my understanding the McCain 
amendment will be followed by the Boxer amendment to be followed by the 
Kohl amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. McCain, Kohl, Boxer.
  Mr. DASCHLE. And the McCain amendment has 20 minutes with a rollcall 
and then the Kohl amendment is an hour with a rollcall and then the 
Boxer amendment is 6 minutes with a rollcall after that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Kohl amendment has a total of an hour and 
a half for debate.
  Mr. DASCHLE. So there will be a rollcall in 20 minutes, is that 
correct?
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, if I could say to the leader, I believe the 
order provided the McCain amendment would be disposed of, then the Kohl 
amendment would be taken up and debated. Before the Kohl vote, the 
Boxer amendment would be taken up and debated, and then we would vote 
on Kohl and Boxer after that.
  So as I understand it, we will dispose of the McCain amendment first. 
Then we will have debate on the Kohl amendment and then we will have 
the debate on the Boxer amendment and we will vote on those two 
amendments after that. That is my understanding.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the understanding of the Chair.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if I might make a suggestion, if we could 
take Boxer after McCain, we could have a vote here on those two 
amendments in about 1 hour and then have another vote in an hour and a 
half, after the others? I only say that because I know there are a 
substantial number of us who are going to be leaving here very soon.
  Mr. NUNN. I have no objection to that. The majority leader entered 
into the agreement. I think it probably needs to be cleared with him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I suggest we could save more time if we went ahead with 
the unanimous-consent agreement, which I believe is my amendment. 
Keeping in mind the admonition of my dearest friend, Senator Coats of 
Indiana, I will try to be very brief, because it is a very simple 
issue. Since we have just 10 minutes on each side, I will be very 
brief.


                           Amendment No. 2116

  (Purpose: To mandate the money made available to the Department of 
  Defense and used for civilian sporting events be reimbursed to the 
                         Department of Defense)

  Mr. McCAIN. I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2116.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the Act, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC.  . CIVILIAN SPORTING EVENTS.

       (a) No funds made available to the Department of Defense 
     may be expended either directly or indirectly to support 
     civilian sporting events, including but not limited to the 
     World Cup Soccer Games, the Goodwill Games, and the Olympics, 
     until the Secretary of Defense enters into an agreement with 
     the appropriate entity or affiliated entity or entities and 
     certifies that such funds will be reimbursed to the extent 
     available to the Department under terms and conditions 
     established by the Secretary of Defense, and that such terms 
     shall--
       (1) not mandate any reimbursement until after the event is 
     complete and all event-related contractual obligations have 
     been met by the entity; and
       (2) such reimbursement shall not exceed surplus funds 
     available.
       (b) For the purposes of this Section, paragraph (a) shall 
     be null and void and of no effect if the entity or entities 
     with which the agreement was made have no surplus funds after 
     all other contractual obligations have been met.
       (c) Surplus Funds Defined.--For the purpose of this 
     section, the term ``surplus funds'', with respect to an 
     organization sponsoring a sporting event, means the amount 
     equal to the excess of--
       (1) the total amount of the funds received by the 
     organization for the event other than revenues derived for 
     any tax, over
       (2) the total amount expended by the organization for 
     payment of all of the costs under the organization's 
     contractual obligations (other than an agreement entered into 
     with the Secretary of Defense under this section) that relate 
     to the event.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is extremely simple. We 
have been through it before. It is something that I find very difficult 
to understand, why that would not make sense to most Members of this 
body. It is simply that any money--not just on the Olympics in 
Atlanta--any money that is spent by the Department of Defense for a 
civilian sporting event be reimbursed to the Department if the event 
makes a profit.
  I want to emphasize that about five times, if I might. The 
reimbursement to the Department of Defense for money that is spent out 
of the Department of Defense would only be reimbursed if the event made 
a profit.
  I do not understand the argument that the Olympics are a wonderful 
thing, because they are; and that they need security, because they do. 
One thing I still have been unable to figure out is that I am told by 
the opponents of this legislation, primarily, and understandably the 
two Senators from the State of Georgia, they do not know, they are not 
going to be able to tell whether they make a profit or not.
  If they cannot figure out whether they make a profit or not, they 
sure as heck should not have gotten the Olympic games. I have done a 
little research. Every other Olympic games have, at the end of it, been 
able to figure out whether they had a profit or loss. And why Atlanta 
seems incapable of doing so staggers the imagination.
  The Los Angeles Olympics made $222 million; ABC has agreed to pay 
$225 million in serving as host broadcasters. They did at the Los 
Angeles Olympics. There is a U.S. Mint coin program that has made $147 
million.
  I have a great quote from ``Making It Happen,'' the story of the Los 
Angeles Olympics.

       There was always concern that someone could stand up in 
     Congress and demand that the committee reimburse the Federal 
     Government its security and other expenditures on the games. 
     This ran at least $30 million for security alone and could 
     have been estimated as high as $68 million overall. I 
     believed then as I do now that there are many important 
     programs much more deserving of Government support than a 
     sports event.

  ``Made in America,'' by Peter Ueberroth.
  Mr. President, what this is all about simply is that this Olympics, 
if it does not make a profit, will not be required to reimburse the 
taxpayers of America. This does not have anything to do with any 
reluctance to provide the security that is necessary for these 
Olympics. We do not have to hear again about the tragedy of Munich. We 
are all aware of that. And I believe that the taxpayers of America 
deserve to be reimbursed if the games make a profit. If not, I 
certainly will not seek that.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, I ask that notwithstanding the previous consent, the 
Boxer amendment be in order following the McCain debate and the votes 
then occur back-to-back--courtesy of the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COHEN. Reserving the right to object, I inquire whether or not, 
between the votes, after the vote on the McCain amendment, I be allowed 
to offer an amendment that has been agreed to?
  Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator from California seek a rollcall vote on 
her amendment?
  Mrs. BOXER. The Senator from California does, in fact, seek a 
rollcall vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I repeat my unanimous consent request, Mr. President. I 
ask, notwithstanding the previous consent agreement, the Boxer 
amendment be in order following the McCain debate, debate on the McCain 
amendment, and the votes then occur back to back. 

[[Page S 11386]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The Senator from Virginia has 
control of the time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona will control the time on this.
  Mr. McCAIN. I only have 10 minutes. I spoke for about 5. Now I 
believe it is the other side's turn to speak.
  Mr. WARNER. For purposes of control in favor of the amendment, you 
control the time.
  Mr. McCAIN. I am speaking for the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. I understand that.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Georgia control the time on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
As my good colleague from Arizona noted when he began his remarks, we 
dealt with this before and, therefore, he would be brief. He is 
correct. We dealt with this last year, and his amendment was defeated 
77 to 21. It was defeated for several reasons.
  One, there is an understanding that there are facilities and capacity 
that the Department of Defense must provide for the security of the 
U.S. Centennial Olympics, which will occur in Atlanta, GA, in less than 
a year. It was defeated because it was interloping on 4 years of 
contract and arrangement. And it was thought at that time, which was 2 
years before the Olympics, that it was too late to intervene and 
contravene and disrupt the very intricate process of DOD security as 
provided to our guests--12,000 athletes, 196 countries, with venues 
occurring in five separate States and 31 villages. It was defeated for 
that reason.
  Here we are a year later, less than 1 year before the flame is lit in 
Atlanta, GA, and we have the same amendment back. It was not acceptable 
a year ago; it certainly is not acceptable today.
  The amendment deals with more than reimbursement. The first section 
of the amendment says no funds may be expended to the various events, 
including the Olympics, until the Secretary of Defense has entered into 
an agreement with the various entities involved. That means that no 
funds could be expended, no security and preparation of this 
international event of this magnitude until the Department of Defense 
has entered into an agreement with 43 separate jurisdictions--States, 
counties, municipalities, et cetera.
  If this amendment is adopted, it would bring the security apparatus 
envisioned--and which all of us know needs to be in place--to a 
standstill. We all know the process that would be underway in terms of 
trying to deal with this and the agreements that would have to be 
sought and concluded and the morass that would surround it.
  Mr. President, in addition, the amendment removes the accounting 
procedure. Vast expenditures would be called upon by the Olympics--
employee wages, upkeep of the facilities, maintenance, electric bills, 
which would fall outside what would be in the accounting process.
  The point is, in sum and short, the Department of Defense is the only 
facility and capacity that can provide the very special security 
requirements. This will disrupt that process and it should be an effort 
that is entirely proactive. It would bring the security process to its 
knees.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to my distinguished 
colleague from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank my colleague from Georgia.
  Mr. President, I would just say very briefly, and reserve the 
remainder of my time, that there are three problems with this 
amendment. It does look like a simple amendment. I know the Senator 
from Arizona is sincere in his efforts to try to save money for the 
Federal Government.
  One of the problems with this amendment--and there are three main 
problems. First of all, it will not work. It is an accounting 
nightmare. We would have to basically call off the security for a 
period of weeks or perhaps months while a team of lawyers and 
accountants went down and negotiated not only with the Olympic 
committee but with many different jurisdictions, as my colleague from 
Georgia pointed out.
  So the first problem is it is not workable with an entity like the 
Olympics that is operating in five States in many different local 
jurisdictions, that is not intending to make a profit, that is putting 
up a huge number of buildings and structures that would have to have an 
amortization table set up because they are going to be turned over to 
local entities afterwards. How can you determine a property in those 
circumstances?
  The second problem is it is not going to save the Government any 
money. They do not intend to make a profit. If they see they are going 
to have a surplus toward the end of the games, they are going to try to 
put it back into the games. I have been told that over and over and 
over.
  The third problem with it is it will probably cost the Government 
money. How would it cost the Government money if we adopt this and it 
became law? It would cost the Government money because this amendment 
says very clearly that no reimbursement would take place until the 
event is complete. Right now the agreement that has been worked out 
with DOD is that anything that is not related to the security is 
reimbursed immediately.
  So DOD does some things that are not security related that get 
reimbursed. They have already reimbursed the Government something like 
$55,000. It will probably be something in the neighborhood of $1\1/4\ 
million to $1 million before it is over. So this amendment, intending 
to save money, will end up, in my view, costing money because there 
will be no excess.
  The other problems--the big problem is what State and local 
governments do. Our States are putting at least $35 million or $40 
million in. There will be events in Tennessee. Tennessee is going to be 
spending money. Once we adopt this, each State is going to say, ``We 
want to get reimbursed for our costs before the Federal Government.'' I 
do not know how that will play in this amendment. Perhaps someone could 
explain it.
  So this amendment is simply not workable. It will not save the 
Federal Government any money. It would reverse the precedent we have 
had over and over again.
  Mr. President, this is what is at stake here. We have 195 countries, 
100 heads of state, 15,000 athletes and officials, 15,000 media 
representatives, 25,000 Olympic family and VIP's, 12 million tickets, 
350,000 visitors per day, 3,000 hours of TV coverage, 3 billion viewers 
around the world. That is what is at stake.
  How much would Germany have paid for the security to prevent the 
slaughter that took place by terrorists at Munich in 1972? Do we want 
to nickel and dime security and have the ACOG committee, knowing they 
may be called on for some kind of cost accounting nightmare 
reimbursement and then negotiate with our military to see what we need 
in terms of chemical warfare specialists, what we need in terms of 
people who know about biological warfare, what we need it terms of 
communications?
  Mr. President, we do not want that for the Olympics. We do not want a 
black eye for the Olympics. We do not want to cut security to the bone 
and then end up with some tragedy or some great embarrassment.
  So I urge the rejection of the amendment and reserve the remainder of 
the time.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 5 minutes 42 
seconds, and the Senator from Georgia has 2 minutes 22 seconds.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. President, I had hoped that 1972 would not come up again in this 
debate. No one, no one, no one believes that 1972 should ever come up 
again. And to relate the tragedy of 1972 and what happened in Munich 
when the terrorist attack took place on a request which I think is 
reasonable--and reasonable people can disagree; if the Olympics make a 
profit, they reimburse, of course--it is just hard for me to 
understand. 

[[Page S 11387]]

  The senior Senator from Georgia said it would be an accounting 
nightmare. I believe that the people of America who invest sizable 
amounts of money--not just in defense--they have the right to know 
whether this Olympics makes a profit or a loss.
  As I said, I have done research of every single Olympic game that has 
been held in the United States. They come out with a profit or a loss 
as any other enterprise would. I am shocked to hear that it is 
impossible for the Olympic games to figure out whether or not they make 
a profit or a loss. I am shocked.
  With the appropriate legislation, if there are Federal funds involved 
with the Olympics, I am going to propose some kind of amendment that 
the American people have an accounting. I do not think that is 
unreasonable.
  I would like to congratulate the two Senators from Georgia. They are 
for the Olympic games for the first time for which there is no 
accounting.
  The second thing is they do not intend to make a profit. If they do 
not intend to make a profit, then we should adopt this amendment by 
unanimous consent agreement by voice vote because then they do not have 
a problem. If the senior Senator from Georgia is convinced that they 
are not going to make a profit, then he does not have to worry about 
this amendment.
  Why is he debating against it? In his words, they do not intend to 
make a profit. That is their option. But the American people deserve an 
accounting.
  As far as the cost to the Government to be reimbursed immediately, 
all I can say is that if we are talking about as much as $20 million to 
be spent, $10 million last year and $10 million this year, I think the 
American people deserve to be reimbursed if this enterprise makes a 
profit.
  Obviously, it has nothing to do with the 1972 tragedy in Munich, and 
I do not believe that cost considerations would drive any organization 
to reduce the security required to make sure, to make every effort 
possible so that the Olympic games would be made safe and secure.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield 1 minute to the distinguish Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair.
  In concept, I have no problem at all with the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Arizona. Having been in business, however, I have 
discovered that there are profits and there are profits. I remember in 
the Los Angeles Olympics, I was living in Los Angeles at the time. 
There were divergences of as much as $100 million as to the amount of 
profit made by that Olympic games, depending on who was doing the 
accounting.
  His amendment does not specify how that is going to work or where we 
are going to determine the profit or what is going to be charged or 
what is not. All of that is going to have to be worked out.
  Second, the same issue applies to the question of costs, the costs to 
the Department of Defense. Again, having been a businessman, I know 
there are differences between costs and costs. I am told by the Defense 
Department that they look forward to this opportunity because it gives 
them a training opportunity for troops that will train in a real-life 
situation.
  Where would the money be spent if it was not spent while they were at 
the Olympics? I was interested in an amendment that says incremental 
costs only that spells out the kind of problems. The amendment of the 
Senator from Arizona, in my opinion, is flawed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to help out the Senator from 
Utah. The exact amount of money in profit from the Los Angeles games, 
according to all, including the head of the Olympic games, Mr. 
Ubeberroth, was $22,716,000. No one questions that.
  As far as the training opportunity, putting up fences is not exactly 
the training opportunity that we want for most of our men and women in 
the military. Regularly, when costs are incurred by the Department of 
Defense, they send bills to entities and organizations.
  And finally, I would like to congratulate the Senator from Utah for 
the selection of the city of Salt Lake for the Olympics.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, how much time remains for the 
opponents?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute of time for the Senator from 
Georgia and 2 minutes and 16 seconds for the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  Mr. President, we are not talking about building fences. We are 
talking about physical security for athletic villages, an entire 
communications grid that only DOD can put in place, a command 
coordination, providing site surveys, aerial visitations. It goes on 
and on.
  Mr. President, I wish to repeat, we are less than 1 year from the 
lighting of the flame. There are 43 separate jurisdictions. This 
amendment shuts it all down with less than 1 year to go while we would 
enter into 43 separate negotiations on contracts. If this amendment 
were to prevail, it will literally shut down the planning for security 
for one of the world's greatest events, for which there will be an 
assembly like none has ever occurred and it will be in the United 
States of America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 2 minutes 15 
seconds.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe that the Atlanta Olympic 
Committee has made agreements with a lot of different organizations for 
services that are provided for the Atlanta Olympics. For example, I am 
sure they have made an agreement with the post office for mail 
delivery. I am sure they have made an agreement with many other 
commercial organizations. I am convinced that they could do the same 
thing with the Department of Defense; that after there is a final 
accounting, upon the completion of the Olympics, the American people 
deserve to know what the profit and loss was, that we could then 
consider reimbursing the Department of Defense.
  If the two Senators from Georgia are convinced there is not going to 
be a profit, then they should not have a problem at all with this 
amendment. If they think they might make a profit, I can assure them 
that only after there would be a final accounting would a profit be 
divided up. I would even be willing to have a certain percentage of the 
profits go back to reimburse the Department of Defense, if not all.
  The reason why I do this, Mr. President, finally, is because time 
after time after time we find ways to spend taxpayers' dollars that are 
earmarked for defense on issues and areas and programs that have 
nothing to do with defense. This is just one of hundreds of examples. 
This really does not have anything to do with national defense. It has 
to do with providing security for the Olympic games, which are fine. 
But it has nothing to do with defending this Nation's vital national 
security interests. That is why, as I say, only if there were a profit 
should we reimburse the taxpayers of America.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I move to lay the McCain amendment on 
the table.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote will be taken after debate on the 
Boxer amendment. The amendment is temporarily laid aside.
  The Senator from California is recognized.
  
[[Page S 11388]]



                           Amendment No. 2117

   (Purpose: To provide a substitute for section 526, which amends a 
     provision of the Uniform Code of Military Justice relating to 
        forfeiture of pay and allowances and reduction in grade)

  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  This will be a very brief debate because I think there is very broad 
agreement on this issue. However, I thought it was important to take 
just a few moments. I think the Senate will be very proud to vote for 
this amendment because we are going to put an end to a most outrageous 
policy that has gone on really without the knowledge of many of us. It 
is one of those issues that has gotten buried over the years.
  Late last year, I learned from a series of articles in the Dayton 
Daily News that military personnel convicted of heinous crimes continue 
to be paid while they appeal their convictions through the military 
court system, a process that often can take many years.
  According to data, the Department of Defense spends about $1 million 
each and every month, $1 million a month, on the salaries of more than 
600 convicts. In 1 month, the Pentagon payroll included 58 incarcerated 
rapists, 164 child molesters, and 7 murderers.
  The individual stories of military criminals continuing to receive 
full pay are shocking. In California, a marine lance corporal who beat 
his 13-month-old daughter to death almost 2 years ago receives $1,105 
every month--more than $25,000 since his conviction. He spends his days 
in the brig at Camp Pendleton and refuses to pay a dime of child 
support.
  I spoke with the murdered child's grandmother who now has custody of 
the surviving 4-year old grandson. She is a resident of northern 
California and was justifiably outraged to learn that the murderer of 
her grandchild still receives full pay, and that is what this amendment 
is going to end.
  Mr. President, I can stand here for hours, and you know that I will 
not do so but, rather, in the next couple of minutes will share a 
couple other cases.
  The lieutenant colonel who raped young girls in a church basement has 
been paid more than $150,000 since his conviction. I can tell you about 
the Air Force sergeant who tried to kill his wife with a kitchen knife 
and is still paid $1,100 a month. From inside his prison cell, he reads 
the Wall Street Journal and watches his taxpayer-funded nest egg grow. 
He told the Dayton Daily News, ``I follow the stock market, and I buy 
EE bonds.''
  When I first learned that hundreds of violent criminals remained on 
the Pentagon payroll, I immediately wrote to Secretary Perry to demand 
an end to this outrageous practice. The Secretary quickly notified me 
of the support for changing the policy. He established a working group 
to propose the necessary legal changes.
  I introduced legislation to prohibit pay for military convicts on 
March 16, and my bill quickly attracted 19 bipartisan cosponsors. I am 
very grateful for their support. The ranking member of the committee, 
Senator Nunn, offered a number of helpful suggestions to improve my 
proposal, as did the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, Senator 
Coats.
  I wish to thank each of them for their good work and constructive 
advice on this issue. I would say that the Armed Services Committee on 
both sides of the aisle was very supportive. They held a hearing. We 
all rolled up our sleeves, and we got to work. The bill addresses this 
issue. The only difference with the Boxer amendment is we end the pay 
in a quicker timeframe.
  This amendment has been cleared on both sides. Again, I want to say 
to my friends on both sides of the aisle, thank you very much. I think 
we will be proud today that we end this unconscionable practice.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COATS. Will the Senator from California yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. I will be happy to yield whatever time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from California send the 
amendment to the desk?
  Mrs. BOXER. I believe the Senator's amendment is at the desk already.
  Mr. President, I will ask for the yeas and nays. Then I will be glad 
to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself, Mr. 
     Harkin, and Mr. Bradley, proposes an amendment numbered 2117.

  Mrs. BOXER. I ask that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       Beginning on page 189, strike out line 5 and all that 
     follows through page 191, line 21, and insert in lieu thereof 
     the following:

     SEC. 526. FORFEITURE OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES AND REDUCTION IN 
                   GRADE.

       (a) Effective Date of Punishments.--Section 857(a) (article 
     57(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a)(1) Any forfeiture of pay, forfeiture of allowances, 
     or recuction in grade included in a sentence of a court-
     martial takes effect on the earlier of--
       ``(A) the date that is 14 days after the date on which the 
     sentence is adjudged; or
       ``(B) the date on which the sentence is approved by the 
     convening authority.
       ``(2) On application by an accused, the convening authority 
     may defer any forfeiture of pay, forfeiture of allowances, or 
     reduction in grade that would otherwise become effective 
     under paragraph (1)(A) until the date on which the sentence 
     is approved by the convening authority. The deferment may be 
     rescinded at any time by the convening authority.
       ``(3) A forfeiture of pay or allowances shall be collected 
     from pay accruing on and after the date on which the sentence 
     takes effect under paragraph (1). Periods during which a 
     sentence to forfeiture of pay or forfeiture of allowances is 
     suspended or deferred shall be excluded in computing the 
     duration of the forfeiture.
       ``(4) In this subsection, the term `convening authority', 
     with respect to a sentence of a court-martial, means any 
     person authorized to act on the sentence under section 860 of 
     this title (article 60).''.
       (b) Effect of Punitive Separation or Confinement for One 
     Year or More.--(1) Subchapter VIII is amended by inserting 
     after section 858a (article 58a) the following new section 
     (article):

     ``Sec. 858b. Art. 58b. Sentences: forfeiture of pay and 
       allowances.

       ``(a) A sentence adjudged by a court-martial that includes 
     confinement for one year or more, death, dishonorable 
     discharge, bad-conduct discharge, or dismissal shall result 
     in the forfeiture of all pay and allowances due that member 
     during any period of confinement or parole. The forfeiture 
     required by this section shall take effect on the date 
     determined under section 857(a) of this title (article 57(a)) 
     and may be deferred in accordance with that section.
       ``(b) In a case involving an accused who has dependents, 
     the convening authority or other person acting under section 
     860 of this title (article 60) may waive any or all of the 
     forfeitures of pay and allowances required by subsection (a) 
     for a period not to exceed six months. Any amount of pay or 
     allowances that, except for a waiver under this subsection, 
     would be forfeited shall be paid, as the convening authority 
     or other person taking action directs, to the dependents of 
     the accused.''.
       ``(c) If the sentence of a member who forfeits pay and 
     allowances under subsection (a) is set aside or disapproved 
     or, as finally approved, does not provide for a punishment 
     referred to in subsection (a), the member shall be paid the 
     pay and allowances which the member would have been paid, 
     except for the forfeiture, for the period during which the 
     forfeiture was in effect.''.
       (2) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of subchapter VIII of such chapter is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new item:

``858b. 58b. Sentences: forfeiture of pay and allowances.''.

       (c) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to a case in which a sentence is adjudged by a 
     court-martial on or after the first day of the first month 
     that begins at least 30 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator request the yeas and nays?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I did.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 1 minute 10 
seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will be pleased to yield to my friend, Senator Coats.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator. I will just take 30 seconds.
  Senator Boxer worked carefully with the committee on this proposal. 
While the committee language was slightly different from what the 
Senator's amendment proposes here today, it simply accelerates the time 
in which the Department has to effect the change. It is acceptable to 
the committee. We appreciate the Senator working with us on this, and 
we support this amendment.
  I thank the Senator.
  
[[Page S 11389]]

  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment by the 
Senator from California. I congratulate her on her leadership in 
bringing this to the attention of the Department of Defense Armed 
Services Committee. This reaffirms a provision that the bill now has in 
it precluding pay for military prisoners who are sentenced to extended 
confinement. I believe that term is defined as ``over 1 year.'' I also 
believe it changes the appeal time before the actual compensation is 
cut off. The bill has 21 days. This has 14 days after conviction.
  This is an abuse that has gone on too long. It was not brought to the 
attention of our committee or the Department of Defense.
  I congratulate the Senator for his leadership.
  I urge its approval.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield my time back, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Georgia yield back his 
time?
  Mr. NUNN. Has the Senator from Indiana used all the time he needs?
  Mr. COATS. Yes. We yield back our time.
  Mr. NUNN. I yield back the time.


               Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 2116

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the motion to table the McCain amendment No. 2116.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 80, nays 20, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 362 Leg.]

                                YEAS--80

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--20

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Brown
     Coats
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatfield
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lugar
     McCain
     Nickles
     Smith
     Specter
     Thomas
  So, the motion to table the amendment (No. 2116) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this last vote is ample testimony that we 
will never stop spending the taxpayers' dollars that are earmarked for 
defense on anything but pork and wasteful spending.
  The very concept that if an organization makes a profit that uses 
defense dollars, we cannot pay that back, then, Mr. President, I have 
no confidence whatsoever that we will ever be able to do what the 
taxpayers asked us to do--that is, to use the tax dollars earmarked for 
defense for purposes of national security.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2117

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
amendment No. 2117 offered by the Senator from California.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, is this a 15-minute vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is a 15-minute rollcall vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I will suggest a 10-minute rollcall vote, unless there is 
objection.
  I ask unanimous consent that the vote be 10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2117 of the Senator from California.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 3, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 363 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--3

     Faircloth
     Hatch
     Thompson
  So the amendment (No. 2117) was agreed to.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. COHEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KOHL. I yield to the Senator from Maine, Senator Cohen.


                           Amendment No. 2118

   (Purpose: To reform the management and procurement of information 
                     technology for the Government)

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I have an amendment I am sending to the 
desk, cosponsored by Senators Levin, Roth, Glenn, and Bingaman. It has 
been cleared on both sides. It deals with the acquisition of computer 
technology.
  I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen], for himself, Mr. Levin, 
     Mr. Roth, Mr. Glenn, and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2118.

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today lays the 
foundation for real information management reform not only at the 
Department of Defense but at all Government agencies.
  The amendment is based on S. 946, the Federal Information Management 
Reform Act of 1995, which Senator Levin and I introduced earlier this 
year.
  Before discussing the details of the amendment, I want to both 
commend and express my appreciation to Senator Roth, chairman of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, and Senator Glenn, the ranking member. 
Both have been leaders on issues relating to information technology, 
and their contribution to crafting this amendment has been invaluable.
  I would also like to thank my friend and colleague Senator Levin who 
I have worked closely with for over 15 years on the Oversight 
Subcommittee. I very much appreciate his counsel, cooperation, and 
support on this issue.
  Finally, I want to also mention the members of these Senators' staff 
whose valuable assistance is appreciated. Specifically, Peter Levine, 
Mark Forman, David Plocher, and Debbie Cohen.

[[Page S 11390]]

  The amendment which would reform the Federal Government's approach to 
using and buying information technology, is cosponsored by Senators 
Levin, Roth, Glenn, and Bingaman. Together, we have been able to 
fashion an amendment that will address many critical issues of 
information technology management within Federal agencies.
  The amendment would accomplish meaningful reform, in part, by 
emphasizing upfront planning and the establishment of clear performance 
goals designed to improve agency operations. Once the upfront planning 
is complete and the performance goals are established, other reforms 
would make it simpler and faster for agencies to purchase information 
technology.
  The need to reform how the Federal Government approaches and 
purchases information technology is well documented. The amendment 
reflects recommendations contained in literally hundreds of General 
Accounting Office and inspector general reports. The Defense Science 
Board's and numerous other formal Government studies have also outlined 
a number of problems in the current system and have made many 
recommendations for improvement. Now is the time to act on these 
recommendations, many of which are included in this amendment.
  The current situation is abysmal. Last October, I issued a report 
entitled ``Computer Chaos,'' which stressed two key problems affecting 
the $27 billion we spend each year on information technology.
  First, much of this money is wasted buying new systems that agencies 
have not adequately planned or managed. Consequently new systems, 
especially high dollars systems, rarely work as intended and do little 
to improve agency performance.
  Second, a large portion of the $200 billion spent on information 
technology over the last decade has been thrown away maintaining old 
technology that no longer performs as needed. In other words, we are 
throwing billions of dollars away every year on technological bandaids, 
and we cannot, by virtue of the existing procurement and management 
system, effectively buy replacement systems.
  Nowhere is this situation more evident than with our Nation's air 
traffic control system. In recent months, air traffic control system 
failures have become all too common. Passing this amendment will help 
to ensure that follow-on systems can be adequately planned and 
implemented to replace our Nation's aging air traffic control system 
before we have a tragedy.
  The Government's failure to purchase effective computer systems has 
had significant implications for the Defense Department. The lack of 
effective information systems at the Pentagon has contributed to the 
mismanagement of billions of defense dollars. The payment of phantom 
employees, excessive inventories, and payments that weren't matched to 
invoices are the result of the Pentagon's inability to adequately and 
appropriately plan for and buy needed information systems.
  In addition, defense agencies have spent billions of dollars each 
year to keep old, inefficient computer systems running, and they 
continue to buy new computer systems that are poorly planned and, once 
operational, do not meet the needs of the defense agencies which use 
them.
  For example, 3 years ago I held hearings on the Defense Commissary 
Agency's failure to make timely and accurate payments to vendors. The 
Agency's computerized bill payment system was inadequate. Consequently, 
the vendors that delivered goods to commissaries, ranging from Kraft to 
Quahog Lobster Co. in my State of Maine, were not getting paid on time, 
if they were getting paid at all, while other vendors were getting paid 
repeatedly for the same invoices.
  We do not know how much money the Defense Commissary Agency wasted 
through erroneous payments and added administrative expenses in an 
often futile attempt to sort out who was owed what. Although it has 
taken the Agency and some of its vendors years to recover from this 
experience, the whole episode could have been avoided had the Defense 
Commissary Agency invested in adequate technology.
  Effective modernization at the Department of Defense has the 
potential to save taxpayers billions of dollars through increased 
efficiencies. In April, the Oversight Subcommittee held a hearing 
examining how the Pentagon manages its system from processing employee 
travel vouchers. We discovered that 30 percent of the Pentagon's travel 
budget--some $1 billion--was being spent just to process the $3 billion 
in annual DOD travel.
  Private sector organizations spend on average about 10 percent of 
their travel budgets on processing vouchers and the best private sector 
organizations spend 6 percent. By adopting travel processing systems 
that are similar to private sector models and automating these 
processes, we determined that the Pentagon could save as much as $4 
billion over the next 5 years.
  As you can see, it is critical that we encourage not only the 
Pentagon but all Federal agencies to look at the way they do business, 
make changes to these business processes, and automate. I believe we 
can achieve a 5-percent annual reduction in Government overhead by 
adopting this strategy and, as a result, save the American taxpayer as 
much as $175 billion over the next 5 years. In this time of austere 
budgets, we cannot afford not to adopt the reforms contained in this 
amendment.
  The bottom line is that the Government's current approach to buying 
computers is outdated and takes little account of the competitive and 
fast changing nature of the global computer industry. Markets and 
prices change daily, yet Government often gets locked into paying 
today's prices for yesterday's technology.
  When the Brooks Act which governs how the Government buys computers 
was written in 1965, the Federal Government was the dominant computer 
buyer in the world and purchased over 60 percent of the industry's 
entire output. Today, the Federal market comprises only 3 percent of 
industry sales. While Government is still the largest single buyer, it 
no longer moves the market.
  Over the last three decades, the Brooks Act has produced a process 
that has become too bureaucratic and cumbersome. It has spawned 
hundreds of pages of regulations and caused agencies to be primarily 
concerned with conformity to a paperwork process. What the process 
fails to address are the results--more efficient and less expensive 
Government--and fairness to the taxpayers.
  In addition, an adversarial culture has developed between Government 
and business. Many companies believe they won't get a fair shake. 
Federal employees are suspicious of companies because of a fear of 
being second guessed and having the procurement protested.
  In short, it is a culture of little trust, less communication, and no 
incentives to use information technology to improve the way Government 
does business and achieve the savings that we so desperately need.
  It is time to move the Government's use of information technology 
into the 21st century. That is why I am introducing this amendment 
today so that we can significantly alter how the Government approaches 
and acquires information technology.
  The legislation would repeal the Brooks Act and establish a framework 
that will respond more efficiently to the information technology needs 
of the Federal Government now and in the foreseeable future. The 
amendment would also eliminate the delegation of procurement authority 
at GSA, establish guidance and specific budgetary review authority at 
OMB, and establish Chief Information Officers at the major Federal 
agencies. Through the guidance and review process, OMB and the agencies 
will be required to emphasize up-front planning, monitor risk 
management, and work with contractors to achieve workable solutions to 
the Government's information needs.
  The amendment will also discourage the so-called megasystem buys. 
Following the private sector model, agencies will be encouraged to take 
an incremental approach to buying information technology that is more 
manageable and less risky.
  By replacing the current system with one that is less bureaucratic 
and process driven, the bill is designed to enable agencies to buy 
technology faster and for less money. More importantly, the bill is 
designed to make sure that before investing a dollar in information 
technology, Government agencies 

[[Page S 11391]]
will have carefully planned and justified their expenditures.
  Similar to managing an investment portfolio, decisions on whether to 
invest in information technology will be made based on potential 
return. Decisions to terminate or make additional investments will be 
based on performance. Much like an investment broker, agency management 
and contractor performance will be measured and rewarded based on 
managing risk
 and achieving results.

  I should note that the amendment is different from S. 946 in a number 
of significant ways. For example, S. 946 called for the establishment 
of a National Chief Information Officer at the Office of Management and 
Budget. Concerns were raised by the administration and Senators Roth, 
Glenn, and Levin, that this has the potential to become a bureaucratic 
hurdle. Similar concerns were also raised at a hearing I conducted on 
this legislation in July. Consequently, the provision requiring a 
national CIO has been dropped.
  In addition, a number of changes have been made to the procurement 
provisions. Specifically, a number of procurement reforms in the 
original legislation have been deleted from the amendment. These reform 
issues are currently under discussion by a Governmental Affairs/Armed 
Services/Small Business Committee working group and will be dealt with 
on a Governmentwide basis in procurement legislation later this year.
  The amendment will fundamentally shift the Government's focus on 
information technology from a technical issue to a management issue. 
Information technology procurements under the current system have 
focused on features like the speed of the computer or the type of 
processor. Rarely, if ever, have they focused on whether the system was 
going to enhance the agency's mission by, for example, reducing benefit 
processing time or realize savings by reducing overhead expenditures.
  Failure to recognize information technology as a management issue has 
cost taxpayers billions of dollars in inefficiency and waste. By 
passing this amendment, we can help transform the way the Government 
does business. If Government is going to regain the confidence of 
taxpayers, it must successfully modernize. And, as we all know, we 
cannot successfully modernize unless we can buy the tools which will 
enable us to automate.
  Mr. President, my amendment is needed not only by the Department of 
Defense but throughout Government. Passing this amendment will go a 
long way toward bringing our Government into the 21st century. Reform 
is clearly the key to creating a Federal Government that, as the Vice 
President has put it, ``works better and costs less.'' I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor of S. 946, the 
Cohen-Levin information technology bill, I find myself in an unusual 
position with regard to this amendment. I had expected to work closely 
with Senator Cohen and other members of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee and our subcommittee to revise and perfect this bill. 
Instead, I find myself addressing this issue on the Senate floor before 
hearings on the bill have been completed and before the bill could be 
marked up and amended through the committee process.
  There are serious problems with our Federal Government systems for 
purchasing and managing information technology. I believe that problems 
as far-reaching as these deserve serious consideration at the committee 
level. The changes proposed in the Cohen-Levin bill deserve a full 
airing in public hearings and an opportunity for input from the 
executive branch, the public, and all members of the committee of 
jurisdiction. For this reason, I initially intended to oppose this 
amendment.
  I shall not do so, however. While I continue to have major concerns 
about the process through which this amendment has been considered, 
Senator Cohen and his staff have made major modifications to the bill 
to address concerns raised by the administration and by other members 
of the committee. They have also agreed to delete a number of 
provisions addressing issues that we expect to address on a more 
comprehensive basis in the context of a later procurement bill. As a 
result, the amendment before us would take a number of significant 
steps to address problems with the procurement and management of 
computer systems without raising the concerns that the earlier bill 
did.
  Mr. President, I continue to believe, as I did when I joined Senator 
Cohen in introducing S. 946, that it is very much time for us to 
reexamine our systems for the acquisition of computer equipment from 
the ground up. I continue to believe that is appropriate for us to ask 
why procurement and bid protest procedures and standards that have met 
our needs for products ranging from toasters to fighter aircraft cannot 
also meet our needs in the area of computer procurement. I continue to 
believe that it is appropriate for us to ask why we still need the 
centralized approach of the Brooks Act, under which the General 
Services Administration is responsible for approving computer purchases 
by other Federal agencies.
  The amendment that Senator Cohen and I are offering today would 
dramatically revise Federal procedures for the procurement and 
management of information technology products and services by:
  Repealing the Brooks Act of 1965;
  Eliminating the requirement for a delegation of procurement authority 
by General Services Administration;
  Ending the unique role of the General Services Board of Contract 
Appeals in information technology bid protests;
  Clarifying the role of the Office of Management and Budget and the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in coordinating and 
improving Federal procurement and management of information technology;
  Creating a new position in Federal agencies, known as the chief 
information officer or CIO, dedicated to the management of information 
technology resources;
  Establishing a governmentwide CIO council to provide guidance to 
agencies on information technology management issues;
  Establishing a preference for incremental purchases of information 
technology over a period of years, instead of unworkable megapurchases 
of huge amounts of products and services through a single contract; and
  Establishing a pilot program to test the innovative Canadian system 
for procuring complex computer systems.
  The Cohen amendment also contains the provisions of S. 675, my bill 
to reduce paperwork in the acquisition of off-the-shelf products by 
providing governmentwide, on-line access to GSA's multiple award 
schedules. The implementation of these provisions should bring 
effective competition to the multiple award schedules and make it 
possible to reduce or even eliminate the need for lengthy negotiations 
and burdensome paperwork requirements placed on vendors to ensure fair 
pricing. Accordingly, we would also establish a pilot program, under 
which direct competition at the user level would substitute for lengthy 
and paper-intensive price negotiations with vendors. I am pleased that 
these important provisions will be included in the Cohen amendment.
  This amendment would not contain a number of provisions that I and 
others found problematic in the original Cohen bill. Unlike the 
original Cohen bill, this amendment would not create a new chief 
information officer or [CIO] in the Office of Management and Budget; it 
would not establish a new congressional committee; it would not 
overturn the prohibition on organizational conflicts of interest in 
acquisitions of information technology; and it would not provide for 
automatic termination of contracts and solicitations, or automatic pay 
adjustments for Federal employees, based on artificial formulas.
  Because Senator Cohen and his staff have worked hard in the last few 
days to address substantive concerns with the earlier bill and because 
they have agreed to include the important streamlining provisions from 
my bill in his amendment, I ask to be included as an original cosponsor 
of the amendment. While I continue to be troubled that we are moving an 
amendment of this significance without the benefits of committee 
deliberation, I support the amendment.

[[Page S 11392]]

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I am glad to be a cosponsor of the Cohen 
amendment and urge my colleagues to support it, as well. This amendment 
contains two sets of provisions regarding information technology [IT] 
management and procurement reform. Both are important, and both deserve 
support.
  While I am cosponsoring the amendment because of its substantive 
merit, I must add that as a matter of process, I believe the amendment 
should have been considered more fully by the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs. The amendment differs significantly from the original 
legislation, S. 946. The one subcommittee hearing held to consider that 
bill does not suffice for a thorough review of the issues presented in 
either that bill or the revised language before us today. In my view, I 
would have preferred for a bill as significant and important as this 
one to go through the committee process so that we would have a report 
to turn to in the years ahead to know why we did what we are about to 
do. But, given my work on these issues, I am now comfortable with the 
amendment.
  This amendment is needed because of the state of Federal Government 
information activities. Recent press stories about repeated failures of 
FAA air traffic computers alone should convince people of the need to 
substantially improve the way the Government buys, uses, and manages 
information technology.
  This year Congress already took a major step toward addressing this 
issue when it passed the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This law not 
only tackles the problem of public paperwork burdens, but also sets in 
place new requirements for broader improvements in information 
resources management [IRM].
  The first set of provisions in the amendment before us today 
establishes detailed guidelines for implementation of the information 
technology management provisions of the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act. 
The administration has been moving vigorously to implement the new act 
and has found that additional requirements would be useful to press 
agencies to improve their information technology investment planning 
and control processes and to provide greater accountability for 
information technology acquisition and management decisions. The 
administration supports these elements of the Cohen amendment and I 
commend those in the administration who are showing their commitment to 
making significant improvements in the management of Government 
information resources.
  The second set of provisions in the amendment, also supported by the 
administration, provides related reforms in the area of procurement of 
information technology. These provisions are key to our buying of IT. 
They include such provisions as modular acquisitions and pilot projects 
which will give us the flexibility we need to procure information 
technology at a pace that is consistent with its rapid development. 
After all, that's what this amendment is all about.
  I would also add that the bill as originally written contained many 
more procurement provisions than those included in this amendment. I am 
pleased that Senator Cohen deferred on these provisions--which are just 
as significant to IT as they are to other procurements--so that they 
will be considered by the acquisition reform working group. This 
bipartisan group will produce another piece of governmentwide 
acquisition reform legislation in the next couple of months to follow 
up on last year's success of the passage of the Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Cohen's amendment 
and appreciate his work on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support 
the amendment.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I want to thank my distinguished colleagues, 
Senator Cohen and Mr. Levin, the authors of this amendment, Senator 
Glenn, and others, for their assistance in including my language in 
their amendment. Although this compromise language is not all that I 
had hoped, I believe that it takes an important step toward ensuring 
that the public who fund the creation of government information will be 
able to access it.
  The amendment by my distinguished colleagues is a version of 
legislation currently before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, S. 
946. I have serious concerns about that legislation and the impact it 
has on issues within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules and 
Administration, on which I serve as the ranking member.
  The Rules Committee has worked hard over the last several years to 
ensure that Government information that is disseminated electronically, 
rather than through printed documents, is readily found and obtained by 
the public who pays to produce it. As technology allows us to move from 
the printed page to electronic databases, the Rules Committee has the 
same historic interest in ensuring that the public has access to that 
information in the least costly, most efficient form. At some point, 
most information that is available electronically is reduced to a 
printed form, and it is imperative that the protection of title 44 with 
regard to ensuring public access to such information be preserved no 
matter how much technology changes.
  Currently, we achieve that through a combination of the depository 
library system and provisions of title 44 which created the Government 
Printing Office electronic access system, enacted 2 years ago. This 
system maintains a directory of Federal electronic information which 
can be readily located and accessed by the general public through the 
depository library system.
  The depository library system, including over 1,400 libraries located 
in every congressional district across this country, provides an 
essential link for individual and communities to their government. The 
depository library system ensures that all government printed 
information, and now electronic information through the GPO access 
system also, is available to anyone, regardless of whether they have a 
computer in his or her home or office.
  It is a system that is working and working well. It simply makes no 
sense in these times of fiscal restraint to reinvent the wheel when it 
comes to a system by which the public will locate and access government 
information. That is not to say that this should be the sole method of 
disseminating public information. But it should be the plain, vanilla 
method by which anyone, no matter how geographically isolated or 
computer illiterate, goes about obtaining government information.
  The language I sought to have added to this measure provides that if 
an agency determines that its information technology system will be 
used to disseminate information to the public, then that information 
must be provided to the Government Printing Office, pursuant to section 
4101 of title 44, United States Code. The GPO directory is currently 
being used by depository libraries across this country to provide the 
public with a usable reference system for government information.
  Under this provision, an executive agency will continue to determine 
when it will make information available to the public. But once that 
decision is made, regardless of whether the information is reduced to 
printed form or posted on an electronic database, the public will be 
able to find it through the GPO access system. The public is entitled 
to that information and should not have to own a computer with a link 
to the specific agency, or any other database, to find it. My language 
ensures that they will not. A simple trip to their library to access 
the GPO system is all that is required.
  This provision is necessary to ensure that the taxpayers of America 
who fund the creation of information technology systems which will be 
used to disseminate information will be able to access that 
information. This is an important link between government and the 
public and will increase the accountability of government to the public 
it serves.
  I appreciate the considerable assistance of my distinguished 
colleagues, and their staff, in developing this compromise. I look 
forward to continuing efforts to ensure that no matter how much 
technology changes, the American public still gets their dollars worth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2118) was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  
[[Page S 11393]]

  Mr. COHEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COHEN. I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for yielding.


                           Amendment No. 2119

 (Purpose: To limit to $257,700,000,000 the total amount authorized to 
                            be appropriated)

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
myself and Senator Grassley and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment of the 
Senator from Wisconsin.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for himself, Mr. 
     Grassley, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Brown, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Bumpers, 
     Mr. Bradley, Mr. Harkin, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2119.
       On page 16, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 4. GENERAL LIMITATION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the total 
     amount authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1996 
     under the provisions of this Act is $257,700,000,000.

  Mr. KOHL. addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, my amendment is very simple. It limits the 
spending in the bill before us to the level in the Senate's version of 
the budget resolution: $257.7 billion. On May 23, 1995, in a strong 
bipartisan vote, the Senate defeated an amendment to the budget 
resolution which would have increased defense spending above the level 
requested by the administration. Sixty Senators voted against that 
amendment to increase defense spending. Unless they have changed their 
minds, the same 60 Senators should support this amendment. It offers 
another chance for the Senate to support the defense spending level 
laid out in the Senate's budget resolution and to save $7 billion in 
defense spending.
  I also want to remind my colleagues that the defense spending number 
supported by opponents of this amendment represents an increase in 
defense spending over last year's spending level.
  We are spending far too much on defense. We are not at war. We are 
coming off the defense buildup of the 1980's. The United States defense 
budget is larger than the combined military expenditures in the next 
nine largest military budgets, and our defense
 budget is 3.5 times larger than that of the next biggest spender, 
Russia. How can we possibly justify these exorbitant spending levels to 
the American people? How do we explain to them this hemorrhaging of 
taxpayer dollars? At a time when we are cutting programs for the poor, 
for students, for seniors--how can we justify giving the military money 
it has not asked for. This is not a question of national security; 
there is no major power threatening America. This is not a question of 
readiness, because most of the increase in spending is not to train 
troops, it is to pay defense contractors for more military hardware. 
The question is, do we need an extra $7 billion in this bill that the 
Defense Department says it does not want or does not need?

  The President increased the defense budget by $6.9 billion before he 
sent up his fiscal year 1996 budget request to respond to some 
perceived shortfalls in readiness, and, perhaps, to head off defense 
spending increases ahead. Yet, in a move unprecedented in the last 14 
years, the fiscal year 1996 defense authorization bill increases 
defense spending even more, $7 billion above the administration's 
request. And, I should note, none of the $7 billion went to pay for 
ongoing military operations in and around Iraq, Cuba, and Bosnia even 
though Secretary Perry had made an urgent request for funds to cover 
these contingency operations. The decision not to fund these operations 
puts even more pressure on the operations and maintenance accounts and 
raises the question of how serious the Armed Services Committee is in 
addressing the readiness issue.
  Again, I want to emphasize: A majority of this body--60 Senators--has 
already gone on record supporting $257.7 billion for Defense. And that 
is what this amendment would do. Let me lay out some of the reasons why 
we should support this amendment.
  First, this defense bill, with its huge spending levels, is 
reminiscent of the cold war. Our defense infrastructure looks 
remarkably similar to what was created to stand up to the Soviet Union 
and its Eastern Bloc allies. Even though we all agree that they no 
longer pose the same threat to our national security, we have not found 
a way to reduce the tremendous burden defense spending places on our 
country. While the Soviet Union constituted the main security threat to 
the United States throughout the cold war, present-day Russia is a 
shadow of its former military might. Look at the Russian military's 
recent performance in Chechnya. The breakup of the Soviet Union has 
deprived the Russians of military forces and defense production 
capacity. Even if an authoritarian regime took over, readiness has 
eroded so much as a result of deep
 budget cuts that it would take decades to recreate that threat.

  The greatest threats we face today are less likely to be resolved 
with military force, and more likely to be resolved through political 
or diplomatic intervention. To be sure, we need a strong defense. We 
need to develop a strategy, and maintain a force structure, to protect 
and advance our interests in the new global environment. The difficulty 
is recognizing that our present infrastructure may not be relevant to 
the challenges ahead. If we could start over again, and create a new 
force structure from scratch, I am confident that we would have a 
leaner, more mobile and more efficient force at far less cost. Even 
working with our present defense budget, CBO and others have identified 
options to cut defense spending which could bring spending down as low 
as $150 billion by the year 2000. But this amendment is not about 
making deep cuts in defense spending. This amendment would make a very 
modest cut of $7 billion from the $264.7 billion authorization bill 
before us, and bring us back to the spending level that 60 Senators 
supported just 3 months ago.
  Mr. President, there are many weapons systems in this bill that are 
obsolete. Although much lip service has been paid to the need for a new 
approach to national defense, little has changed in the last decade. 
Many of the weapons systems in the pipeline today were conceived during 
the defense build up of the 1980's, and will do little to address the 
threats of the post-cold-war world. There are countless big-ticket 
programs, with dubious rationales for their continued existence, that 
refuse to die. It is time for the Senate to recognize that we must stop 
buying weapons systems we no longer need and can no longer afford.
  I believe that when it comes to defense, we are not making the tough 
decisions to reduce the budget deficit. If we truly intend to reduce 
the deficit, no area of the budget should be held harmless. The defense 
budget is no exception. We have not made exceptions for other areas of 
the budget that contribute as much to the long term security and well 
being of this Nation as does defense. In this era of deep and painful 
budget cuts, hitting many Americans hard, the bill before us today 
increases defense spending above what the Pentagon has indicated it 
needs and above last year's spending levels. Let me repeat, we are 
increasing defense spending this year at a time when everything else is 
being cut: education, health care, environmental protection, Medicare, 
Medicaid, low-income energy assistance, job training, childcare and 
child nutrition, highway funding, cancer research, elderly housing 
assistance, farm programs--everything else, but not defense.
  Now there are those who will argue that there are defense budget cuts 
planned for later years. However, I do not believe we will make those 
cuts because many of the proposed increases we have before us today are 
devoted to new procurement, and new research and development projects, 
which lay the groundwork for increased spending down the road.
  If we do not stop this spending now, we will have unleashed even more 
projects that will refuse to die.
  The Armed Services Committee report acknowledges this: let me read 
from page 3:

       The committee remains concerned about the adequacy of 
     funding levels for national defense programs in the coming 
     years. Despite the recommended fiscal year 1996 funding 
     increase of $7.0 billion above the adminstration request, 
     budget levels proposed for future years do not adequately 

[[Page S 11394]]
     fund even the level of forces required for the Bottom-Up Review Force. 
     These levels cannot meet modernization needs and do not cover 
     inflation. This shortfall will seriously impair the ability 
     of the Department of Defense to field the ready, modern 
     forces essential to our national security. The limited 
     progress reflected in this bill cannot be maintained unless 
     future funding is increased.

  Mr. President, there it is in black and white; the Armed Services 
Committee wants to spend more for defense. We cannot sustain the 
spending levels and the increased procurement in this budget unless we 
spend more for defense down the road. Experts on all ends of the 
spectrum agree on this point. Thus, a vote for increased spending this 
year is also a vote to increase spending next year, and the year after, 
and so on.
  Mr. President, let me be clear, our amendment is not about any 
specific weapon system or any particular defense program. I know that 
there are colleagues who would like an amendment to target specific 
programs. But that is not the point of this amendment. Our amendment is 
about how much we should be spending on defense overall. This Senate 
agreed to spend $257.7 billion on defense just 3 months ago. In 
affirming that number today, this amendment is not an attack on defense 
spending. This amendment is about the amount of defense spending the 
Senate agreed was an acceptable level, which the present defense 
authorization bill increases by $7 billion.
  And so I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and for a 
more responsible level of defense spending.
  Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin and the 
distinguished Senator from Iowa. I am pleased to be a cosponsor because 
I think this is a true ``walk the walk'' amendment.
  We have spent countless hours in the 104th Congress ``talking the 
talk'' about fiscal responsibility. Now with this amendment we have a 
chance to back up our words by ``walking the walk.''
  Mr. President, I considered offering a series of amendments to this 
bill to cut unnecessary spending. But I finally decided that doing so 
would not be the best way to make what is my basic point. That basic 
point is that we spend too much on defense because we spend it the 
wrong way.
  Our defense budgets are still structured to fight the cold war. 
Although it is easy to come to the Senate floor and talk about the so-
called post-cold-war world, it is a little more difficult to analyze 
exactly what that means for America's security needs. We have already 
had two reviews that were supposed to do that, one by the Bush 
administration, the so-called Base Force Study, and one by the Clinton 
administration, the Bottom-Up Review. And both of those studies really 
only tinkered at the margin of clearly looking at what we need in a 
post-cold-war world to defend the interests of this country.
  Rather than rethinking the threats to America's security--which I 
think includes runaway deficits and the erosion of civil society as 
well as North Korea's nuclear program--these reviews have in fact been 
elaborate exercises in fighting the last war. Instead of taking a 
realistic look at the world as it is out there today, these reviews 
have trimmed a little here and trimmed a little there. But the result 
was to conform to what I call a cold war lite approach to the world. 
That is what this budget is, a cold war lite. It does not make any 
fundamental decisions about direction or what we need to do to defend 
this country in the so-called post-cold-war world. It simply does a 
little less here, a little less there. It is cold war lite.
  Mr. President, $257.7 billion would be left in this budget after this 
amendment passed, if it did pass--$257 billion. That is a lot of money, 
more than enough to fund our defense needs, but only if we eliminate 
programs that we no longer need and spend the money on what we need.
  Mr. President, I must say that looking at the debate and the budget, 
I see supporters of expensive but unnecessary weapons programs have 
seized upon the business-as-usual approach to defense budgeting, have 
seized upon the failure of both the Bush and the Clinton 
administrations to analyze what we need in a post-cold-war world to 
simply keep this program alive.
  The Comanche, for example--I mean this thing just will not die. 
Having been pruned back to $199 million and two prototypes--that is how 
far we got this thing down at one point--it has crept back up to $373 
million and eight aircraft. It is simply not needed. The Bush 
administration tried for 4 years to kill the Osprey, for 4 years, and 
yet here it is--$762 million strong right there in the budget. It 
cannot be justified on defense needs.
  Mr. President, too big a part of this $265 million defense budget is 
nothing more than a jobs program. Take this bill, $7 billion over the 
budget resolution featuring $4.7 billion of unrequested add-ons; $7 
billion above the defense resolution; $4.7 billion that was not even 
requested by the Defense Department or by the Clinton administration.
  Last night the Senate voted to keep $1.5 billion in this bill to 
sustain a submarine industrial base by building a Seawolf submarine, a 
submarine we do not need to secure our national defense.
  My constituents in the State of New Jersey will thus continue by the 
taxes they pay to come to Washington, that then go to the defense 
contractors to produce weapons systems that we do not need to defend 
our country. And my constituents in New Jersey are fed up with this 
kind of approach to our national defense.
  Given the magnitude of the problem, it makes no sense to nickel and 
dime this bill, this little amendment here, this little amendment 
there. I know it is being done. It probably will be done.
  But it is much better to take the approach of this amendment offered 
by the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Wisconsin and cut a big 
piece of pork with one slice. This is the way the Senate can send a 
signal to the administration and frankly to the Congress that the old 
way of thinking no longer works.
  Mr. President, this, then, will be, when we vote on this amendment, a 
vote to shatter the old way of thinking, and start the difficult and 
overdue process of rethinking our defense needs and priorities in this 
world. Cut $7 billion now, and pave the way for a better defense in the 
years to come.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. THURMOND. I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Thurmond for yielding this 
time. I realize we have 15 minutes as opposed to 75 minutes on the 
other side.
  Mr. President, no decade in this century began more auspiciously than 
the 1990's. That gross impediment to human liberty--the Berlin Wall--
was breached by the stronger forces of human yearning. The central 
security problem of our time--the possible clash of East and West on 
the plains of Germany--was resolved by the dissolution of the Warsaw 
Pact, the reunification of Germany, and the collapse of the Soviet 
Union.
  The euphoria that accompanied these events anticipated the imminent 
arrival of a new world order of independent democracies engaged only in 
peaceful commercial competition with one another.
  But the resurrection of ancient conflicts and hideous barbarism in 
the Balkans; the reappearance of other incidents of irrational 
nationalism that had been sublimated by the cold war; the haunting 
familiarity of Zhirinovksy's odious appeal to a perverse patriotism; 
the accelerating proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and the 
waging of over 50 conflicts around the world have dimmed our hopes for 
a more just and tranquil world, and reminded us that we have interests 
and values that are still at risk in this promising, but uncertain 
world.
  The world is still a very dangerous place. American vigilance and 
struggle are required now more than ever. There 

[[Page S 11395]]
are numerous potential threats to our national security in the world 
today. North Korea, one of the world's remaining communist 
dictatorships, seeks to acquire nuclear weapons, and this 
administration has failed to exercise the decisive leadership necessary 
to halt once and for all the threat of nuclear warfare on the Korean 
Peninsula.
  In Asia, China has laid claim to the entire South China Sea and has 
enhanced its claim with a massive buildup of its armed forces, 
including the acquisition of new submarines, marine forces and aircraft 
carriers.
  In the Middle East, Iran poses a serious threat to the security of 
the region with their own efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, their 
longstanding support of terrorist movements, and their aggressive 
military buildup in the Straits of Hormuz. Iraq remains a potential 
trouble spot, and Saddam Hussein maintains a stranglehold on political 
and economic power in that state. Russia's involvement in its near 
abroad, the ongoing horrible conflict in Chechnya and its advocacy of 
change in stable arms agreements causes serious concerns. Ethnic 
conflicts continue to range from Sri Lanka to Rwanda, and in Bosnia, 
United States military personnel may soon be sent in harm's way to 
assist in extracting international forces from the failed U.N. 
peacekeeping effort in that state.
  These and other examples of instability in the world today make it 
imperative that we support an adequate national defense posture in this 
Nation.
  I share the frustration and anger of many Americans as we spend 
millions and sometimes billions on weapons systems that are unnecessary 
and pork barrel projects that frankly have no relevance to the post-
cold-war era. But I would remind you, Mr. President, the defense budget 
declined 35 percent in real terms between 1985 and 1994. President 
Clinton promised in his State of the Union Address in January 1994, 
``We must not cut defense further.'' Yet, his fiscal year 1996 defense 
budget submission would cut defense for 4 more years totaling another 
10 percent decline by 1999.
  This rapid shrinking of resources available for national defense 
first damaged the readiness of our forces, damage which has now nearly 
been repaired as a result of warnings from our Joint Chiefs and 
Congress over the past few years. Operations, training and maintenance 
funding has been restored to needed levels in most instances.
  Unfortunately, however, the continuing deficit in defense accounts 
will in the future impair the ability of our military forces to be 
ready to perform on the battlefield in the future. The fact is that 
with the Clinton defense budget levels we would be unable to maintain 
near-term readiness and also fund future force modernization.
  Testimony from our highest ranking military officers, the four 
service chiefs, before the Readiness Subcommittee on April 27 of this 
year, illustrated the Hobson's choice in the Pentagon today. The chiefs 
testified that they have halted virtually all major modernization 
programs because of the need to devote their scarce resources to 
restoring and maintaining near-term readiness. They also testified that 
at a consistent level of defense spending much higher than the Clinton 
administration's defense budget, about $272 billion per year, they 
would barely be able to fund their modernization efforts. And they 
stated unequivocally that if additional funding were available for 
defense, their highest priority would be modernization, by the way, not 
military construction. Procurement of new weapons systems has nearly 
stopped.
  Four of our highest ranking retired military officers prepared a 
report entitled, ``A Report on Military Capabilities and Readiness.'' 
In this report, they illustrated the sharp decline in procurement of 
fighter and attack aircraft, tanks and combat vehicles, missiles and 
ships. In all of these categories, procurement of new weapons systems 
is lower than at any time in the past 20 years.
  This year's budget request funds only three new combat ships, 16 
fixed-wing combat aircraft, and 60 new helicopters. It contains no 
funding for new tanks and inadequate funding for improving existing 
tanks. Average age of equipment will continue to rise as will the cost 
of maintaining aging forces. Safety margins will narrow.
  Under the Clinton administration budget, the technological edge of 
our military forces, which was responsible in large part for the 
victory in the Persian Gulf war, will disappear. Without force 
modernization, military forces in the year 2001, at the end of the 
current future years' defense program, will not have the technological 
superiority necessary to fight and win on the modern battlefield. This 
legislation restores some of the funding required to continue with the 
development and procurement of modern high technological weapons 
systems which will provide the battlefield edge in the future.
  The level of defense spending in this bill is necessary to ensure our 
Nation's position in the world and the future security of our people. 
That will provide the defense funding that is absolutely necessary to 
accomplish these goals.
  The bill is consistent with the budget resolution and funds high-
priority defense spending in order to maintain a viable American 
military force into the next century.
  Mr. President, the bill's level of defense spending is minimally 
adequate to ensure near-term readiness as well as force modernization 
in the future. National security remains our highest budgetary 
priority. I urge my colleagues to support our national security and 
vote against this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield back to Senator Thurmond the remainder of my 
time.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, how much time does this side have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has 57 minutes 24 
seconds.
  Mr. KOHL. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Wellstone].
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent 
to be an original cosponsor of this amendment of the Senator from 
Wisconsin and the Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, what this amendment does is simple and 
straightforward, as the Senator from Wisconsin has so stated, and it 
deals with one of the craziest things that I have seen happen since I 
have served in the Senate. What we have here is a defense spending bill 
that asks for $7 billion more than requested by the President and 
requested by the Secretary of Defense and requested by the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This is just crazy. In a time when we have 
enormous debt, in a time when we keep talking about the need to reduce 
budget deficits, now we have a spending bill that asks for $7 billion 
more than the Pentagon says it wants. It is nothing short of an effort 
by the Congress to jam down the throats of the Pentagon more spending 
than the Pentagon says it needs for our national defense.
  This is almost unprecedented. I think it is crazy for two other 
reasons: first, overall global context, and then, second, the here and 
now of what is happening in this Congress at this moment in our 
country.
  Overall global context. All of our potential enemies--broad 
definition--potential enemies, total expenditure $121 billion. Looking 
at our outlays, $271 billion. We spend more money in our budget than 
all of our potential enemies combined for defense. If you were to add 
NATO and other allies, then altogether the United States and its allies 
spend $522 billion compared to our total potential enemies of $121 
billion. And now we have an effort to add $7 billion more on to this 
spending bill than the Pentagon says it needs, in a time when we are 
supposed to be saving money, in a time in which we are supposed to be 
fiscally responsible.
  Then finally, Mr. President, let me juxtapose this amendment--
critical amendment by the Senators from Wisconsin and Iowa--with the 
front page story in The Washington Post. ``House Votes Major Cuts in 
Domestic Programs.'' Mr. President, $9 billion. They eliminated the 
low-income energy assistance program. That is a key issue in a cold 
weather State like Minnesota for the most vulnerable citizens, and job 
training programs and education programs.
  This represents distorted priorities. On the one hand we have a 
budget before us--we have a spending bill before us that asks for $7 
billion more than 

[[Page S 11396]]
the Pentagon needs. It fits conveniently with a lot of Members that sit 
on the Appropriations Committee or Armed Services Committee--a lot of 
add-on projects. On the other hand, we cut into programs that are so 
key to opportunity and the future of our own country.
  Mr. President, I will conclude this way. I said it the other day on 
the floor. I think I am just going to start shouting it from the 
mountaintop on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I am for a strong defense. 
But there comes a point in time when we need to understand that part of 
the real definition of our real national security is the security of 
our local communities where there are jobs, where there is health care, 
where people feel safe in their homes, where people feel safe in their 
neighborhoods, and when there is a commitment to education second to 
none. So that every boy--and for that matter every girl--can grow up 
dreaming to be President of the United States. If we do not start 
understanding that that is a part of our national security, and we do 
not get our priorities straight, Mr. President, I fear for the future 
of our country.
  So I support this amendment on the grounds of some rigor, and some 
good fiscal conservatism and cutting where we ought to cut and not 
being spendthrifts when we should not be. And I also support this 
amendment on the basis of what I think are the sound priorities it 
reflects.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I would like to ask my 
coauthor and colleague of this amendment, Senator Grassley from Iowa, 
how many minutes he would like to take initially, 8 or 10?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Ten minutes.
  Mr. KOHL. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley].
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first of all, I do not think Senator 
Brown was listed as a cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that he be 
listed as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in some ways I wish we were having the 
debate after Labor Day. I have been in Congress a lot of times in the 
month of August when we take our traditional recess where after that 
recess there is a whole different environment than there is before we 
go on that recess. It seems that we observe, because we are close to 
the grassroots during that summer break, that there is some change of 
opinion in Congress that takes place during that period of time.
  I believe that when we are home this August and we hear the refrain 
about cutting too much from Medicare, and too big of a tax cut, and 
particularly as the Democrats might lambaste us Republicans for giving 
a tax cut to wealthy, then people start realizing everything is going 
to be cut, cut, cut, but not the defense budget, that it is going to be 
increased $33 billion above even what the President suggested for the 
next few years, we may come back here and decide--think again, do we 
really need to increase the defense budget by $33 billion?
  But the debate is today before the August recess. So we are going to 
have the benefit of that and a reflection on that. But maybe sometime 
when there is an impasse between the White House and the Congress on 
arriving at reconciliation, there may be an opportunity to rethink 
whether or not defense ought to get a big increase when everything else 
is being cut.
  So we may get another look at this, I say to my friend from 
Wisconsin. And I hope we do. And maybe we are setting a record for us 
to do that. Because I do not think the side that wants to spend more 
money has really made a justification for it because it seems like all 
the add-ons above what the President wants spent are generally 
decisions made by Congress to spend more money here or there. That is 
pretty piecemeal. It is not how you make a studied, responsible 
decision for our national security.
  Now, I would feel much better in a debate talking about more money 
for defense if I could ever hear the other side say how much is enough. 
When is enough, enough? I never hear that. I never heard that it was 
enough when the President of the United States on his own volition 
said, ``We need to spend $23 billion more than we're spending this 
year.'' But when the Commander in Chief said that, I did not argue with 
it. Nobody on the other side that is supporting the Kohl amendment 
argued with it. We accepted the Commander in Chief's judgment. But the 
Commander in Chief has not said he needs another $33 billion. But here 
we are tossing in $33 billion of which the $7 billion in the Kohl 
amendment is the first installment of that $33 billion. So, how much is 
enough? I never hear that. I do not think ever enough is enough.
  Well, we rejected on May 23, 1995, a proposal to pump up the defense 
budget. And of course that was on the 1996 budget resolution, 60 to 40. 
And 17 of those 60 were Republican votes. If they stick with us, we 
will win again. Sixty Senators said, ``Enough is enough.'' What the 
Commander in Chief said. Sixty Senators voted to hold the defense 
spending at that requested by the President. This Senator from Iowa 
voted for those lower defense numbers.
  Well, when the budget resolution went to conference in the House, the 
extra money for the Pentagon that we are trying to subtract today was 
approved. The extra money is in the bill before us. I opposed it on May 
23. I opposed it in conference. And I oppose it now.
  One of the Republican leaders in the other body said to me privately 
during those conferences, ``Chuck, you know, I have got a request from 
our friends in the House for another $6 billion. We just have got to 
have more money to satisfy the people on our side of the aisle.''
  Is that not a nice way of deciding how much we ought to spend on 
defense, because a mass of humanity from the floor of the other body 
goes to one of the leaders and says, ``We have got to have $6 billion 
more''?
  That is why I am supporting my colleague from Wisconsin to subtract 
the $7 billion. Our amendment will bring the defense budget back down 
to the amount approved by the Senate on May 23.
  My amendment would eliminate waste at the Pentagon. Continuing waste 
at the Pentagon undermines the credibility of the higher defense 
numbers in this bill. Waste at the Pentagon has been a concern of mine 
from the beginning of my Senate career. More than anything else, those 
spare parts horror stories of the early 1980's, the $750 pair of 
pliers, the $7,000 coffee pots, caught my attention, crystallized my 
thinking on defense. Those spare part horror stories were a turning 
point, I think not for me, but for so many people. Uncontrolled waste 
offends American people. It offends me. The spare parts horror stories 
convinced me that President Reagan's plan during the 1980's to pump up 
the defense budget was a colossal taxpayers' ripoff. The spare parts 
horror stories undermine the credibility of the Reagan defense buildup.
  They turned me into a reformer and drove me to watchdogging the 
defense, digging into fraud, waste, and abuse. I do not happen to sit 
on the Armed Services Committee. I am not on the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee. I have to admit, I never served in the military. So as a 
conservative Republican, it is not easy for me to tangle with the 
Pentagon. But common sense tells me this waste is not right, so I speak 
out, and you must keep digging.
  That is what brings me to the floor today. For unexplained and 
unknown reasons, my Republican colleagues and some Democrats seem bound 
and determined to pump up the defense budget once again without ever 
telling us when enough is enough.
  Their plan is to pump up the defense budget, and it does not seem to 
make sense. It defies understanding and defies reason. They want to 
start back up the slippery slope we did in the eighties. It is a 
prescription for more Pentagon waste and mismanagement. It is like a 
scheme to extort money from the taxpayers.
  The principal threat to our national security, as we knew it, is 
gone. The Soviet military threat has evaporated. My good friend from 
Arizona just spoke about the worries around the world that we have to 
consider, yes, but he mentioned the former Soviet Union. Russia could 
not even win in Chechnya. If that does not prove the cold war is over, 
what does?
  Once again, I want to remind my colleagues what happened 10 years 
ago. 

[[Page S 11397]]
Back on May 2, 1985, the Senate rejected President Reagan's plan to 
rapidly escalate defense spending, which justification was the cold 
war.
  President Reagan and his Secretary of Defense, Cap Weinberger, wanted 
to push the defense budget numbers from $255 billion in 1985 to $300 
billion in 1986, to $400 billion in 1987 to $500 billion in 1990. 
Remember, that was at the height of the cold war, the height of the 
Soviet military power. But regardless, a Republican Senate in 1985 and 
a Republican President put the brakes on. The Senate threw cold water 
on that plan to go up to double the defense budget in the 5-year plan. 
The Soviet threat was a main drive then behind those big budget 
numbers. It is gone now. So the defense numbers should be coming down, 
not going up.
  True, in real terms, the numbers have dropped slightly from the cold 
war average. Maybe by 10 percent. But that is just a drop in the bucket 
compared to the dramatic decrease in the threat. So why are my 
Republican colleagues trying to force the numbers to move in the wrong 
direction? As we learned back in the eighties, higher defense budgets 
in peacetime brings higher costs, brings more overhead and more waste, 
not more defense.
  So long as the defense leadership remains asleep at the switch, more 
money for more defense when there is no real threat, no real need is 
waste by definition. The Senate is in the process of blessing waste, 
the mindless and careless expenditure of money.
  The Senate is about to give the Pentagon bureaucrats huge sums of 
extra money to spend for no known purpose, for no known return and no 
known reason. The bureaucrats at the Pentagon are licking their chops 
at the prospects. The extra money will be used to buy weapons we do not 
need, like the Seawolf submarine, the F-22 fighter, the B-2 bombers and 
Comanche helicopters, all designed to defeat a threat that no longer 
exists.
  To make matters worse, these cold war relics are all underpriced and 
underfunded. They are underpriced and underfunded because their 
outrageous price tags cannot be justified in the absence of Soviet 
military threat. So what we are really doing is shoveling money at the 
contractors to pay for the hidden costs. All this extra money will not 
buy more weapons and equipment; it is going to buy more costs. It is 
that simple. History teaches us that the cost of the future years' 
defense program almost always exceeds the money in the budget. That is 
called, over program.
  DOD budget managers like to underestimate costs and overestimate the 
amount of money Congress appropriates. Their appetite is always much 
bigger than their budgets. This kind of mismanagement causes the plan's 
reality mismatch. The General Accounting Office's ongoing historical 
review of the 5-year defense procurement program shows that DOD 
consistently pays more but gets less. On an average, 130 percent is 
paid by the defense for 80 percent of the program, and that is what the 
data shows.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa who has always 
been one of the strongest watchdogs on defense spending. I appreciate 
his work with me on this amendment.
  At this time, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. 
Bingaman].
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the Kohl-Grassley 
amendment to cut $7 billion from this bill and bring it back to the 
level that was requested by the President. I opposed this bill when it 
was before the Armed Services Committee, in part because I did not 
support this additional funding. I did not feel that the committee had 
used the additional funds wisely, even if we decided to go ahead and 
add the funds.
  Taxpayers are demanding, as Senator Grassley just said, and others 
have said over many months in the Senate, that Congress reduce the 
Federal deficit. This has been the first priority in Washington since 
this Congress convened.
  Mr. President, the current bonanza of weapons system add-ons that is 
reflected in this bill cannot be sustained in future year budgets. The 
committee report admits that. Senator Kohl quoted the committee report 
in its entirety on this issue in his statement. Let me just repeat one 
sentence from that report. It says:

       The limited progress reflected in this bill cannot be 
     maintained unless future funding is increased.

  Sixty Senators earlier this year voted not to increase defense 
spending above the President's budget during the next 7 years. A 
majority of the Armed Services Committee voted for the increase, and 
the committee is now straightforwardly telling the Senate that they 
have constructed a bill inconsistent with the budget resolution's 
funding levels in future years. They will be back for more funding in 
order to sustain the add-ons for various weapons systems and 
procurement initiatives in this bill.
  Mr. President, when they come back for that additional money, I 
strongly doubt that the Congress is going to add funding in future 
years for defense. Instead, we are going to face a choice between force 
structure and new weapons systems. We cannot have both within the 
budget resolution's outyear defense totals. The committee agrees that 
we cannot have both.
  Adequately paying and housing and training 1.45 million active duty 
service members in future years will require greater expenditures for 
personnel, military construction and operations and maintenance and 
will further squeeze the amount we have to pay for these weapons 
systems that we are starting to buy in this bill.
  Defense experts from both parties have pointed to the train wreck in 
defense budgets that we are going to face before the end of this 
decade. Let me just point out we had a very good hearing in the 
committee where we talked about this excess force structure. Two 
experts there, Dan Goure of the Center for Strategic and International 
Studies, and Andrew Krepinevich of the Defense Budget Project, both 
made the point that we had to reduce the force structure by somewhere 
between 200,000 and 400,000 personnel.
  Richard Perle, who many people in this body know as a fairly strong 
supporter of our defense effort, has recently stated:

       We are spending too much on a force structure that is far 
     larger than we need.

  Mr. President, I am tempted to offer an amendment directing the 
Secretary of Defense to prepare for an additional drawdown in the size 
of our force structure in light of the priority that is being accorded 
to weapons systems modernization in this bill, and also the fact that 
it is very unlikely that future defense budgets will have enough in it 
for both.
  I am not sure how I would vote on such an amendment, but I would be 
very interested in seeing how those who put this bill together would 
come down on that fundamental choice.
  George Wilson, who has long studied the defense issues in this 
country, wrote a very good article in Navy Times on August 7. Let me 
read a little bit from that article.
  In talking about the present activities in the defense budget, he 
says:

       It is going to end badly. The budget balancers in Congress 
     and the executive branch, sooner or later, will conclude that 
     the hawks on the House National Security and Senate Arms 
     Services Committees and elsewhere in Congress have made 
     themselves irrelevant.
       No later than 1997, the budget balancers will slash 
     military programs right and left because, if for no other 
     reason, this will be the easiest place to cut, barring a big 
     war.
       Before the chaos from that budget train wreck sets in, 
     there is the even more worrisome prospect that congressional 
     hawks will succeed in their current efforts to put the 
     country into a U-turn back toward the Cold War.

  Mr. President, yesterday, we dealt with the ``U-turn back toward the 
cold war'' and, by two votes, decided to make that U-turn back toward 
the cold war. Today, Senator Kohl and Senator Grassley are giving us a 
chance to ensure that the 1997 train wreck is not made worse by our 
spending binge this year.
  I hope the Senate will support the position it took back in May that 
additional funding is not needed. I hope we will not see headlines in 
tomorrow's Washington Post like we saw today: ``House Votes Major Cuts 
in Domestic Programs'' and ``Senate Backs Missile Defense Network.''
  When we are slashing Medicare, slashing Head Start and education 
programs, slashing Medicaid for the poor 

[[Page S 11398]]
and disabled, slashing environmental protection programs, I, for one, 
cannot justify the extra $7 billion in this bill for defense.
  I urge the Senate to support the Grassley-Kohl amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his 
thoughtful and balanced comments. It is not unusual because that has 
been the hallmark of his service in the Senate for several years.
  How much time is left on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has 33 minutes, 12 
seconds.
  Mr. KOHL. I yield 13 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia 
[Senator Byrd].
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl. He has offered a challenging amendment. It is one 
which I fully support. It is a post-cold-war wake-up call, a reality 
check amendment.
  This amendment, cosponsored by Mr. Kohl and Mr. Grassley, challenges 
the Senate to make a choice between significant and substantial deficit 
reduction, or supporting, on the other hand, a bow wave of 
unsustainable and unnecessary bloated defense spending--unnecessary, 
bloated defense spending. This amendment would cut the $7 billion added 
to the President's request for the Department of Defense in fiscal year 
1996.
  How much is $7 billion? I was talking to John Glenn this morning. I 
said, ``You went around the world on February 20, 1963, in 89 
minutes.'' He said, ``Another way of saying that is, we were traveling 
at the rate of 5 miles per second.'' That makes it pretty clear. How 
much is $7 billion? How long would it take to count $7 billion at the 
rate of $1 every minute? It would take 14,000 years. Seven billion 
dollars is a lot of money!
  The Senate has voted resoundingly for the President's level of 
spending already in this session. By a 60-40 vote, this Senate endorsed 
this level of spending when we took up the Senate-reported budget 
resolution.
  I believe that the overall level of expenditures contained within the 
bill, although within the limit established by the conference report on 
the budget resolution--which I did not vote for--is higher than needed 
for an adequate defense posture. Additionally, the spending priorities 
established by the committee and numerous provisions of the bill put 
the country on a militaristic path  reminiscent  of  the  Reagan  era, 
despite the greatly reduced threat now faced by the United 
States.
  I was here during the Reagan era. I voted for the increased military 
spending that was recommended by Mr. Reagan. I voted for all of his 
exotic weapons. So I come with, I think, pretty good credentials, 
having been a supporter of the military.
  This spending level, though, looks in the wrong direction. It looks 
to the past, not to the present and to the future.
  This bill doubles the funding for national missile defense systems, 
the core of the Reagan ``Star Wars'' program. It adds funds to anti-
satellite programs. The Congress rejected programs for new, expensive 
ASAT (anti-satellite) systems during the cold war. It turns logic and 
spending on its head to support such questionable programs now that the 
Russian threat has collapsed. This just indulges in waste!
  This bill also adds funds to increase or expand the purchases of 
aircraft and ships that were not requested by the Department of 
Defense. These are in excess of what is necessary to support current 
military posture and strategy.
  One of the great unsaid truths of the recent defense budgets that are 
written by Congress is that they are, in large measure, jobs programs 
in disguise. Funds are provided to buy ships, to buy aircraft and 
missiles that support hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout the 
United States. These ships and planes and missiles may not be necessary 
to support a rational and reasonable defense strategy, but they keep 
production lines open and paychecks going home.
  These programs are supported by Republicans and Democrats alike. Like 
caged mice on an exercise wheel, we go around and around and around, 
buying weapons we do not need so that hard-working people are not laid 
off their jobs. No one would argue that these jobs are not important or 
not necessary to a strong economy. Yet, this Nation cannot seem to find 
a way off this wheel, so we go around and around and around. We 
continue to support big defense budgets and questionable weapons 
procurement plans. And in the process, we allow waste and abuse of the 
taxpayer's dollar. We also risk crafting a defense budget that neglects 
our real defense needs. We focused instead on keeping jobs in various 
States, not on creating the kind of defense strategy that the Nation 
really needs.
  This bill contains funds for ships that are not needed now, according 
to the Department of Defense. We could do much better to spend that 
money on becoming the strong, prosperous, and well-educated Nation that 
other nations seek to emulate and trade with, but not to go to war 
with.
  Yet, funds that would provide a transition--a way to move off the 
wheel of large defense budgets--were cut in this bill. Technology 
reinvestment program funds that were intended to move defense 
technologies into the civilian economy, where they could be maintained 
without big defense spending, have been cut. Programs to transition 
military personnel into education and law enforcement are under fire. 
Small programs that encourage military personnel to help their local 
communities and to help troubled youth have been cut. Funds to support 
arms control verification, to help both make the United States and its 
former enemies feel more confidence about peace, security, and 
stability in the future, have been cut, cut, cut.
  These beginning efforts were the first steps in moving the United 
States away from the role of the world's only remaining military 
superpower and into a nobler role as a world economic and education 
superpower. I am sorry to see us slip back, to move from away from 
Athens and towards Sparta, away from the education of the mind, to the 
molding and shaping of weapons.
  This amendment shares the deficit reduction pain that is already 
being felt in the shrinking accounts for energy, agriculture, 
education, and law enforcement programs--in all of the programs funded 
in the domestic discretionary accounts that directly and daily benefit 
every American citizen. Boy and girl, man and woman, black and white, 
all over this country.
  This disparity between defense and nondefense spending over the next 
7 years is eye opening. Now, the people out there beyond the beltway 
hear about it, they hear about these cuts that are being made in 
domestic programs. They read about the cuts that are being made in 
domestic programs. On television they see reports of the cuts that are 
being made. But they have not yet felt the cuts. Wait until they feel 
the pain. It is coming. It is coming.
  Mr. President, I think of Croesus, the King of Lydia, who was 
defeated by Cyrus at the battle of Thymbra, in the year 546 B.C. This 
was Cyrus II, Cyrus the Great. In 559 B.C., he became king of Ashan. He 
ruled all of Persia from 550 to 529 B.C.
  Cyrus desired to add the kingdoms that were ruled by the Sythians, in 
southern Russia, to his vast territory. So he launched a great invasion 
against the Massagatae, whose ruler was a queen named Tomyris. Before 
crossing into the territory of the Sythians, he called his generals and 
advisors about him and asked their advice. He had kept Croesus on at 
his court as an advisor, this great king who had been one of the 
richest kings in history. Cyrus asked Croesus for his advise, and 
Croesus said this: ``There is a wheel on which the affairs of men 
revolve, and its movement forbids the same man to be always 
fortunate.''
  Mr. President, that same wheel turns for us. That wheel is going to 
turn in this country, and when the people begin to feel these cuts and 
see the nation's infrastructure falling apart, the bridges falling 
down, the railroads deteriorating, and the highways filling with 
potholes, when the people begin to feel the cuts in health and 
education, the worm is going to turn. Mark my word, the wheel will 
turn!
  The Department of Defense should not be growing fat on $70 billion in 
the unneeded calories of defense pork--beginning with $7 billion this 
year-- while education, law enforcement, transportation, and all other 
domestic 

[[Page S 11399]]
discretionary accounts are starved by $183 billion. I hope that my 
colleagues will stand up to the challenge posed by the distinguished 
Senator from Wisconsin, and vote to cut the fat from this bill in favor 
of cutting the deficit.
  Piling another $7 billion on top of the defense budget, for an array 
of non-essential, nice-to-have new weapons makes a mockery of our 
rhetoric to balance the budget.
  While raising defense spending, we are cutting nondefense 
discretionary to the bone--to the bone. I know. I meet in the 
appropriations subcommittee hearings, and in the subcommittees as they 
mark up the bills, and I sit in the full Committee on Appropriations 
with Senator Hatfield, and you should hear the groans there among the 
Members. As Senator Hatfield said today in markup, ``Just wait. If you 
think it is bad now, wait until 1997.''
  So just wait, Senators. You are going to hear from the people back 
home. The worm is going to turn. And it is going to bite you! When it 
bites, you will feel the pain.
  If Senators really mean it on deficit reduction, the most compelling 
evidence of how serious they are will be an aye vote on the Kohl 
amendment. Start here. Start now.
  We hear that advertisement on TV, ``Do it here; do it now.'' Well, 
Senators, now is the time. Do it here; do it now!
  I take a back seat to no one when it comes to adequately preparing 
for our national defense. That is our first priority in this country. 
It ought to be.
  As I have said, I voted for all the weapons during the Reagan era. 
You name them, I voted for them. That time has passed. It has come and 
gone.
  What we are seeing here is the coming of a shadow--a shadow--of the 
nondefense discretionary budget, in order to pay for more military 
weaponry that we do not need, and in order to pay for a $250 billion 
tax cut that is utter folly! Folly!
  Yes, the worm will turn. I respect Senators who do not agree with me; 
I respect their viewpoint. But the American people are going to wake up 
one morning and find that it ain't just like they have said it would 
be. It is going to be different. When that worm turns, Senators are 
going to see a turning of the viewpoint in this Senate.
  Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin and 
the distinguished Senator from Iowa for their leadership. I hope that 
the Senate will support their amendment. I intend to vote for it, and I 
hope the amendment will prevail.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table showing budget 
cuts over the 7 years of the budget resolution be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                      BUDGET RESOLUTION VERSUS 1995 FREEZE                                      
                                     [Budget authority; dollars in billions]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         7-year 
                             1996       1997       1998       1999       2000       2001       2002      total  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget resolution:                                                                                              
    050-Military........       $265       $268       $270       $272       $275       $278       $281     $1,909
    Nondefense                                                                                                  
     discretionary......        224        219        227        216        221        219        218      1,544
                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...........        489        487        496        489        496        497        499      3,453
Assume 1995 BA freeze:                                                                                          
    050-Military........        263        263        263        263        263        263        263      1,839
    Nondefense                                                                                                  
     discretionary......        247        247        247        247        247        247        247      1,726
                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...........        509        509        509        509        509        509        509      3,566
Difference (resolution                                                                                          
 less 1995 BA freeze):                                                                                          
    050-Military........          3          5          7         10         12         15         18         70
    Nondefense                                                                                                  
     discretionary......        -23        -27        -20        -30        -26        -28        -29       -183
                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...........        -20        -22        -13        -21        -14        -13        -11       -113
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his powerful 
statement, which lends tremendous credibility and impetus to this 
amendment. I appreciate his coming to the floor and appreciate his 
speaking in its behalf.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has 15 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the 
Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me compliment the Senators from 
Wisconsin and Iowa and others who have spoken so eloquently in support 
of this amendment.
  If we were to skip ahead 100 years from today, we would not be able 
to tell very much about what we were about except historians could look 
back at this group of Americans and evaluate what we felt was important 
and our values, by what we decided to spend our resources on. They 
could, in fact, look at the Federal budget and decide what we thought 
was important for the future of this country.
  It is sad to say that the priorities these days are priorities not to 
invest in the human potential of the American people that will produce 
big rewards and big dividends in the years ahead. I refer to priorities 
like educating our children, like helping people up and out of poverty, 
like providing the kind of health care that senior citizens need, and 
other things. Instead, as we find all too often, it is building things 
we do not need with money we do not have. Never is that more evident 
than in this bill.
  I support a strong defense. I think it is important to our country's 
security. But I am disturbed when I see legislation brought to this 
floor in which $7 billion is added on and $4.7 billion just written in 
for new procurement--most of it, I am sure, with inadequate hearings or 
virtually no discussion. Instead, somebody just writes it in and says, 
``We know you are not asking us to buy this, Mr. or Mrs. Pentagon, but 
we insist we do.''
  Take page 125 of the report, $60 million is written in here, $60 
million for blimps--blimps. It does not say blimps. It talks about 
lighter-than-air air ships. These folks are talking about writing in 
$60 million for the Hindenburg to defend against cruise missiles, I 
guess. Blimps.
  I just got stuck on the subway, a little subway that runs 2 blocks 
between the Capitol and the Senate office building. I sat in that 
subway because the subway would not go anymore, the doors would not 
open. That is high tech. It is a brand new subway, as a matter of fact.
  The weapons program acquisition in this bill, includes $4.7 billion 
of add-ons. I could go down the whole list of high-tech weapons. We 
have a subway that does not work. All these things, I guess, are going 
to work even without full hearings. We are going to write them in and 
say, ``We are going to build them, just have confidence.'' Among the 
weapons is a blimp.
  I do not know, maybe if we hear Saddam Hussein has started a cavalry, 
then perhaps we would go out and start buying horses. I just do not 
understand what people are thinking about. I do not have the foggiest 
notion what they are thinking about. They say we should add $7 billion 
extra for defense which the Secretary of Defense says is unneeded?
  And then every single day in every way they come to this floor and 
say, ``We cannot afford to give a poor kid an entitlement to a hot 
lunch in the middle of the day at school. We just do not have the 
money. We can afford blimps. We cannot afford medical care for the 
elderly. We are sorry. Tighten your belt, Grandma and Grandpa. We 
apologize. We do not have the money.'' But we can buy blimps, I guess.
  We say to the middle-income families, ``We are sorry we are going to 
make it more expensive to send your kids to school because we just 
cannot afford it.'' But we can go resurrect Star Wars. Star Schools are 
not important. Star Wars is important. 

[[Page S 11400]]

  I do not have the foggiest notion what is going through the heads of 
people who think that this represents America's priorities. Kids are 
our future. Investment in human potential is our future.
  Yes, defend our country. But how on earth can you say to the 
Secretary of Defense, when he says, ``Here is what is necessary to 
defend our country,'' you do not know? And therefore you say instead, 
``By the way, take this $7 billion. We do not care whether you want it 
or not. It is jobs in our States. It represents weapons programs we 
insist you build. It is ships and submarines, it is fighter planes that 
you say you do not need, you do not want, but we insist you build 
them.''
  What on earth are people thinking of? Someone once said that 100 
years from now it will not matter much how big your house was or how 
much income you made. But the world might be a different place because 
you were important in the life of a child.
  I would like to hope that one of these days we get our priorities 
sufficiently straightened out so we can be important in the lives of 
children in this country. I hope we can stop saying to children and 
others, ``We cannot afford the things you need,'' but then come to the 
floor with a bill full of blimps, Star Wars and other nonsense, and 
shove down the throat of the Pentagon $7 billion they did not ask for 
to build things we do not need. This in a country where we are up to 
our neck in debt.
  This sort of thing has to stop. This is the place to stop it. Right 
here, right now, today, with this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KOHL. I thank Senator Dorgan. It was an eloquent statement he 
made. As usual, he is right on target.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a list of how those Senators voted in May when we fixed defense 
spending at $257 billion.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       Sixty senators who voted to maintain defense spending at 
     $257.7 billion on May 23, 1995.

                               NAYS (60)

       Democrats (43 or 93%):
       Akaka, Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Boxer, Bradley, Breaux, 
     Bryan, Bumpers, Byrd, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Exon, 
     Feingold, Feinstein, Ford, Glenn, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, 
     Inouye, Johnston, Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, 
     Leahy, Levin, Mikulski, Moseley-Braun, Moynihan, Murray, 
     Pell, Pryor, Reid, Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Simon, and 
     Wellstone.
       Republicans (17 or 31%):
       Bond, Brown, D'Amato, DeWine, Domenici, Gorton, Grassley, 
     Gregg, Hatfield, Jeffords, Kassebaum, Lugar, Packwood, 
     Pressler, Roth, Simpson, and Specter.
  Mr. KOHL. I will yield some time to the other side if they wish to 
speak. How much time do we have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has 9 minutes 
remaining. The Senator from South Carolina has 7 minutes and 56 
seconds.
  Mr. KOHL. Would the Senator like to use a few minutes on his side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the able Senator 
from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I was not intending to come down and 
speak on this, but after listening to the last couple of speeches, I 
decided I had to speak up and comment.
  I heard the Senator from North Dakota, back in my office, say that 
what we are doing here is neglecting to invest in human potential. If 
there is anything we are doing here with the defense bill--and by 
protecting our country--we are, in fact, doing just that. Look at all 
of the wars we fought and the people who have died and suffered and the 
country that has suffered so much through our wars. What human 
potential has been lost on the battlefield? You talk about human 
potential, look at the young men and women who have died. Look at that 
potential. That is gone. Educated, hard-working, bright people, 
trained, who gave up their lives because, in many cases, we were not 
ready. We did not invest in our armed services to do the fundamental 
mission that this Government was created for, to protect and defend 
this country.
  Do not talk to me about wasting human potential. This prevents the 
waste of human potential more than any single thing we can do. To 
suggest otherwise, that through some feel-good Government program, if 
we push out more money to people to invest in their potential it is 
going to change the world, somehow refresh America--you know, that some 
new Government social welfare program is going to save money, which is 
what the other side would have you believe we should invest in, is not 
the answer.
  The answer is, by creating peace and prosperity you will loose the 
human spirit and potential of every American and give them the 
opportunity, in a peaceful world, to reach their dreams. If you want 
human potential invested in, then you give a peaceful environment where 
people do not have to worry about going to war but worry about going to 
work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KOHL. I would like to make a comment or observe that when Senator 
Byrd talked about $7 billion, he talked about what an enormous sum of 
money that is. I do not know if he said it or not, but it is true that 
here in Washington we spend $7 billion as if, sometimes, it were $7,000 
or $700. That is because we are used to dealing with such large sums of 
money, so it is not acceptable but it is understandable. But it is not 
acceptable.
  Mr. President, $7 billion--I come from the city of Milwaukee, State 
of Wisconsin, but I live in the city of Milwaukee. Milwaukee is a 
middle-size city in our country which has a host of problems which are 
characteristic of the problems in our country today: crime problems, 
drug problems, problems with our educational systems, problems with our 
infrastructure, problems with our inability to train people for jobs 
that are availables. All the problems that exist in our society--to the 
degree we are not satisfied with the conditions of life in America--
exist in Milwaukee.
  Mr. President, for $1 billion--not $7 billion--for $1 billion, which 
is an imaginative sum for the city I come from, but for $1 billion we 
could change the face of Milwaukee for 50 years in all the areas I just 
discussed: The areas of crime, drugs, welfare, job training, education, 
infrastructure, with just $1 billion out of the $7 billion that we are 
going to be spending on defense unnecessarily in this next year if we 
do not defeat that proposal. And $264 billion is on the table. For $1 
billion we could change the face of Milwaukee for the next 50 years.
  So we are talking about a lot of money that could be used to improve 
the quality of life throughout our country without in any way taking 
away from the level of necessary defense which all of us support.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield for a minute, Mr. President, I 
noted the Senator from Pennsylvania referred to my discussion.
  I would observe for the benefit of the Senator from Pennsylvania that 
the list of $4.7 billion in unrequested add-ons for weapons procurement 
in this bill includes the following: $650 million for 2 destroyers, 
$564 million for Navy fighters, $216 million for Navy EA-6 aircraft, 
$125 million for helicopters, and for the Senator's home State, a $33.9 
million procurement add-on for Army improved recovery vehicles.
  It occurs to me that, at least with procurement, especially of 
weapons programs, it hardly protects this country's security to buy 
something that the Secretary of Defense has indicated he does not need. 
With respect to feel-good programs, I suspect that the add-ons in this 
defense bill might make some feel good. But, frankly, when we are 
purchasing what the Secretary of Defense is not asking for, it does not 
in my judgment make the taxpayers feel good.
  We can have a longer debate about what improves or what does not 
improve this country's social programs or defense programs. I, too, 
believe we ought to have a strong defense. The point I was simply 
making is that purchasing what the Defense Department indicates it does 
not need for America's military hardly improves this country's 
security. But it certainly does add to the Federal budget deficit. We 

[[Page S 11401]]
are up to our neck in debt, and we have a budget deficit problem. And 
it seems to me that all of us ought to be concerned about that when we 
talk about what we purchase from whom and where and when.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from North Dakota.
  I would like to yield 4 minutes to the fine Senator from Colorado, 
Senator Brown.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment for one very 
simple straightforward reason.
  Mr. THURMOND. I yield him 1 minute to express himself.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. President, as I read the numbers from our budget, rather than 
reduce the deficit for next year, we are in danger of increasing it. 
Hopefully that is not the case. Hopefully my estimate is wrong. But it 
is quite clear that rather than showing significant deficit reduction 
next year that the overall budget stands perilously close to showing an 
increase. I think that is a more important factor that Members ought to 
weigh because part of the dropping interest rates in the international 
market and part of the confidence that is so important in retaining the 
value of the dollar and part of the momentum of our moving forward is 
based on the belief that Congress is addressing this situation and it 
is addressing the problem.
  I have great praise for the distinguished chairman of the committee 
and the distinguished ranking member who have worked hard to bring this 
bill to the floor, and to make sure the money is spent wisely.
  Do we all agree with everything that has been done? Of course not. 
But the overall important thing is I think for us to ask this question: 
Will the deficit drop next year? Will the American people be convinced 
we are doing our part to bring it into line? And do we have at last 
credibility?
  Mr. President, I am convinced that our credibility and our ability to 
control the deficit depends on us passing this amendment.
  Mr. President, I know time is tight. There are other Members who wish 
to speak.
  I yield whatever time remains.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Colorado for coming down to speak 
in behalf of this amendment. His words are appreciated.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I was under the impression the 
distinguished Senator from Colorado was on our side. I ask unanimous 
consent that what he said be charged to the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague from 
Wisconsin, and thank him for offering this amendment today. He has been 
a consistent vote for deficit reduction, and I compliment him for his 
leadership on this issue today.
  If any one amendment can highlight the absolute absurdity of the 
defense budget represented in this bill, this is it.
  Just 3 months ago, during consideration of the budget resolution in 
this Chamber, 60 of our colleagues--Democrats and Republicans 
together--voted against an amendment to increase spending above the 
President's request for $257 billion. The vote spoke to the 
overwhelming sentiment in this body that defense spending should not be 
increased at precisely the time several arms control treaties are 
coming into force, and we are drastically cutting valued and needed 
domestic programs.
  Nevertheless, the conference committee on the budget increased the 
allocation for defense spending by $7 billion. Does that mean that we 
are bound to spend the full $264.7 billion? Absolutely not. In fact, if 
we are to be consistent with what we voted in May, and if we are going 
to be consistent with all the rhetoric about deficit reduction, we 
should be authorizing, at most, the $257 billion we accepted just 3 
months ago.
  This amendment forces us to be faithful to the principles we voted 
for earlier in the name of fiscal restraint. It would indeed be 
hypocritical to have supported that ceiling before, but now oppose the 
Kohl amendment.
  This $7 billion increase in this bill is especially distressing given 
where this money seems to be going. In December 1994, the President 
announced that he would propose an additional $25 billion for the 
defense budget over the next 5 years to cover the so-called readiness 
gap.
  Indeed, the committee report expresses deep concern for the shortfall 
readiness inherent in the administration's request, but then itself 
doesn't fund it. In effect, it continues the same irresponsible 
budgeting pattern it criticizes the administration for. So, we see that 
the excess budget isn't helping what some were crying wolf about last 
year.
  Instead, it seems to be going largely to homestate projects. This 
bill authorizes over $5 billion in unrequested weapons programs. 
According to an analysis by Council for A Livable World, a staggering 
81 percent--or $4.1 billion--of that $5 billion plus goes to States 
whose Members serve on either the Subcommittee on Defense 
Appropriations or the Armed Services Committee.
  For instance, the Pentagon's request for F-18 jets was fully doubled 
by the committee, as was the request for Aegis destroyers. In one case, 
the committee authorized a $1.3 billion ship for no strategic reason 
other than that it serves the hometown needs of its local 
representatives.
  These add-ons, in most cases, amount to robbery of the Federal 
Treasury. While I hardly endorse a philosophy that Congress should 
simply rubber-stamp the Pentagon's budget request, I find it hard to 
fathom that the Pentagon underestimated its requirements by a whopping 
$5 billion. In my opinion, it didn't. Instead, the committee plussed up 
the budget in order to please Senators who wanted to deliver money--any 
money--to their hometowns.
  If we are going to balance the Federal budget, Mr. President, we are 
all going to have to sacrifice. That is what we all committed ourselves 
to during the balanced budget amendment debate. But when it comes to 
actually resisting the excesses, I see little self-restraint.
  That is how we get a defense bill that is $7 billion above the level 
we approved 3 months ago. With the Kohl amendment we have the 
opportunity to correct that problem, and recommit ourselves to deficit 
reduction.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Kohl amendment.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Our time is tight here. I yield 2 minutes to the 
Senator.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. President, one of the myths that we are dealing with here in the 
debate on this defense bill is the fact that we are asking for more 
than what the Pentagon requested. That is technically true. The $7 
billion is over and above the budget request. But member after member 
of the Joint Chiefs and others who testified before our committee 
indicated that they are complying with the number that was given to 
them by the administration.
  The Defense Department and the spokesmen for the Defense Department 
have said time after time after time that there is more they need to 
meet the requirements for defense and to meet the strategy but they are 
constrained by budget numbers. Therefore, they are good soldiers, 
salute, and provide us with a budget that comes within the top line of 
the administration's budget level. But there has been testimony from 
everyone from the Joint Chiefs of Staff on down that we are on the 
razor's edge of readiness, that we are in need of research and 
development into new technologies, that our modernization program is in 
deep jeopardy, that we will not have the equipment necessary to meet 
the threats of the next century.
  General Shalikashvili has been quoted as saying so, the head of the 
Marine Corps has been quoted as saying so, and the Secretary of Defense 
has intimated as such, and on and on it goes.
  So this mantra that we are hearing from the other side that this is 
some kind of a wasted expenditure that the Department of Defense has 
not requested this, and does not need this, simply belies the truth, 
belies the facts 

[[Page S 11402]]
of what is necessary to provide an adequate defense for this country 
and what the Department of Defense really needs. They are just simply 
taking orders from the boss upstairs.
  Mr. President, I gave a long dissertation on this very subject 
earlier. I will just simply say ditto to what I said earlier in the 
interest of time, and yield back the time.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as may be 
required.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered today by 
the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin.
  Early today you heard my statement relating to defense spending 
levels. I have continually stated the need to ensure our national 
security and that defense was underfunded. The budget resolution 
recommends defense levels lower than I believe are necessary to 
maintain the readiness of our forces. The Department of Defense has 
done more than its share in the budget reduction efforts.
  The proposed amendment reduces defense spending below the levels 
necessary to maintain our forces. Defense spending as a percentage of 
GDP is at 1940 levels. Procurement accounts have been reduced 71 
percent since 1985. Continually, the Joint Chiefs have testified that 
we are on the brink of returning to the readiness levels of the 1970's 
and early 1980's.
  Mr. President, our forces continue to have to deal with higher 
operating levels, while force structure continues to be reduced.
  The Armed Services Committee worked very hard this year, within the 
defense levels of the budget resolution, to reverse these negative 
trends.
  Mr. President, I just want to say that I was here when President 
Reagan was President. President Carter had let our defenses go down. He 
was a good man, but that is what happened. When President Reagan came 
in, he asked the Congress to increase defense. He said we needed it to 
protect this country. Congress responded favorably and increased 
defense.
  Then the Soviets felt they had to increase theirs to compete with us, 
and in doing so, though, they could not increase their defense and also 
take care of the local economy, and that is the reason the Soviet Union 
went down the drain. It was President Reagan's action to increase our 
defense which the Soviets could not meet, and the Soviet Union went 
down the drain.
  We must keep a strong defense. We are living in a dangerous age. We 
should not think about cutting this $7 billion. We need it. Our 
soldiers need this. They need better quarters. They need more training. 
We need more ships and more planes, and we need more tanks. How are we 
going to get those? How are we going to defend the American people?
  After all, the primary purpose of Government is to protect its 
citizens. How can we better protect our citizens and keep a strong 
defense? Under our Constitution, our people have more freedom, more 
justice, more opportunity and more hope than any people in all of 
history. How are we going to keep that if we go cutting defense down 
below what it ought to be?
  I say to the people who do not favor, who do not understand defense, 
you better study. You better study history. Why did we lose people in 
World War I, World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war? Simply 
because we were not prepared. If we had been prepared, we would not 
have lost so many thousands of people. We must keep this country 
prepared.
  I say to those in the Senate here today, the most important thing we 
can do is to keep this country prepared.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, [Mr. 
Lautenberg].
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. President, just very briefly, because we are out of time, but the 
time that remains is the time during which we ought to think very 
carefully about what we are doing.
  When most people talk about budget cuts, they talk about the cuts 
contained in programs, frankly, that are going to hurt middle- and 
lower-income Americans, cuts in taxes which will benefit the richest 
among us. But while most areas of spending have been cut, one has been 
increased, and that is, of course, the defense bill, the defense bill 
designed to be $7 billion over that which was originally requested, $25 
billion more over the period of time, $25 billion that could go to fix 
Medicare or fund education or protect the environment or build needed 
housing--$25 billion, a lot of money.
  But apparently it was not enough. The House version of the budget 
resolution boosted defense spending by another $7 billion in fiscal 
1996, and this was such an overreaching case that even the Republicans 
in the Senate repudiated it when we considered our budget resolution. 
The Senate rejected an amendment that raised defense spending to the 
House level, and yet during the conference the House number survived--
no compromise by splitting the difference, just a total victory for the 
House position.
  The amendment by Senators Kohl and Grassley would take us back to a 
sensible level.
  Mr. President, I hope that we will do that and reduce this bill by $7 
billion. The one thing that we do know is that if we are going to build 
strength, strength that survives, strength that endures, you have to 
build it internally. No matter how much you build externally, you will 
never be a safe, strong country unless you invest in the society 
domestically.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank Senator Lautenberg for his outstanding comments. We 
appreciate them very much.
  I would like to yield 1 minute to a senior member of the Armed 
Services Committee, the Senator from Nebraska, [Mr. Exon].
  Mr. EXON. I thank my colleague from Wisconsin. I will be supporting 
the amendment that he has offered.
  This is the same debate as with the amendment that was offered by 
myself and my colleague, Senator Grassley, last year on a very similar 
matter. There has been a lot of heated rhetoric today. As a hawk, I 
stand here and tell you that this Defense authorization bill is a fat 
turkey. But we have not really talked about the real fat. The $7 
billion is a drop in the bucket. If you will look at what is 
inaugurated in this bill, it is billions if not trillions in the 
future. I am fearful that unless the people who are supporting this 
agree to raise taxes, of all things, you are going do see a decline in 
the quality of people who serve in the Armed Forces.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. EXON. It is going to defense contractors and not where it 
belongs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Nebraska. We appreciate very 
deeply his comments.
  Before I speak, does the Senator from Iowa wish to wrap up for a 
minute?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. We have heard, Mr. President, about the needs being so 
great and that people in the Pentagon, regardless of what the President 
says is our level of expenditure, regardless of what the Commander in 
Chief says should be our level of expenditure, say we can always use 
more. It reminds me of the days in the State legislature; the president 
of the university would come in and say the needs are so great----
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. And from that day I never heard anybody say when enough 
is enough.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. And I never heard anybody say in this debate when 
enough is enough. We have reached the point where we have to start 
putting priorities first.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. And our priorities ought to be where we get to a 
balanced budget, meet the basic defense needs of our country and 
balance the budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if the 
Senator----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  
[[Page S 11403]]

  Mr. COATS. Has the Senator from Wisconsin asked unanimous consent for 
an additional minute above the time that was allocated?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. COATS. And is it not correct the Senator has already had 1 hour 
15 minutes and this side has had 15 minutes? Is that the correct 
allocation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. THURMOND. I certainly want to accommodate anybody I can, but we 
gave the opposition 1\1/2\ hours. We only took 15 minutes. I object to 
any further extension of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The question is now on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] and 
the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 364 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bumpers
     Pryor
     Stevens
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 2119) was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we are going to get time agreements on three 
amendments here so that some of our colleagues who have obligations off 
the Hill for the next hour and a half can do that and come back and 
have the votes stacked at that time.
  First, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment of the Senator from 
Iowa, [Mr. Harkin], concerning burden sharing be considered under the 
following time limits: 35 minutes; 25 minutes to Senator Harkin and 10 
minutes to Senator Thurmond; and further, that no second-degree 
amendments be in order prior to a motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. The Levin amendment on the Guard-Reserve package I ask 
unanimous consent be considered under the following time limitation: 30 
minutes; 20 minutes to the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, and 10 
minutes to Senator Thurmond; and that no second-degree amendment be in 
order prior to a motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. And Senator Glenn from Ohio wanted an hour, so I ask 
unanimous consent the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, Senator 
Glenn, concerning service academies be considered under the following 
time limitation: 40 minutes, divided between Senator Glenn, who has 30 
minutes, and then Senator Thurmond has 10 minutes; and no second-degree 
amendments be in order prior to a motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. That would mean 1 hour 45 minutes, if all time is used. 
Most of it is apparently used around here. Members can plan their 
return if they are leaving.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I just want to say that we plan to 
finish this bill tonight. We have a lot of amendments yet, and as short 
a time as we can take on each, we will get through quickly. We do plan 
to finish this bill tonight.


                           Amendment No. 2121

(Purpose: To provide for reduction of U.S. military forces in Europe in 
    relationship to any deficiency in allied defense burdensharing)

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] for himself, Mr. 
     Abraham, and Ms. Snowe, proposes an amendment numbered 2121.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 371, after line 21, insert the following:

     SEC. 1062. REDUCTION OF UNITED STATES MILITARY FORCES IN 
                   EUROPE.

       (a) End Strength Reductions for Military Personnel in 
     Europe.--Notwithstanding section 1002(c)(1) of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act, 1985 (22 U.S.C. 1928 note), but 
     subject to subsection (d), for each of fiscal years 1997 and 
     1998, the Secretary of Defense shall reduce the end strength 
     level of members of the Armed Forces of the United States 
     assigned to permanent duty ashore in European member nations 
     of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 
     accordance with subsection (b).
       (b) Reduction Formula.--
       (1) Application of formula.--For each percentage point by 
     which, as of the end of a fiscal year, the allied 
     contribution level determined under paragraph (2) is less 
     than the allied contribution goal specified in subsection 
     (c), the Secretary of Defense shall reduce the end strength 
     level of members of the Armed Forces of the United States 
     assigned to permanent duty ashore in European member nations 
     of NATO by 1,000 for the next fiscal year. The reduction 
     shall be made from the end strength level in effect, pursuant 
     to section 1002(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act, 1985 (22 U.S.C. 1928 note), and subsection (a) of this 
     section (if applicable), for the fiscal year in which the 
     allied contribution level is less than the goal specified in 
     subsection (c).
       (2) Determination of allied contribution level.--To 
     determine the allied contribution level with respect to a 
     fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense shall calculate the 
     aggregate amount of the incremental costs to the United 
     States of permanently stationing United States forces ashore 
     in European member nations of NATO, and the foreign labor 
     compensation costs of United States military installations in 
     European member nations of NATO, that are assumed during that 
     fiscal year by such nations, except that the Secretary may 
     consider only those cash and in-kind contributions by such 
     nations that replace expenditures that would otherwise be 
     made by the Secretary using funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available in defense appropriations Acts.
       (c) Annual Allied Contribution Goals.--
       (1) Goals.--In continuing efforts to enter into revised 
     host-nation agreements as described in the provisions of law 
     specified in paragraph (2), the President is urged to seek to 
     have European member nations of NATO assume an increased 
     share of the incremental costs to the United States of 
     permanently stationing United States forces 

[[Page S 11404]]
     ashore in European member nations of NATO and the foreign labor 
     compensation costs of United States military installations in 
     those nations in accordance with the following timetable:
       (A) By September 30, 1996, 37.5 percent of such costs 
     should be assumed by those nations.
       (B) By September 30, 1997, 75.0 percent of such costs 
     should be assumed by those nations.
       (2) Specified laws.--The provisions of law referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are--
       (A) section 1301(e) of National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2545);
       (B) section 1401(c) of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160; 107 Stat. 
     1824); and
       (C) section 1304 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2890),
       (d) Exceptions.--
       (1) Minimum end strength authority.--Notwithstanding 
     reductions required pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary 
     of Defense may maintain an end strength of at least 25,000 
     members of the Armed Forces of the United States assigned to 
     permanent duty ashore in European member nations of NATO.
       (2) Waiver authority.--The President may waive operation of 
     this section if the President declares an emergency. The 
     President shall immediately inform Congress of any such 
     waiver and the reasons for the waiver.
       (e) Allocation of Force Reductions.--To the extent that 
     there is a reduction in end strength level for any of the 
     Armed Forces in European member nations of NATO in a fiscal 
     year pursuant to subsection (a), the reduction shall be used 
     to make a corresponding increase in the end strength levels 
     of members of each of the Armed Forces of the United States 
     assigned to permanent duty ashore in the United States or in 
     other nations (other than European member nations of NATO). 
     The Secretary of Defense shall allocate the increases in end 
     strength levels under this section.
       (f) Incremental Costs Defined.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``incremental costs'', with respect to 
     permanent stationing ashore of United States forces in 
     foreign nations, has the meaning given such term in section 
     1313(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2895).

  Mr. HARKIN. Might I inquire as to the time? I understand we have 25 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this bipartisan amendment is about 
burdensharing, but more importantly, it is about fairness. It calls on 
our allies in Europe to share more of the financial burden of their own 
defense.
  This year, American taxpayers are being asked to pay $6.1 billion for 
nonpersonnel costs associated with keeping our troops in Europe. At a 
time when we face large budget deficits, when we are considering large 
reductions in investments in our own people's education, health, 
housing, transportation, everything else, we clearly can no longer 
afford to bear such a large part of the costs of our well-to-do allies' 
defense.
  Therefore, our amendment would require that our NATO allies pay for 
75 percent of the incremental costs. That is, the extra cost of our 
basing our forces in Europe, and 75 percent of the cost of foreign 
employees of U.S. forces based in Europe.
  Mr. President, this is a very moderate amendment, a bipartisan 
compromise. We are not demanding that they pay 100 percent of the 
costs. We are not even asking them to bear 75 percent of all of the 
costs as the other body did by a wide margin last month.
  As I said, we are not demanding they pay 100 percent of the cost, or 
even 75 percent of all of the cost. That is what the other body did 
last month. In an honest bipartisan effort to begin to make the 
distribution of costs fairer, our amendment requires a two step 
increase to 75 percent in payments by our allies of the added cost to 
U.S. taxpayers of keeping our troops overseas and paying foreign 
nationals who work on our bases overseas.
  Under this amendment, our allies' share of these costs would rise to 
37.5 percent in 1997, 75 percent in 1998 and thereafter. Today, they 
pay much less.
  If our allies then do not cover the incremental costs, we would 
withdraw 1,000 of our troops for every percentage point less than their 
required share, but leaving a minimum of 25,000 troops in Europe.
  Mr. President, payments by European nations would come to about $6 
billion over the 4-year period from 1997 to the year 2000. If they met 
none of their increased requirements and we had to bring our forces 
home under this amendment, the American taxpayers would still save 
$1.45 billion over the same 4 years because it costs less to base them 
in the United States.
  This is truly a modest amendment. As I said before, the House DOD 
authorization bill includes a much broader provision. That passed by 
117 votes in the House, 273-156.
  Now, the House version requires they pay 75 percent of the entire 
nonsalary costs of our troops. The House version also called for a 
reduction of U.S. forces equal to half of those soldiers who might 
return to the United States because of a failure of the Europeans to 
pay a fair share of the costs.
  Mr. President, if this was a pure business deal and the United States 
was a police agency providing security for a client, then we would be 
clearly justified in charging our allies for all of the security 
operation and not just 75 percent of the incremental cost.
  Mr. President, we are all justifiably proud of the role we played in 
Europe, both during World War II and after World War II.
 The Marshall plan stands as a monument to American generosity and the 
concern for our fellow citizens around the world.

  Now our European allies are doing much better--their standard of 
living is equal to ours, in many cases better than ours. But we have 
continued to ask the American taxpayer to bear a disproportionately 
large part of the cost of Europe's defense. Europeans, frankly, and 
simply, are not paying their fair share.
  We Senators have different priorities but we agree on two things. We 
agree we must move toward a balanced budget, and we know it is going to 
be a painful process with many programs being cut.
  I know we will hear arguments about our need to maintain our forces 
in Europe. Those same arguments were made when we put strong 
requirements on Japan. Japan is now paying close to a fair share 
because we took a strong position. Japan can afford it. So can the 
Europeans.
  Right now, in cash payments for United States forces, Germany paid a 
mere $61 million in 1995. Mr. President, $44 million of that was to pay 
for the labor costs of their own nationals working on our bases.
  They are really not paying much. The United Kingdom, Italy--the 
United Kingdom paid $40 million, Italy only paid $6 million 
respectively, and again most of that went for the employment of their 
own people on our bases.
  Let us compare that to what we did with Japan. After it became clear 
that our troops might be withdrawn from Japan, Japan came across. Right 
now, they are paying $918 million a year cash for the cost of their 
people employed on our bases, and paying over $3 billion a year in 
other costs.
  If we did not make them do it they would not do it, of course not.
  Those ongoing payments is money the Armed Services Committee does not 
have to authorize. It is money the Defense Subcommittee, on which I 
serve, does not have to appropriate. And, most important, it is money 
the American taxpayers do not have to come up with.
  As we move to reduce our expenditures and balance our budget, as we 
ask college students to take cuts, our elderly, our children, is it not 
time we ask our European friends to pay a little bit more for the 
burden of their own defense?
  It is a very modest amendment, a very modest one. It will make it a 
little bit fairer.
  Again, I summarize, Mr. President. Here is what this amendment does. 
If it costs $1 to station a troop in the United States and it cost 
$1.20 to station that same troop in Europe, then our European allies 
would only have to pay 75 percent of the 20 cents. They would only have 
to pay 15 cents of that incremental cost. Plus they would have to pay 
75 percent of the costs that we incur to employ their own people 
working on our bases.
  There are two parts of this. They would have to pay 75 percent of the 
incremental costs and they would have to pay 75 percent of what it 
costs to employ their own people on our bases.
  If they do not meet this requirement by October 1, 1996, they have to 
pick up 37.5 percent; by October 1, 1997 they would have to pick up 75 
percent. If they do not meet those two goals, then we would bring back 
1,000 troops for every percentage point under that--either under the 
37.5 percent, beginning 

[[Page S 11405]]
next year, or the 75 percent beginning in 1997.
  But we would leave a bottom line level of 25,000 troops in Europe.
  If that happens, if Europe pays under this very modest provision, if 
Europe pays, our taxpayers will receive $6 billion over those 4 years.
  Mr. President, again I ask to have printed at this point in the 
Record a letter from a Mr. Stephen Daggett, Specialist in National 
Defense, from the Congressional Research Service.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                    Congressional Research Service


                                       The Library of Congress

                                    Washington, DC August 3, 1995.
     To: Hon. Tom Harkin, Attention: Richard Bender

     From: Stephen Daggett, Specialist in National Defense, 
       Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division.

     Subject: Potential savings from increased allied host nation 
       support contributions.

       This is in response to your request for an estimate of 
     potential savings to the United States if European allies 
     agree to provide increased host nation support contributions. 
     Specifically you asked how much would be expected if the 
     allies were to pay increasing shares of (1) incremental costs 
     of U.S. forces deployed in Europe and (2) costs of foreign 
     national labor at U.S. facilities in Europe. Allied shares 
     would be 37.5% in FY 1997 and 75% each year thereafter.
       It is possible to provide only a very rough estimate of 
     incremental costs of U.S. forces deployed in Europe. 
     According to testimony in the past by senior U.S. military 
     officials, the U.S. European Command has estimated that it is 
     10 to 20 percent more expensive to deploy U.S. troops in 
     Europe than in the continental United States. The most recent 
     Defense Department report on funding of U.S. forces overseas 
     projects direct costs of troops in Europe of $9.8 billion in 
     FY1997, including costs of military personnel, operation and 
     maintenance, family housing, and military construction. (For 
     a discussion of incremental costs and sources of data, see 
     ``Defense Budget: Alternative Measures of Costs of Military 
     Commitments Abroad,'' CRS Report 95-726 F, which is 
     attached.) These costs should remain stable in the future, 
     since the U.S. troop level in Europe will, under current 
     plans, stabilize at 100,000 from FY1997 on. If incremental 
     costs are assumed to be 15% of the total, then they would 
     amount to roughly $1.5 billion per year. Annual host nation 
     support contributions, therefore would be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Percent        Cost   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year:                                                            
    1997......................................         37.5         $563
    1998......................................         75.0        1,125
    1999......................................         75.0        1,125
    2000......................................         75.0        1,125
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Potential increased host nation payments for the costs of 
     foreign national labor compensation can be estimated more 
     precisely. The attached table shows estimated year by year 
     figures for Germany, Italy, and Spain, the only European 
     allies for which DOD has provided data on foreign national 
     labor costs.

  POTENTIAL AMOUNTS OF INCREASED HOST NATION CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FOREIGN  
                       NATIONAL LABOR COMPENSATION                      
                   [Current year dollars in millions]                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Host nation 
                                          Increased host      foreign   
                           Total foreign      nation      national labor
       Fiscal year        national labor    percentage     compensation 
                           compensation        share         if allies  
                                                          increase share
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany:                                                                
    1996................             653            0.00               0
    1997................             642           37.50             241
    1998 \1\............             661           75.00             496
    1999 \1\............             681           75.00             511
    2000 \1\............             702           75.00             526
Italy:                                                                  
    1996................              30            0.00               0
    1997................              30           37.50              11
    1998 \1\............              31           75.00              23
    1999 \1\............              32           75.00              24
    2000 \1\............              33           75.00              25
Spain:                                                                  
    1996................              30            0.00               0
    1997................              30           37.50              11
    1998 \1\............              31           75.00              23
    1999 \1\............              32           75.00              24
    2000 \1\............              33           75.00              25
Three country total:                                                    
    1996................             713            0.00               0
    1997................             702           37.50             263
    1998 \1\............             723           75.00             542
    1999 \1\............             745           75.00             559
    2000 \1\............             767           75.00             575
                         -----------------------------------------------
Five-year total:........  ..............  ..............           1,940
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source.--CRS calculations based on data from Department of Defense,     
  ``Host Nation Support: FY 1996/97 Budget Estimates,'' May 1995.       
\1\ FY 1998-2000 figures assume 3 percent per cost growth starting from 
  the FY 1997 level.                                                    

  Mr. HARKIN. I yield the floor and I yield whatever time the Senator 
from Maine would require.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to join in cosponsorship with Senator 
Harkin and Senator Abraham, from Michigan, on this very important 
amendment. I think Senator Harkin certainly explained the framework of 
this amendment and the reason for having such an important amendment to 
this defense authorization.
  It is a very simple, straightforward amendment. The question is why 
can our allies not pay more for their own defense?
  In response it has been argued in the past and rightfully so that the 
threat against NATO was compelling and that our allies were spending 
their fair share by what they invested in their own forces. Moreover, 
we recognized the ominous threat the allies were facing from the Warsaw 
Pact nations as well as the threat from the Soviet Union. So, obviously 
it was not an appropriate time to discuss that we will fairly apportion 
the cost of our troops in Europe. Certainly it was in our mutual 
security interests. It certainly was not a time that we should say we 
are going to withdraw our forces from Europe unless they pay more for 
the support. That certainly could have, potentially, split the alliance 
at the time when unity was needed to face down the Soviets.
  NATO has been a very successful alliance, the most successful 
military alliance in the history of the Western World. It was designed 
with a single purpose, to confront and deter the Soviet military threat 
to Western Europe. We all recognize now that level of threat has been 
dramatically diminished with the collapse of the Soviet empire and the 
collapse of the Berlin wall. We now have to decide, and NATO is 
deciding, its future mission. But in the meantime we have a right to 
expect more from our allies, in terms of providing for the support of 
our troops in Europe.
  What we are talking about in this amendment is the aggregate of the 
incremental costs in the foreign labor costs associated with having 
American troops in Europe. The total cost is estimated, in 1997 to be 
$9.8 billion. If, as has been estimated, the incremental costs are to 
be anywhere from 10 to 20 percent we are talking about $1.5 billion.
  We are asking our allies by the year 1998 to pay 75 percent of those 
incremental costs. So that is about $1.1 billion for each year 
thereafter.
  Then of course the foreign labor costs. There are tremendous 
disparities in terms of how much Japan pays for the costs of our troops 
to be stationed in that country, compared to our European allies. In 
1990, we reached an agreement with Japan that they now pay 77 percent 
of the costs of our troops there. They have stepped up their 
contributions dramatically. They are assuming the burden. We had the 
same arguments then that we are going to, I am sure, have now with 
respect to opposition to this amendment. But Japan currently pays 77 
percent, approximately $4.2 billion of the United States military 
nonpersonnel costs incurred by the stationing of our troops in Japan.
  In contrast our European allies collectively contribute 24 percent of 
the military costs. To put it another way, Japan pays the Department of 
Defense in direct contributions, $3.466 billion for 45,938 American 
personnel stationed in Japan, or an average of $75,450 per American 
soldier.
  On the other hand, Europe pays the Department of Defense only $60 
million direct contributions for the 116,190 American military 
personnel stationed in European NATO nations, an average of just $516 
per soldier.
  So now we are asking the allies to assume a greater share of the 
cost, 37.5 percent by fiscal year 1997 and 75 percent for every year 
thereafter.
  I think it is an important issue in a year in which we passed a 
budget resolution that establishes a framework for a balanced budget by 
the year 2002. It becomes all the more important to achieve those 
savings, and in a year in which we are going to be considering a Base 
Closing Commission's report in which many communities will be seriously 
impacted by the closure of bases all across this country, in which 
these savings could help to ease that economic impact, in a year in 
which we are bringing down the cost of our own defense, we think it is 
important to be able to even provide some of these savings towards the 
operation and maintenance accounts of our Armed Forces.
  There are many uses that we could provide with the savings that would 
be 

[[Page S 11406]]
offered by this requirement if our allies were to have more of our fair 
share. Frankly, I think this amendment would give strength to the 
negotiations between the United States and our allies with respect to 
increasing their contribution to the support of our troops abroad.
  I think this is only in the interest of the American taxpayer. The 
end of the cold war certainly should really result in savings for us as 
we have drawn down and will continue. But it does provide for a 
threshold of troops abroad. It also provides a waiver authority for the 
President in the event of an emergency.
  But the fact of the matter is, I think we are talking about 
responsibility. This amendment is not about isolationism. It is not 
about withdrawing our troops from Europe. What it is about is shared 
responsibility. And, frankly, I think our European allies have been 
avoiding that responsibility.
  So at a time when we are supposed to be tightening our belt because 
of the cuts we will have to make, in a time when community and local 
and State governments are going to face reduced contributions from the 
Federal Government, I think is only fair and reasonable to ask our 
European allies to do the same.
  So, Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from 
Iowa in offering this amendment linking U.S. force levels in Europe to 
the effort our European allies make in sharing the costs of NATO 
defense. For too long we have applied a cold war rationale for the 
United States to carry the European burden, when the underlying, U.S. 
national security interests no longer apply.
  It costs us 10 to 20 percent more to station a soldier, sailor, 
marine, or airman in Europe than it does to keep him in the United 
States. Furthermore, we hire thousands of civilian foreign nationals to 
work for the U.S. military forces in Europe, civilians who pay taxes to 
the host government, spend their money in the host country, and never 
will spend a cent in the United States. This amendment addresses this 
inequity by requiring our European allies to pay for a portion of the 
defense we provide them.
  I know the House recently passed a measure similar to this, but 
included all nonpersonnel costs incurred by U.S. forces in European 
NATO countries as the basis for their burdensharing calculations. My 
fellow sponsors and I do not believe this is fair, as it requires the 
Europeans to incur obligations for costs we would incur if these same 
troops were stationed in the United States. We have therefore changed 
that language accordingly to incremental costs. But even then, 
significant revenues can be derived.
  The Congressional Research Service has calculated U.S. incremental 
cost in Europe as roughly $1.5 billion per year. This would provide 
approximately $1.125 billion in host-nation support contributions per 
year under this amendment's formula. Furthermore, having the Europeans 
contribute 75 percent to the foreign national labor compensation costs 
incurred by the United States would yield an additional $575 million 
per year by the year 2000, for a total of host nation support 
contribution of $1.7 billion per year.
  This is not an unreasonable demand. We, for too long, have sought 
negotiated settlement and passed sense-of-the-Congress resolutions that 
the Europeans should pay more for the costs we incur in defending their 
lands. Last year's Defense Authorization Act called for the Europeans 
to ``assume an increased share of the nonpersonnel costs so that by 
September 30, 1996, those nations have assumed 37.5 percent of such 
costs.''
  This goal is far onerous than that provided by this amendment. It is 
not fair to expect our European allies to absorb a portion of all our 
troop costs, but it is fair to expect them to absorb a portion of those 
costs unique to operating in their countries, that is, incremental 
costs. This amendment does just that, but also introduces another 
critical source of host nation support.
  In fiscal year 1995, Germany provides only 6 percent of the foreign 
national labor compensation costs incurred by the United States in 
Germany, while the United Kingdom provides 9 percent and Italy provides 
16 percent. Japan, on the other hand, contributes 94 percent of the 
United States foreign national labor compensation costs.
  When the United States agrees to keep 100,000 troops in Europe to 
provide the Europeans with that added sense of security, it is 
preposterous to expect the United States to pick up over $725 million 
in wages. This is not another U.S. jobs program, and the Europeans 
should not expect the United States to pick up this tab.
  Now I know the administration is opposed to this measure because the 
Europeans are supposedly suffering from particularly acute economic 
problems, that they contribute to other programs such as the NATO 
Infrastructure Program, and that previous host nation support 
requirement proposals would fall disproportionately on Germany and the 
United Kingdom.
  I disagree strongly with this rationale. I challenge any of my 
colleagues to stand up and claim the United States should bear the 
brunt of a modern industrial economic state's economic well-being given 
today's strategic environment. Can anyone honestly state that it is our 
responsibility to cover European defense costs because they suffer from 
high unemployment? That, Mr. President, is simply international 
welfare.
  But even if we accept that responsibility, we already are bearing 
disproportionate costs of European defense. While the United States 
spends over 20 percent of its Federal budget on national defense, the 
Europeans pay only 6.2 percent. Furthermore, while the United States 
expends 4.4 percent of our gross domestic product on national defense, 
the Europeans spend only 2.5 percent on national defense. This 
translates to the United States spending over 250 percent more per 
capita on defense than the Europeans. I could understand the objections 
to this proposal if the Europeans were closer to matching us on defense 
spending. But the fact of the matter is, they aren't even close, and 
that is just not fair.
  What makes this amendment unique to previous requests for greater 
European host nation support is its enforcement mechanism. This is not 
a proposal aimed at further reducing our presence in Europe. Rather, it 
recognizes the value the Europeans place upon the presence of U.S. 
troops, and utilizes them to compel European burdensharing. There is no 
reason the Europeans cannot share in those costs unique to our troops 
living and operating in their countries. This presence directly and 
materially contributes to the national security of our European allies 
outside of any NATO context. Considering the markedly lower level the 
Europeans pay for their national defense, it would appear they need our 
troops to provide a measure of their security. Therefore, European cost 
sharing can most efficiently be compelled by the threat of troop 
pullouts.
  We have passed sense-of-the-Senate resolutions over the last 15 years 
requesting the administration seek greater European defense spending 
and host nation support, yet we still find ourselves bearing the lion's 
share of NATO spending, even when accounting for relative size and 
national security interests. I believe the Europeans have come to 
depend on the United States to provide for their common defense, even 
when they are fully capable of providing at least a greater portion of 
that defense themselves. It is not fair to the American taxpayer to 
force their taxes to go to Europe in what is essentially international 
welfare to strong, democratic, industrially advanced countries.
  It is because of the savings provided by this amendment to the 
taxpayer that Citizens Against Government Waste supports this 
amendment. They understand this issue: it is not fair to the American 
taxpayer to allow the Europeans a free ride on something as critical as 
national defense, when they are fully capable of paying their fair 
share. Furthermore, the only instrument that will work in forcing 
European support is the threat of U.S. troop pullouts. Finally, the 
requirements this amendment places on European support are fair, 
reasonable, and easily attainable. Therefore, Mr. President, I call on 
all my colleagues to stop this coddling of our European allies and tell 
them to pay their fair share. Vote for the Harkin-Abraham-Snowe 
amendment to rectify this inequity.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

[[Page S 11407]]

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. 
This amendment has the potential of possibly reducing our current 
100,000 troops in the European theater by as much as 50 percent.
  Mr. President, let us go immediately to what that impact would be in 
many areas of that region.
  United States troops are stationed in Europe not simply because of 
the interests of NATO. But they are there in the need of other areas of 
the world. That is often lost. They are there primarily with our allies 
in NATO for such missions as may be assigned to NATO, an example being, 
of course, that in the Bosnian region today. But they are there at the 
direction of the President of the United States and with the 
concurrence of the North American Council to operate in other areas of 
that region when it is in the strategic interest of the United States. 
They not only contribute to the stability of Europe but also allow us 
to more rapidly respond to contingencies in this region.
  For example, in the recent past United States troops stationed in 
Europe have responded on a moment's notice to the Iraqi invasion of 
Kuwait, the humanitarian crisis in Somalia and Rwanda, and a variety of 
operations in the former Yugoslavia. Currently, United States European-
stationed troops are involved in Operation Provide Comfort to assist 
the Kurds in northern Iraq, Operation Southern Watch to monitor Iraq 
activities in southern Iraq, Operation Deny Flight to enforce the no-
fly zone over Bosnia, Operation Able Sentry in Macedonia, and Operation 
Sharp Guard in the Adriatic.
  Mr. President, this amendment, while it may have some fiscal 
attractions on its face, would devastate absolutely, unequivocally, the 
ability of this President and any future President to respond very 
quickly to many contingencies in that region. And, therefore, I 
vigorously oppose the amendment.
  I would like to yield such time as my distinguished colleague from 
Georgia may require.
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from Iowa a 
couple of questions about the amendment and make sure I understand it.
  As I understand the amendment, the Senator is setting up a formula 
tied to the incremental cost of stationing U.S. forces in NATO. Is that 
right? Is it confined to NATO countries?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes. It is confined just to NATO countries.
  Mr. NUNN. The incremental costs--how would the Senator from Iowa 
define incremental costs?
  Mr. HARKIN. Over and above what it costs to base them here in the 
United States.
  Mr. NUNN. Do we have that kind of base cost anywhere? Has anybody 
computed incremental cost so that we know what that incremental cost is 
or how they compute the incremental cost?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am told it was defined in last year's DOD 
authorization, that it would have to be computed by the Department of 
Defense.
  Mr. NUNN. Would the Secretary of Defense decide the incremental cost 
would be based on what it would cost to station those troops at Fort 
Stewart, GA, or would he pick out Fort Lewis, WA, or would he pick out 
what it would cost to station them right outside New York City?
  There is a variation in the cost all over the United States. If you 
stationed United States troops in Hawaii near an impacted area, or San 
Diego, the costs are much higher than someplace else in the United 
States--I suspect higher than in Europe.
  Does the Secretary of Defense have total discretion to determine 
under this amendment what is an incremental cost and then determine 
where these troops would be stationed as a comparative basis in the 
United States?
  Mr. HARKIN. I just respond that when I asked the CRS to do some 
studies on this--I will read from it, and I will put it in the Record. 
I thank the Senator for yielding to me on this.

       It is possible to provide a rough estimate of incremental 
     costs of U.S. forces in Europe. According to the testimony in 
     the past by senior U.S. military officials, the U.S.-European 
     command has estimated that it is 10 percent to 20 percent 
     more expensive to employ U.S. troops in Europe than in the 
     continental United States.

  I can only assume they did this on some kind of weighted average 
depending upon what the average was based on in the United States, and 
add it all, take an average, then take a look at Europe and add it up. 
Some places in Europe are more expensive than others; add it up, add 
the average, and add the average here, and that is the incremental 
cost.
  Mr. NUNN. It would be based on the average cost and add the 
differential cost, and the baseline year would be what year?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am sorry. I believe that the baseline year would be 
1996.
  Mr. NUNN. The first year of application would be what year?
  Mr. HARKIN. 1997, October 1.
  Mr. NUNN. Would that be a fiscal year calculation or calendar?
  Mr. HARKIN. Fiscal year.
  Mr. NUNN. The other question I would ask my friend from Iowa is, who 
is the responsible party to pay for this? Is this an alliance 
requirement? Is this the whole NATO alliance that would be required to 
pay this, or is this country by country?
  Mr. HARKIN. It would be paid by countries. But the assessment is 
shared.
  I might add for my friend from Georgia that we did the same thing in 
Japan. So we can model it basically after what we have done in Japan. 
We have experience in this.
  Mr. NUNN. Would, for instance, the Germans pay for all the 
incremental costs if you have United States forces stationed on the 
ground in Germany?
  Mr. HARKIN. Germany would pay. That is my understanding.
  Mr. NUNN. I do not read the amendment that way. That is the reason I 
am asking. I read it as an alliance obligation.
  Mr. HARKIN. I am sorry, what was that question?
  Mr. NUNN. I am trying to see whether this is an obligation of the 
alliance. For instance, we do not have any forces in Norway. We have 
very few forces in the southern flank of Turkey. We now have forces in 
Italy related to Bosnia.
  Let us just take that, for example. We have a number of Air Force 
personnel in Italy related to the Bosnian situation. That is an 
alliance obligation. Italy allows units to use bases there for the 
purpose of flying those protective Bosnian flights, Deny Flight. Would 
Italy be responsible for reimbursing the United States for those 
incremental costs or would the whole NATO alliance be responsible?
  Mr. HARKIN. I think that is something that could be worked out 
between Italy and the other member countries in that case. If in fact 
other countries were basing their planes there, if it was a NATO 
requirement that they use a base in Italy to fly out of, then I would 
think that all countries in NATO would be responsible for that. This 
can be, and would be negotiated.
  Mr. NUNN. I say to my friend from Iowa, that is the way all the 
forces that we have in Europe are viewed by the NATO alliance. They are 
viewed as military personnel that really are there for an overall NATO 
mission.
  So, for instance, the Germans would, I would imagine, be rather 
resentful at this stage of us saying that those troops that we have in 
Germany are all there to protect Germany.
  There is no longer a threat to Germany as we have had in the past. 
Our forces are in Europe primarily, as the Senator from Virginia said, 
because we feel that having forward-based forces in Europe allows us to 
play a worldwide role, not just a NATO role. For instance, the forces 
in Europe that we had there were forces that deployed to the Middle 
East in Operation Desert Storm. Would we expect Israel to pay part of 
the cost of forces in Europe or would we expect Saudi Arabia to pay 
part of the forces in Europe because those forces are likely to go 
there in the event of conflict, or do we want Germany to pay the cost 
of those forces when they are not primarily at this stage to defend 
Germany; they are there basically for a much broader purpose?
  That is the problem with this amendment, I say to my friend.
  Mr. HARKIN. If I could----
  
[[Page S 11408]]

  Mr. NUNN. We have shifted considerable in the mission of U.S. forces 
in Europe. It used to be they were there specifically to protect 
invasion from the Warsaw Pact. Now they are there, about a third the 
number; we have drawn down from 300,000 to 100,000. So we have now 
supposedly leveled off.
  The amendment, as I understand it, could conceivably, if nobody was 
willing to pay this cost, take our forces down to 25,000. Is that 
right?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the time within the control 
of the Senator from Virginia be increased by 3 minutes, with a 
corresponding increase for the Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 9 minutes and 29 
seconds.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I will just close out.
  That is the last question. The 25,000 would be the level below which 
the Senator would not go even if there was a total failure of them to 
pay the burden share?
  Mr. HARKIN. Precisely.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, if I could just close, I understand where 
the Senators are coming from on this, and I agree with their overall 
thrust. I would like to see our allies pay more. But this amendment is 
a cold war amendment that is based on the concept that we are defending 
every country where our troops are stationed and that they should 
therefore pay their part, when these countries are not going to view it 
that way.
  That may be the way the authors of this amendment view it, but that 
is not going to be the way the Germans view it or anyone else. If you 
ask someone in Poland, for instance, what they think about the United 
States drawing down our forces to 25,000, they will tell you in a 
minute that that is going to be destabilizing. But Poland is not going 
to be expected to pay any part of this. If you ask someone in 
Czechoslovakia should we draw down our forces, not from 300,000 to 
100,000, but on down to 25,000, they will tell you in a minute we do 
not want you to draw down your forces. We feel they are needed there in 
a critical way now for stability purposes. If you ask someone in 
Hungary the same question, they will tell you the same answer.
  So this is a much broader application. We are not there simply to 
protect Germany. We are there because we are a world leader. We play a 
big role in the world. If we want to see things destabilize, then we 
can bring all our forces home and then watch the chaos take place as we 
watch what is happening in Bosnia today.
  Mr. President, I understand the motive of this amendment, but I urge 
its defeat. I think it needs to be thought through a lot more carefully 
than is apparently the case at this point in time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 1 minute and 10 
seconds.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President I would like to pose a question to our 
colleagues to be joined by my distinguished partner here, the Senator 
from Georgia.
  As we look at this amendment, this is an alliance-wide type of 
amendment, is that correct?
  Now, there are 16 nations in NATO of which we are one. So with the 
other 15, let us take, for example, that 10 or 12 of the other 15 reach 
the requirements in the Senator's amendment but there were one or two 
that failed. The way we read the amendment, it does not make any 
difference if 14 of them met their requirements and one failed; the 
amendment is triggered.
  So I ask the question to my colleague, am I not correct in that 
analysis?
  Mr. HARKIN. If I might respond----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will ask unanimous consent----
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, the Senator has 9 
minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will answer on my time, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12 minutes and 5 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator asks a legitimate question. To a certain 
extent he is partially right. Let us say they came up with 60 percent, 
and they were only 15 percent short. Then other countries could come in 
and pay that 15 percent. It would be legitimate.
  Now, again, the amendment envisions that in the case of what the 
Senator from Georgia said, where you had, let us say, Poland might be a 
little disturbed or some other country that was not perhaps in NATO or 
something, well, this allows room for negotiation.
  Ms. SNOWE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield to the Senator.
  Ms. SNOWE. The amendment is designed to allow other countries to 
participate in payment of those costs, for example to assist Germany. 
There is nothing complicated about this amendment. The Department of 
Defense issues a report on host nation support. I bet they could figure 
it out. It is not that complicated. We are asking them to pay a fair 
share. They know what they pay; we know what they pay; and it is not 
enough. We are asking them just to pay more. It costs us $9.8 billion. 
The U.S.-European Command determines that incremental costs are 10 to 
20 percent higher. We are saying we want you to pay eventually 75 
percent of that 10 to 20 percent incremental cost. And it can be 
determined. It was laid out in last year's DOD bill.
  I think there are tremendous disparities. We are looking at Japan 
that pays 77 percent. Korea pays 62 percent. We cannot ask our allies 
because somehow it becomes a complicated formula to pay more than 24 
percent collectively?
  Yes, it is for the alliance, but they have an obligation to 
contribute to the alliance as well. That is what this is all about.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. She makes a good point. We heard 
these same arguments on Japan--heard the very same arguments. We heard 
it on Korea, too. It is not just for Japan; it is our interests all 
over Asia--China, North Korea. We heard the same arguments, that we 
cannot ask Japan to pay more. We did. They are paying more. They are 
paying more. And what is different?
  Why, if that is the case with Japan, I might just ask rhetorically, 
why not ask the Philippines to pay? Why not ask Thailand, Malaysia? Why 
not ask other of our friends in that area? Why do they not help Japan 
pay the costs of our troops? Because obviously our troops there provide 
stability in that region, too.
  Ms. SNOWE. If the Senator will further yield.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield.
  Ms. SNOWE. Look at the foreign national labor costs that are also 
included in this amendment, the aggregate and incremental amount of 
foreign national labor costs: Germany 6 percent; Great Britain 9 
percent, and Japan pays 94 percent toward those additional costs.
  It is obvious we have been able to figure it out with Japan and Korea 
for that matter. But we are now saying in this amendment--it is very 
clear--the Secretary of Defense would calculate the aggregate amount of 
the incremental costs to the United States of permanently stationing 
U.S. forces ashore in European member nations of NATO, and the foreign 
labor costs also attributed to those forces.
  I think it is only fair, and I just want to congratulate the Senator 
for offering this amendment because I do think it is important and I 
think, frankly, it is a post-cold-war amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Maine for the support and for 
bringing out these points and clearing it up.
  You can ask this question or that question and make it seem like it 
is unworkable. But as I said, these are the same arguments made on 
Japan, same thing. You heard the same arguments. But when we came forth 
and got tough, as the Senator from Maine pointed out, they are paying 
94 percent of their national costs. We are not asking Europe to do the 
same thing. We are not asking our allies to do the same thing in 
Europe.
  What is the difference? Why have one standard for Japan and South 
Korea and another standard for Germany?

[[Page S 11409]]

  Mr. NUNN. Could I answer that question?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 8 minutes, 20 
seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. NUNN. Very briefly, the main reason is because the Japanese do 
not have military forces. Our NATO allies do. The Japanese have a very 
small percentage of their budget. That ends up being a lot higher 
percentage of their money because of the GNP, but they did not spend 
more than 1 percent. They did not have much of a security role anywhere 
else in the world.
  Our allies like Britain, France, and even now Germany, they are 
moving and helping in Bosnia and are contributing military forces. So 
it has always been thought that the Japanese ought to do more in the 
offset area since they are doing less in the military area relative to 
their GNP.
  Mr. HARKIN. Does the same hold true for South Korea? South Korea has 
a big defense force. They put a lot of their money in defense forces. 
Yet they pay more for our troops stationed there than Germany pays for 
our troops in Germany.
  Mr. NUNN. This is what the post-cold-war environment is all about. 
During the cold war I sponsored burden-sharing amendments. At the same 
time we were protecting Germany, which was divided, there was a large 
Warsaw Pact force.
  Germany had a threat. The Koreans have that kind of threat. They have 
9,000 artillery tubes looking down their throats in Seoul. So we are 
directly protecting our national security.
  What I am saying to you is that our forces in Germany today are not 
there directly and primarily to protect Germany. They are there for 
stability in all of Europe and the Middle East. So it has shifted 
fundamentally.
  I think there may be a way to get at this, but I do not think this 
amendment does it.
  Mr. HARKIN. I would grant, the Senator is right. I think we are all 
right on this issue. I do not argue with the need for our stability.
  What I would say is, does anyone really believe that if we only asked 
them to pay 75 percent of the incremental costs or to pay 75 percent 
for their own people that we employ on their bases, that somehow they 
are going to kick us out of the country? Give me a break. They love 
having our troops there. We have all been to those bases in Germany and 
Italy and Great Britain. They love having those troops there.
  It provides employment and it provides stability. It provides all the 
things that the Senator said. All we are saying, the Senator from Maine 
and I are saying, is it is time for them to pick up a little bit more 
of the cost of basing those. I might point out the House of 
Representatives passed by a margin of 117 votes something a lot 
stronger than this, a lot stronger. And that was done bipartisan; 
Republicans and Democrats voted for it.
  I thought we ought to be a little more modest and only have the 
incremental portion, whatever it costs to base them overseas, have them 
pick that up rather than the full cost, which is what they did in the 
House. So, again, this is a very modest amendment.
  Again, I want to respond on the Saudi Arabia thing. If Saudi Arabia 
needs our troops to come in there, then it seems to me that our NATO 
allies should go to Saudi Arabia and say, ``Look, you are using the 
U.S. troops. You ought to help us pay a little bit for keeping our 
troops in Italy and places like that.''
  Hey, come on. We are all friends. We do negotiate. These things are 
negotiable. It seems to me Germany or Italy or Great Britain could 
negotiate with Saudi Arabia and say, ``Look, we are sending troops down 
there or planes down there based in Italy. You ought to help us pay a 
little bit.'' You could negotiate that out. I do not think this is 
rocket science, to tell you the truth. I think it is very simple and 
very straightforward.
  Mr. President, might I ask how much more time I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes, 48 seconds.
  Ms. SNOWE. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I would yield to the Senator from Maine whatever time she 
needs.
  Ms. SNOWE. I would like to make another point with respect to who 
spends what on defense. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger 
testified before the Foreign Relations Committee recently and happened 
to indicate that Japan has the third largest defense budget--Japan. 
They certainly have made a great effort toward spending on defense.
  Our European allies spent 2.5 percent of GDP whereas the United 
States spent 4.4 percent of GDP. So they are not making as great an 
effort, obviously. We make 2\1/2\ to 3 times greater effort toward 
defense than our European allies do collectively.
  So I do not think that there is any excuse in this regard. We are 
only talking, if you just analyze what we are talking about--as a 
result, the bottom line of this amendment is $1.1 billion per year, 
depending on those incremental costs. If you assume 15 percent as an 
average--$9.8 billion--you are talking about $1.1 billion a year. That 
is not asking too much, given what we are asking everybody else in 
America to do with respect the Federal cutbacks.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Maine.
  Again, I just, in closing on our side, want to say, Mr. President, 
this is a very modest amendment. It is not complicated. It is 
straightforward. I believe it could be worked out.
  I again would say with emphasis, we heard the same arguments for 
Japan and South Korea. We have interests around the world. I believe 
our European allies, with the standard of living and income they have, 
ought to pay a little bit more. That is all we are asking for.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. The Senator from Nebraska asks if he might be allowed, 
under a unanimous-consent request, 1 minute to oppose the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, he is such a great friend of mine, if I 
have any time remaining I will yield the time to him off my own time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will get 1 minute from Senator 
Harkin's time.
  Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from Iowa.
  Ordinarily I would be in strong support of the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Iowa and by the Senator from Maine. But this is not an 
ordinary time. I wonder what is going through the minds of our European 
allies today when they hear what is going on day after day after day on 
the floor of the U.S. Senate. We zapped them good on a bipartisan vote 
that I thought was a horrible mistake on Bosnia. Now, as we zap them 
again at this particular time, after zapping them and leaving them 
adrift on a vote that we took a few moments ago with regard to nuclear 
testing, they might give up.
  I simply say at another time this might be a good amendment. I urge a 
vote against this because I think we have hit our allies all we dare 
hit them at this particular juncture.
  Mr. HARKIN. I might remind my friend that I supported his amendment 
on nuclear testing.
  Mr. EXON. You did not on Bosnia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. It is a very modest amendment, very modest indeed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been expired----
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, it is my understanding that under the 
time agreement, this vote will be stacked with other votes at a 
subsequent time this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Therefore, Madam President, the time agreement, as I 
understand it, now turns to the amendment from the Senator from 
Michigan Mr. [Levin]. And that will be under the control of the 
distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Thurmond. 

[[Page S 11410]]

  Parliamentary inquiry.
  Is a motion to table in order for the Harkin amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A motion will be in order at the time of the 
vote.
  Mr. WARNER. At the time of the vote.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I wonder if I might, without taking any 
time from anybody--I will take it out of my leader time--propound a 
unanimous-consent request that has been cleared on each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized for that 
purpose.


                 Unanimous-Consent Agreement--H.R. 2020

  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9 a.m. on 
Saturday, the Senate begin consideration of H.R. 2020, Treasury, Postal 
Service appropriations bill, and at that time the pending business be 
the committee amendment on page 76, line 10 through page 76 line 17, 
and that it be limited to the following: 3 hours to be equally divided 
between Senators Nickles and Mikulski, or their designees; and that 
following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed 
to vote on or relation to the committee amendment, and that no 
amendments be in order during the pendency of the committee amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2122

   (Purpose: To authorize funds for procurement of equipment for the 
reserve components according to their highest modernization priorities)

  Mr. LEVIN. 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 Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2122.
       At the end of section 105, insert the following:
  The reserve components shall choose the equipment to be procured with 
the funds authorized herein according to their highest modernization 
priorities.''

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the amendment which is now pending is 
aimed at allowing the Guard to make some choices in terms of their 
modernization equipment according to their highest modernization 
priorities.
  This has been the effort in the committee for the last 3 years. It 
has been a struggle, and we might as well acknowledge openly just how 
difficult a struggle this is.
  But for the last 3 years, starting in the 1993, 1994, and 1995 
budgets, we have not divided the Guard and Reserve modernization funds, 
which we have been able to find, into specific line items in our 
report.
  We had totals for each of the forces and allowed them to allocate 
according to their highest modernization needs.
  The reason we do it this way is because we avoid the obvious desire 
of each of us to fight for our own home States, giving serious 
advantage to the members of the committee over nonmembers of the 
committee.
  When we get a budget in February, we have a number of months to look 
at the line items in that budget. We have about 4 months to look at 
each of the items that is proposed that we buy when it comes to the 
active duty forces.
  But then near the end of the process, near the end of our 
deliberation, when it comes to the Guard and Reserve package, as we 
call it, when we try to find some funds for modernization for the Guard 
and Reserve, we face an issue every year: Do we specify by line 
specific items, which each of us might want for our own home State 
Guards, or do we allow the Guard and the Reserves to use some 
discretion as to what their highest modernization needs are.
  Year after year for the last 3 years, we have fought in the Armed 
Services Committee to keep this generic, to avoid some of the back-home 
stresses and strains, but to keep it generic when it comes to the Guard 
and Reserve, because we have not had the time to make the kind of 
decisions relative to line-by-line items as we do for the active duty 
forces. That is the difference. For active duty forces, we have 4 
months to look at the budget request, and we make decisions line by 
line.
  When it comes to the Guard and Reserve, I do not know that we had 
more than 4 hours this year to look at a proposed allocation that the 
majority delivered to us of $770 million. That is not the way to 
budget. It is wrong for the country, it is wrong for the security of 
this Nation to be making line-by-line decisions for the Guard based on 
less than 1 day's consideration. I think literally it was about 16 
hours before a package of $700 million line by line was presented to 
the full committee and the time that the decision was made on it. It is 
just not the way to budget. It is wrong.
  A number of years ago, we did it this way. But for the last 3 years, 
we have resisted this temptation. For the last 3 years, we have been 
generic in the Senate, and we have gone to conference. At conference, 
we always face the House which always does it line by line, and we 
fight it out in conference.
  The good Government way to do this is to do it generically, because 
we do not have the adequate time to do it line by line and do it right 
and to try to avoid some of the back-home temptations, which we all 
have, to provide the specific items for our own back-home units in the 
Guard and Reserve.
  Merit-based review is what the budget process should be all about, as 
much merit as we possibly can build into a budget process. We ought to 
insist upon it. When it comes to this Guard package, because it is done 
at the last minute, we do not know how much money we are going to have, 
and we have not gone over the line-by-line, specific items. It is 
simply not in the Nation's security interest to divide it up the way 
this committee report does.
  We see those line by line on page 92 and 93 of the committee report. 
I am sure there is a good case to be made for every one of them. The 
Guard and Reserve, as a matter of fact, give us about $12 billion in 
funding requirements each year. So I am sure a case can be made for 
every one of these. But that is not the way that process worked. The 
case was not made for any of these. No opportunity existed in any real 
sense for the committee to take a look at these line by line, go over 
them the way we did all the other lines for 4 months and decide what is 
the highest priority for this Nation, what is the highest priority for 
these Reserve and Guard units.
  The Appropriations Committee did it generically, and I want to pay 
them the compliment because they did do it generically. We ought to do 
the same thing in the authorization bill as closely as we can come. And 
this language which I have sent to the desk in this amendment is aimed 
at making the point in a straightforward way and not a technical way.
  During the consideration of this bill, Senator Coats sponsored an 
amendment which had a lot of merit and is in this bill. It is section 
1007 of the bill, and it says the Secretary of Defense in next year's 
bill should focus on and separately identify funding for Guard and 
Reserve equipment.
  So what we are doing for next year's bill is telling the Secretary of 
Defense we want the Secretary to focus on specific items for Guard and 
Reserve and to separately identify funding for us so we can consider 
that as part of our budget deliberation. But that is next year. The 
question we face is whether to do it this year, and we should do it.
  Next year, the Department of Defense as a whole is going to be able 
to focus more closely on requirements and the relative urgency for 
filling those requirements. If we allow them some leeway and keep this 
generic, they will be able to do it this year.
  Under the Coats language, which applies to next year, there is going 
to be an opportunity for the Department of Defense to exercise some 
judgment in sending us some recommendations
 unless we keep this generic this year. If we do this line by line, 
specifically, they are not going to have that opportunity which is so 
essential this year relative to the application of $777 million.

  So I think just good Government requires us to give some discretion 
to the Department of Defense to allow them to apply some judgment--not 
to specify line items, but to keep this generic, as the Appropriations 
Committee has 

[[Page S 11411]]
done, to allow the Department of Defense to apply some talent and some 
priorities to this money. That has been the pattern in the last 3 
years.
  Again, it is not easy to hold this. We had a very close vote in 
committee on this. I think the first vote we had on it was lost by a 
tie vote. The second vote, I think, we won by one vote. The third vote 
we lost by, I believe, one vote. So this was a very close vote in 
committee.
  I hope that the full Senate will do what the Appropriations Committee 
did and what the Armed Services Committee did in the last 3 years, 
which is to keep this as generic as possible, so that the Department of 
Defense and the Guard and Reserve can apply their best talent to giving 
us the highest modernization priorities which may include many of 
these, but not necessarily, and instead will reflect more the needs of 
the Guard and Reserve and less the back-home wish list of each of our 
Guard and Reserve units.
  Madam President, I do not know if I have any time remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes 7 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I yield myself such time as may be 
required.
  Madam President, the Senator from Michigan offered this same 
amendment during our committee markup. It was opposed by all Republican 
members of our committee and defeated. The proponents of this amendment 
suggest it would be more appropriate to provide a sum of money to the 
Department of Defense and let them decide how to spend the money.
  Madam President, I disagree. It is the job of the Congress to decide 
how these funds should be used. The Senate will make decisions on this 
defense authorization bill affecting the spending of $265 billion. I do 
not know why we should treat the funds we added for the National Guard 
and Reserve equipment differently from the rest of the bill.
  Madam President, the Senator from Michigan has indicated that we 
should let the National Guard and Reserve components decide how to 
spend this money. He knows full well that if we simply turn a sum of 
money over to the Department of Defense, then the bureaucrats in the 
Department of Defense will decide how the money will be spent.
  It is interesting to note, Madam President, that those who now want 
the Pentagon to decide these matters began to adopt this position about 
the same time they gained control of the administration in 1993.
  Madam President, it is our responsibility and our duty to make the 
hard decisions on how we should spend defense dollars, including those 
dollars we add to the budget for specific purposes. The funds we added 
for the National Guard and Reserve equipment package certainly fit this 
category. I strongly urge all my colleagues to support this package for 
the National Guard and Reserve components and vote to sustain the 
position of the Armed Services Committee.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I wish to join with the distinguished 
chairman of the committee, Senator Thurmond, in opposing this 
amendment. I bring to the floor the text of our colleague's letter just 
received from the National Guard Association. The first paragraph says:

       Dear Senator Thurmond, the National Guard Association urges 
     your support for the equipment designated for the Army and 
     Air National Guard in the Armed Services Committee report, S. 
     1026, the National Defense Act for Fiscal 1994.

  This is a critical part.

       We believe it is essential for the Congress to specifically 
     identify equipment for the modernization of the National 
     Guard. Such action has been very effective in the past and 
     has allowed the National Guard to remain a full partner in 
     the total defense forces of our Nation.

  As the chairman said, what is the distinction between the active and 
the Guard and Reserve? It is a total force concept to be utilized and 
employed that way. National Guard forces, particularly the Air Reserve 
Guard forces, are on duty all over the world flying missions, many of 
them into Bosnia during the course of this debate. Therefore, I 
strongly urge that we resist this amendment.
  I would like to ask my distinguished colleague a question. Given the 
limited time, I hope he will answer it on his time. I would pass to my 
colleague last year's report--it is for fiscal year 1993. If the 
Senator looks at the highlights, the yellow markings, there are a 
number of items. At the time, my distinguished colleague was in the 
majority, and a number of items were specifically cited. I point out 
the C-20 and the 130. Does the Senator see those highlighted, 
especially for his benefit?
  Mr. LEVIN. I think we receded to the House on that.
  Mr. WARNER. Whatever. The package was put together such that those 
items were put in there with great specificity.
  Mr. LEVIN. I answer the question by saying that, in 1993, the Senate 
Armed Services Committee did this generically before the election of 
Bill Clinton, may I say. In 1994, we did this generically before the 
election of Bill Clinton, may I say.
  So the chairman's reference to the Democratic President is not 
appropriate. We have done this now for 3 years generically. The first 2 
years were prior to the Democratic administration. We did it 
generically in the Armed Services Committee. Yes, in conference there 
was give and take. It was not our choice. It was the House's choice.
  Mr. FORD. Would somebody give me 60 seconds?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes. I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, as Cochairman of the National Guard 
Association, I would like to make one point. Last year, we had $25 
million in there for upgrade of the helicopters in the National Guard. 
It all went into one pot.
  Did we get to the upgrade of the helicopters? Of course not. They 
tried to use it some other way. And we were crying for help to make our 
helicopters better and bring them up to speed for training. The 123d in 
Louisville, KY, is all over the world, with C-130H's. We had to fight 
to get them and make them specific in the budget. And now they have a 
top grade in the whole United States.
  That is the National Guard for you. That is the support and the teeth 
and tail that we talk about in the military. So let us not cut the 
National Guard. There are 66 Senators in this Chamber that are members 
of the National Guard caucus. I just hope they listen and vote to 
support the National Guard.
  Mr. WARNER. If I could pose a question to my colleague. From his many 
years of experience, has it not been the case that the National Guard 
package has been left to the Congress, year after year, to decide?
  Mr. COATS. Exactly.
  Mr. WARNER. And it has been up to the Congress to ensure that be 
done.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, how much time is available on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Thurmond has 3 minutes 48 seconds; 
Senator Levin has 9 minutes 22 seconds.
  Mr. COATS. I appreciate the Senator from Virginia reading the letter 
and the comments of the Senator from Kentucky relative to the National 
Guard Association and their interests.
  The Senator from Virginia commented on paragraph 1 of that letter. 
Let me add to that by reading a little bit of paragraph 2:

       We are opposed to efforts which would merely identify a 
     lump sum dollar amount for equipment which would then be 
     referred to the Department of Defense for distribution. In 
     almost every instance the work of the members of the 
     committee and the committee staff has resulted in 
     identification of the highest priority unfunded equipment 
     requirements for the National Guard.

  Now, we are sensitive to the question raised by the Senator from 
Michigan. That is why we have incorporated in the bill a request by the 
committee that the Department furnish us with a report indicating that 
they will begin to make determinations, as they submit to us on 
requests for the regular appropriations for the active Army and 
military, that they will begin to do this for the National Guard.
  For years, the practice has been to defer this decision to Congress. 
We will have that report before the Senate. We 

[[Page S 11412]]
can evaluate that next year. We ask for it to be submitted with the 
budget, so we will do it concurrently with the budget and evaluate it 
at that time.
  Do not forfeit now the practice that has been undertaken by the 
Congress on the request of the Guard and in support by the Guard, 
allowing DOD to defer that decision to us. We have made that decision 
for this year, and we will evaluate the report next year and be back 
with a recommendation.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I must say that my dear colleague from 
Indiana is a little modest, because that was the provision that the 
Senator fashioned and submitted for the Armed Services Committee. We 
accepted it at the very time we debated this issue and decided, as a 
majority of the committee, we would take the action which is 
incorporated in this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I think the Guard and Reserve are among 
our highest priorities. I am pleased we have a package here for the 
Guard and Reserve.
  As I understand the Levin amendment--and I want the Senator to 
clarify this if I am wrong--I note the letter from the National Guard 
Association says, ``We are opposed to efforts which would merely 
identify a lump sum dollar amount for equipment which would be referred 
to the Department of Defense for distribution.'' That is the letter I 
believe the Senator from Virginia read from.
  It is my understanding the Levin amendment does not do what that 
letter was opposed to. The Levin amendment leaves it up to the Reserve 
and Guard components to make that choice individually--Army National 
Guard, Air National Guard, Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Air Force 
Reserve, and Marine Corps Reserve.
  This amendment leaves it to the Department of Defense to make the 
choice, and if they want the items we have selected here, they could 
select every one of those.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is exactly right. The language of the 
amendment is very clear. The Reserve component shall make that choice. 
And they can, of course, choose the exact items that are in the 
committee report, should they choose.
  There is no reduction in funds for the Government Reserve.
  Mr. NUNN. My position is I support the package in the bill, but I 
believe the Levin amendment is a better way to go about it because, we 
do not go over these line items as we do in the regular budget.
  The regular budget comes over, the Department of Defense has scrubbed 
it, the Office of Management and Budget has looked at it closely, each 
of the military services has basically come up with their request. It 
is gone over and over and over. The Guard and Reserve package is 
needed, in my view, but it is an add-on package. We do not have the 
kind of attention paid to these items that we do in the regular budget, 
because they are add-on items.
  I think in 1993, 1994, and 1995 that this is what we did. It would be 
better to leave this up to the Reserve components for their priority. I 
believe the Levin amendment makes sense. No one should misunderstand 
this amendment. It does not cut the Guard and Reserve. It leaves it up 
to them to make that determination.
  Mr. WARNER. How much time is left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 37 seconds on your side; 6 minutes 
47 seconds on the side of Senator Levin.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask if my colleague from Michigan would answer, on his 
time, the following question. This amendment reads as follows: The 
Reserve component shall choose the equipment to be procured with the 
funds authorized here, and according to the highest modernization 
priorities.
  That means some Reserve officer will make the decision. The Secretary 
of Defense has no input. The Secretary of the Army has no input. The 
Congress, then, is denied any specific input other than the allocation 
of funds.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment says that the Army National Guard shall make 
that allocation, the Air National Guard shall make the allocation, the 
Army Reserve shall make the allocation. The head of each of those 
components has a commander. And so forth. We do not cut the money. We 
do not change the money. What we do is take the amount of money which 
is allocated in section 105. We leave it exactly as it is. Army 
National Guard, $209,400,000, Air National Guard, $137,000,000. We do 
not touch any of that money.
  What the committee has done for the first time in 4 years, in its 
committee report, is to allocate line by line within each of those 
items.
  The problem is exactly as the Senator from Georgia said. We had less 
than 1 day to even see what the allocation of the majority was here. We 
have avoided that temptation for the last 3 years. We ought to resist 
that temptation here.
  The Senator from Kentucky is right. The Guard is a critically needed 
function. This money is essential for the Guard. I have asked General 
Baca, the Chief of the National Guard, point blank, whether or not he 
supports leaving this generic, or whether or not he wants the specific 
line-by-line item in this committee report. He said he wants it 
generic. I asked him in my office.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. LEVIN. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes 38 seconds on your side; 1 minute 
37 seconds on the side of the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time of 
the quorum not be charged to either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. EXON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time to the Senator from Nebraska?
  Mr. EXON. Are we under controlled time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Parliamentary inquiry: What is the order before the 
Senate at the moment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Levin amendment No. 2122 is the order.
  Mr. WARNER. My understanding is that there is about a minute left 
under Senator Thurmond and 3 minutes under the Senator from Michigan. 
Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Approximately.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, will the manager yield for a question?
  We have colleagues who are anticipating a vote at 8:10, and 
understandably that schedule slipped somewhat. In order to advise 
colleagues what they might anticipate, is there any up-to-date estimate 
on when the three votes might be held?
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, we will proceed with the next amendment 
in a matter of just a few minutes. Then three votes would be stacked.
  Mr. DOLE. How much time do you have on the Glenn amendment?
  I guess about 8:40.
  Mr. CONRAD. At 8:40 the votes would start.
  I thank the leader. I thank the managers.
  Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  I thank my friend from North Dakota. That is exactly what I was 
trying to find out. Now we have moved from 8:10 to 8:40. It has been a 
very convenient arrangement that the Senate has been going through 
trying to meet accommodations. I will try to be back at about 8:40.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I yield back the time on this side.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, we yield back the remainder on our side.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. At this point in time it is the intention of the manager 
on this side to have a motion to table at the appropriate time, which I 
understand would be at the time of the vote.

[[Page S 11413]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Under the unanimous-consent request, we now proceed to 
the next amendment. Am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. So the Chair will lay aside this pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the 
Levin amendment, and the motion to table will be in order at a later 
time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bingaman be added as 
a cosponsor of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the Levin amendment is set aside so that 
Senator Glenn may offer an amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2123

  Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I rise today to offer this amendment 
because I am concerned about the provision in this year's bill that 
would reduce the active duty service obligations for service academy 
graduates from 6 to 5 years.
  To do this reduction from 6 to 5 years without waiting for the study 
that is required in this legislation, we are asking for information but 
we are taking action before we even get the information to know what 
the impact would be from the experts at the Pentagon and at the service 
academies.
  In other words, it is sort of like ready, fire, aim, instead of the 
other way around.
  The current policy, which requires graduates to serve 6 years, has 
been in effect since 1991 and it ensures that American taxpayers 
receive a high return on investment for the other three-quarters of a 
billion dollars.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GLENN. Without losing the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. The time has not started running until you offer the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has not sent his 
amendment to the desk.
  Mr. DOLE. The time starts to run for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GLENN. That is fine.


                           Amendment No. 2123

(Purpose: To strike out the reduction in the period of obligated active 
          duty service of graduates of the service academies)

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

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2123.

  Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Beginning on page 154, strike out line 4 and all that 
     follows through page 155, line 20, and insert in lieu thereof 
     the following:

     SEC. 502. REVIEW OF PERIOD OF OBLIGATION ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE 
                   FOR GRADUATES OF SERVICE ACADEMIES.

       Not later than April 1, 1996, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall--
       (1) review the effects that each of various periods of 
     obligated active duty service for graduates of the United 
     States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, and 
     the United States Air Force Academy would have on the number 
     and quality of the eligible and qualified applicants seeking 
     appointment to such academies; and
       (2) submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate 
     and the Committee on National Security of the House of 
     Representatives a report on the Secretary's findings together 
     with any recommended legislation regarding the minimum 
     periods of obligated active duty service for graduates of the 
     United States Military Academy, the United States Naval 
     Academy, and the United States Air Force Academy.

  Mr. GLENN. Madam President, as I say, I rise because of concern about 
reducing the active duty service obligation for service academy 
graduates from 6 to 5 years without even waiting for the required study 
which asks for information on which we could make a good judgment on 
whether this is a wise move or not.
  The current policy, which requires graduates to serve 6 years, has 
been in effect since 1991, and it ensures that American taxpayers 
receive a high return on investment for the over three-quarters of $1 
billion that we spend each year on our service academies. The actual 
figure is about $754 million. It also ensures that the candidates we 
select to attend the academies are committed to at least considering a 
career as a military professional.
  The change in this year's defense authorization bill is particularly 
troubling in two areas. First, it changes successful legislation that 
has still attracted top-notch students to the academies. At the same 
time, it directs the Department of Defense to submit a report that 
provides the information needed to make such a change. In essence, what 
we are doing, as I said, is shooting first and asking questions later. 
We are making the change. Then we are seeing if we can get the data to 
back it up, and that is the wrong way to make intelligent decisions.
  I received a letter the other day requesting my support of the 5-year 
obligation. One of the sentences in this letter said, and I quote, ``My 
guess is that with a 5-year obligation the Navy can attract more 
candidates from which to select.'' The key word here, Madam President, 
is ``guess.'' We should not change legislation because we guess it will 
do something.
  My amendment corrects that. All it does is say that we want the 
information, that we will continue the present policy until we get the 
study next year. It provides us with the time and information we need 
to make an educated decision. It provides us with the opportunity to 
make this decision without guessing.
  A second problem I have with the language in this bill is that this 
change will open up the possibility of attacks from groups that would 
like to see us totally shut down the service academies. I am not the 
only one who shares this concern. A former State Department official 
who recently stepped down from the Naval Academy's Board of Visitors 
said in a December 1994 Baltimore Sun article that he was also against 
lowering the service requirement because that move, he said, would 
raise the possibility of budget cuts at the Academy by those who 
believe we do not need academies, he said that ROTC, OCS, et cetera, 
can just as well provide our officer corps. In other words, if we get 
less use of the product, that is, newly commissioned officers, then why 
go to all the expense of spending all this money, a quarter of a 
million that we spend on each Academy graduate.
  Madam President, I have long been a supporter of the academies. I am 
not an Academy graduate myself, but I am a big supporter of it. I think 
they are necessary for our military. Although we allocate a great deal 
of money to run these institutions, I think it is worth it. We spend up 
to $272,000 per student. But I still believe this money is wisely 
spent.
  Some of our very greatest military leaders, including Eisenhower, 
MacArthur, Marshall, Patton, Bradley, Halsey, Nimitz, and Vandegrift 
are academy graduates. And if I believed for one moment there was a 
problem attracting qualified candidates to these schools, I would be 
the very first in line to make the changes necessary to keep the seats 
at the service academies filled.
  The fact is we have not had a problem finding qualified applicants to 
fill these seats. We have highly qualified applicants, more than we can 
possibly take care of. Over 30,000 young people in our country, as I 
understand it, apply to the academies each year, and we do not have any 
problem getting good people to fill the seats at the academies.
  In fact, an article in the September 16, 1994 edition of the Record 
addresses the kind of students applying to the academies, and it says 
the academies ``offer high-quality education as well as demanding 
training in military skills and discipline.'' A further quote, ``The 
big problem is getting in with so many well-qualified students 
applying.''
  Madam President, there has been a decline in applications. I repeat 
that. There has been a decline in the number of applications to the 
service academies. But that decline has not impacted the quality of 
young people attending these schools. There are quite a lot of other 
reasons why the numbers have gone down, and I will address that. But we 
have not in any way changed the high standards required to 

[[Page S 11414]]
qualify for admittance to these fine institutions, institutions that 
rank with the best schools in our country, indeed, the best schools in 
the world.
  Also, the decline in the number of high school students seeking an 
academy education started dropping in 1988, 3 years before the 6-year 
obligation was put into effect. I repeat that. The decline in the 
number of high school students seeking an academy education started 
dropping in 1988, 3 years before the 6-year obligation was put into 
effect.
  Now, I think there are a lot of reasons why we have experienced a 
drop in applicants but none of them have anything to do with service 
obligation, or very, very little. I think a headline from an article 
about the Air Force Academy points to one of the real problems on why 
we are having problems attracting young people to the Academies. It 
says, ``Applications to Academy Plummet 50 Percent. Job security blamed 
for big decline since record high in 1988.''
  No doubt about it, there has been a decline in interest in the youth 
of America in serving in the military. And over the last few years we 
have dramatically reduced enlisted and officer positions in the 
military, and a lot of young people are getting very concerned about 
job security in a military career. Indeed, I would point out they have 
a right to be concerned because during an Armed Services hearing this 
year, witnesses told us that we should continue our reduction in 
military force structure.
  We started at a peak of about 2.1 million active duty military 
personnel in this country. We are down below 1.6, around 1.5 million 
right now, and we will go down to the current goal of 1.425 million, or 
they are proposing even going down to 1.2 or 1.1 million.
  Taking this into account, who on Earth would want to start a career 
in an organization that is laying off people after only 6 or 8 years of 
service? In fact, a West Point spokesman, Maj. Jay Ebbeson, said in a 
December 1994 article, ``Kids may want to have a stable employer. We 
just don't think the 6 years is the reason.''
  A major reason the Air Force Academy is having problems is that there 
has been a decline in opportunities to go to flight school. We have 
fewer cockpits to fill. Most of the applicants to the Air Force Academy 
want to fly airplanes, and when they hear that only 25 percent of the 
graduates will go on to flight training, it is not surprising they 
decline in favor of attending a civilian institution.
  Another reason for declining applicants is that academy graduates are 
no longer guaranteed active duty commissions. After graduation, they 
receive a Reserve commission and then they are forced to compete for a 
limited number of active duty positions with other officers coming out 
of the OCS and the ROTC programs.
  Madam President, the argument that bothers me the most on why we 
should reduce service obligations is the one that says this policy is 
having a severe impact on the academies' ability to recruit high-
quality applicants, the kind that are required if our academies are to 
be successful in division 1A football and basketball.
  Lest we think this is just a spurious thing I am tossing in here, 
back in 1990 when we were thinking about passing this legislation, I 
had visits from alumnae associations of the academies, and 2 out of 3 
of those academies made a major point of this, that what I was doing 
was interfering with the ability to recruit high-quality athletes for 
the academies when I was advocating putting the required service up to 
6 years.
  Well, I do not think there is any question that the 6-year obligation 
has had a severe impact on the competitiveness of our academy teams in 
this conference. As the excerpts from the New York Times and the 
Baltimore Sun on a chart that I have in the office--that I was going to 
bring over and did not bring--point out, the 6-year obligation has been 
a major factor for football players who may have aspirations for 
turning pro, or basketball players.
  (Mr. GORTON assumed the chair.)
  Mr. GLENN. Recruiting quality athletes has been a problem, been such 
a problem that even some groups are saying, ``We should waive the 
immediate military service obligation for academy athletes, should they 
be good enough to play pro football following graduation.''
  Well, I do not buy those arguments. We have a purpose for the 
academy. We know what that purpose is. It is not to be a minor league 
for the professional sports. Maybe it is time we take another look at 
having the academies compete in NCAA Division I-AA. I am not proposing 
that. But I think when something like the professional sports thing and 
how we have a problem getting people in because they are not willing to 
come in if they have to make a commitment after they get this education 
and over a quarter of a million dollars spent for their education, they 
will not come because it will interfere with their pro career, maybe we 
have to look at a different direction. However, Mr. President, I do not 
think you will find a lot of support out there for going to Division I-
AA because college football is a big money business.
  In a June 1994 report from the Defense Advisory Committee On Service 
Academy Athletic Programs, the committee advised the academies not to 
move to a lower division so as to not lose income from big time 
football.
  There is no wonder there are organizations out there pushing for a 
reduction in active duty obligation. Mr. President, although I believe 
collegiate sports play an important part in development of our 
country's future leaders, I have to agree with Adm. Charles Larson, 
Superintendent at the Naval Academy, who said in a Washington Post 
interview:

       Having a winning football program is something which all of 
     us here at the Naval Academy would like to see. However, it 
     is important to stress that our primary mission is not to 
     produce professional athletes. Our mission is to produce 
     future Navy and Marine Corps officers with character, men and 
     women who are prepared to lead and show the highest standards 
     of honesty, integrity, and professional performance.

  In other words, what we are looking for, Mr. President, are those 
young men and women that have stars in their eyes, men and women of all 
races and religions who are ready to make a sacrifice for their 
country, young, hard-charging individuals who really do not make the 
fact whether it is 6 or 8 or 10 years the major factor in their service 
to this country. They are people that want to lead, people that want to 
command aircraft squadrons, infantry battalions, people that want to 
follow in the footsteps of some of our country's greatest leaders.
  We do not want those who are looking just for a free meal ticket, 
those who are looking for a way to beat the system, those who basically 
are asking, what can my country do for me? We need people who want to 
do something for their country. These people, Mr. President, are not so 
completely focused on service requirements that the 5 or 6 makes a 
difference. Yet we get much more for the taxpayers' money with that 
extra requirement that is the law now.
  I get over 1,300 applications each year from high school students in 
Ohio who would give their eyeteeth to attend one of the service 
academies. I can tell you these are not average students. They are 
cream of the crop. Most of them, if not selected for an academy seat, 
still end up attending some of the very finest civilian schools in our 
country.
  Mr. President, I want to read an editorial from the January 10, 1995, 
edition of the Baltimore Sun, titled ``An Honor and a Bargain,'' that 
so accurately reflects my feelings on this issue.

       We fail to understand the hand-wringing at the U.S. Naval 
     Academy over the drop in admission applications.
       According to a recent Sun article by reporter Tom Bowman, 
     the academy's advisory Board of Visitors is asking President 
     Clinton to reconsider a new requirement that increases the 
     time academy graduates must serve in the military. The board 
     says that by increasing the graduates's service obligation 
     from five years to six, some of the nation's top students 
     have been discouraged from applying to the academy.
       ``These kids don't think past a burger Saturday night,'' 
     the dean of admissions said. And they're saying, ``That's 10 
     years of my life.''
       Maybe some students are turned off by the six-year 
     requirement, but we believe it should remain.
       It costs $250,000 to educate a young person in a service 
     academy. The additional year was added to a graduate's 
     military service to give taxpayers more for their money. In 
     today's political climate, it would be unreasonable to demand 
     less.
       But there are other reasons to leave it intact. The decline 
     in applications to the academy is no tragedy because it comes 
     at a time 

[[Page S 11415]]
     when the institution is under orders to pare the size of the brigade 
     anyway. Academy enrollment, which reached a high of 4,500 
     midshipmen in 1990, must be reduced to 4,000 by next 
     September, Currently, a little more than 4,100 midshipmen 
     attend the academy.
       Understandably, U.S. Naval Academy officials want to 
     attract this country's best and brightest young people, but 
     an applicant's dedication to a military career ought to be 
     considered as well as scholastic performance.
       Maybe some young people cannot look beyond the next 
     weekend, but they are not the kind of people we want to be 
     training as military officers. For a young person aspiring to 
     a military career, a service academy education is a 
     tremendous bargain as well as an honor.
       A midshipman at Annapolis receives one of the best 
     educations in the country--for free. Even more important, a 
     graduate from the Naval Academy is guaranteed a good job as a 
     military officer. That is more than many young people can 
     expect upon graduation from traditional college and 
     universities these days.
       We don't think it is too much to ask that Naval Academy 
     graduates serve their country for six years in return.

  Mr. President, I am sure that a few of my fellow Senators will argue 
that the length of obligated service for academy graduates should be 
reduced from 6 to 5 years. However, I believe there is more than enough 
evidence that justifies why we should not change our current policy.
  No matter how you feel about this issue, I strongly believe we would 
be making a terrible mistake to change this legislation before we 
receive the analytical data required to make an informed decision on 
this matter.
  The informative data that we are asking for, the analytical data, is 
required to be reported to us by next April by the legislation that we 
are working on here now. So it is not a matter of whether we are going 
to do it or not. They are going to make that analytical data available 
to us after having studied this matter as to what the impact would be. 
Yet we are proposing here to go ahead and make a change before we get 
the information. So delaying a change in this policy until we receive 
this report makes sense and is the right thing to do.
  That is all we require with this amendment, is just say the present 
6-year requirement will not be changed back until we get the 
information. And then next year, depending on what that information 
says, I may be leading the charge next year to reduce this requirement 
myself. But I want to make that recommendation only on the basis of the 
best information. If the study recommends that length of active duty 
service should be 6 years, which I believe it will, then next year we 
would be forced to revisit the issue and reverse our position for the 
third time in 6 years. And that makes no sense.
  It seems to me that while we reinvent Government and ask Government 
personnel to do more with less, we cannot tell the military academies 
to do less with more. So I hope all our colleagues will support this 
amendment to maintain the current active duty obligation that has 
attracted top-notch candidates to our service academies.
  Now, Mr. President, I know that one of things we brought up will be 
in a letter from the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force 
Management Policy. I sent a letter over there asking their response--I 
requested their views on this matter of section 502 of S. 1026. And 
they wrote back and responded that--it is in response to my letter. 
They say:

       Enactment of this section would reduce the active duty 
     obligation . . . of service academy graduates from six to 
     five years.''

  They said:

       As you are aware, the current six year [active duty service 
     obligation] was mandated by the National Defense 
     Authorization Act . . . for Fiscal Year 1990, and will be 
     effective for graduates of the academies beginning in 1996.
       Neither this mandate--

  This is a key section.

       Neither this mandate nor section 502 of S. 1206 were 
     requested by DOD.

  Very correct.
  And then the next paragraph says:

       A review of the history of the mandate to change the ADSO--

  The active duty service obligation.

     reveals that the Department appealed the Senate provision 
     during the Senate-House conference.

  In other words, they had doubts about it at the time, and during the 
conference between the House and the Senate they asked that not go in. 
Then to quote again from their letter:

       Despite that appeal, the Senate's provision to change the 
     ADSO from 5 to 6 years was sustained.

  In other words, their request lost.

       Further, the underlying rationale for the decision was 
     apparently based on the significant defense investment in 
     service academy graduates.

  Absolutely correct. That is correct.
  Then there last sentence:

       The Department maintains its original position on this 
     matter.

  I am sure that will be taken to mean the Defense Department opposes 
this, but that is not the case. They do not say that the new system has 
not worked well. They do not say that we are getting a lesser qualified 
academy applicant. They do not say they have even studied this matter. 
They do not give any data whatsoever, yes or no on this. They do not 
say whether it is a better deal for taxpayers or not which, as they 
correctly said in here, was based on the significant defense investment 
in service academy graduates.
  What I am saying is, they have not addressed the problem yet and they 
do not say they have addressed the problem yet. So what I say is we are 
asking them in this legislation to address the problem, do a study, 
report back to us by next April 1.
  I will say, if they cannot say when they do that for us, they will 
study and let us know what the best way to go is next year, that is the 
time to be reducing or increasing or remaining the same on the ADSO, 
the active duty service obligation, of academy graduates.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes and 27 seconds.
  Mr. GLENN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter from the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense be printed in the Record at the end of 
my comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I think there has been a misperception on a 
lot of these things, why recruiting is getting harder. There was a 
study done, called the ``Enlistment Propensity.'' There has been a 
misconception that the youth of the military are no longer hiring 
because the military is a declining industry and a lot of other events 
recently: Drawdown, personnel cuts, base closure, press reports of 
unfavorable events, such as Tailhook and so on, reduced importance of 
military life, domestic issues, crime, health care, economy, jobs, 
decline in defense-related industries in the communities, and so on.
  There are many reasons why some people are not applying to the 
academies. But we do not have any study, other than some anecdotal 
evidence, that shows we have a real decline in the quality of people we 
are getting. In fact, quite the opposite.
  I will state out of one of the studies we do have on this subject, 
the class of 1997 at the military academy, as far as scholastic 
aptitude tests go, on SAT scores, had an average for the class of 1997 
of SAT scores higher than the classes of 1989 through 1992 and 1995. 
They were only 2 points below the classes of 1993 and 1994. So in 
regard to scholastic aptitude, education and intelligence, we do not 
have a problem recruiting highly qualified applicants.
  Grade point average for the Air Force, to use another example. The 
grade point average for the class of 1998 at the end of the freshman 
spring semester was higher than the classes of 1992 through 1994 and 
equal to the class of 1995. The grade point average for the class in 
1997, at the end of both the sophomore fall and spring semesters, was 
the highest in the last 6 years. The grade point average for the class 
of 1996 at the end of the junior fall semester was the highest in the 
last 5 years.
  Mr. President, there is absolutely no information whatsoever, except 
a few anecdotal stories, that indicate that the 6-year requirement has 
adversely affected the type people we are getting at the academies.
  I think it is incumbent upon us to say keep it at 6, do the study 
this year and then we will know what we are doing when we get that 
study next year. And if it is required that we put it down to 5 to get 
the kind of people we need, fine, but we will have data, we will have 
the study by the Pentagon of 

[[Page S 11416]]
all the academies, not just one--not just Navy, not just West Point, 
not just the Air Force. We will have studies from all the academies, 
and then we can make an informed decision of what to do.
  All this amendment does, I repeat once more, is say that we will 
await the study that is required before we make our decision to reduce 
the active duty service obligation. That to me is so common sense that 
I hope we can almost adopt this by unanimous consent. I know that is 
not going to be the case.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
                               Exhibit 1


                               Assistant Secretary of Defense,

                                   Washington, DC, August 3, 1995.
     Hon. John Glenn,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Glenn: This is in response to your request for 
     the Department's views on Section 502 of S. 1026.
       Enactment of this section would reduce the active duty 
     service obligation (ADSO) of Service academy graduates from 
     six to five years.
       As you are aware, the current six year ADSO was mandated by 
     the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 
     1990, and will be effective for graduates of the academies 
     beginning in 1996. Neither this mandate, nor Section 502 of 
     S. 1026, were requested by the DoD.
       A review of the history of the mandate to change the ADSO 
     reveals that the Department appealed this Senate provision 
     during the Senate/House Conference. Despite that appeal, the 
     Senate's provision to change the ADSO from five to six years 
     was sustained. The underlying rationale for the decision was 
     apparently based on the significant Defense investment in 
     Service academy graduates.
       The Department maintains its original position on this 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
                                             Francis M. Rush, Jr.,
                                       Acting Assistant Secretary.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, the chairman of the appropriate committee is on the 
floor, and I will yield to him or just take a brief couple of minutes 
here and then let him discuss this amendment.
  Let me just say that we discussed this in great detail in committee 
and in examining it, and as chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, I 
concluded that moving the time obligation from 6 years to 5 years after 
graduation from the academies was a desirable thing to do.
  I base that decision primarily upon information that I received from 
each of the Superintendents of the academies. I have with me copies of 
letters from the Superintendents of the academies. I ask unanimous 
consent that they be printed in the Record.

  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     Office of the Superintendent,


                               United States Military Academy,

                                   West Point, NY, August 2, 1995.
     Hon. Dan Coats,
     U.S. Senate, Chairman, Subcommittee on Personnel, Committee 
         on the Armed Services, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Coats: When legislation to extend the Active 
     Duty Service Obligation (ADSO) for Academy graduates was 
     proposed in the FY 1990 Defense Authorization Bill, all the 
     Services opposed the change. We believed the extension was 
     unnecessary.
       Retention rates for Academy graduates were historically 
     well above the Service objectives. In addition, the 5-year 
     ADSO coincided with the probationary period for Regular 
     officers and the promotion ``up or out'' point to Captain 
     (Lieutenant in the US Navy). Finally, we were concerned that 
     the longer obligation would harm recruiting of high school 
     students who had many other college and career options 
     (especially minority applicants).
       To date we have not observed significant adverse 
     consequences in the recruiting arena which can be directly 
     attributed to the extended ADSO. However, for all the reasons 
     cited above, we still believe the 5-year obligation is a 
     better requirement. It helps the recruiting effort and it 
     supports sound officer management policy.
       On this basis we support the proposal to restore the 5-year 
     ADSO. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute our 
     perspective to your deliberations on this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                             Howard D. Graves,

                                    Lieutenant General, U.S. Army,
     Superintendent.
                                                                    ____

                                  United States Naval Academy,

                                    Annopolis, MD, August 2, 1995.
     Hon. Daniel R. Coats,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Coats: I wanted to take this opportunity to 
     express my position as Superintendent on the Active Duty 
     Service Obligation for service academy graduates. As you know 
     the SASC mark of the FY-96 Authorization Bill contains 
     legislation to reduce the current six year obligation to one 
     of five years for all service academies. Our admissions 
     statistics indicate that the FY-90 extension of the Active 
     Duty Service Obligation has had a negative impact on the 
     total number of applicants and on the number of young men and 
     women seeking congressional appointments. Since 1989, the 
     number of applicants decreased from 14,014 to 10,422, a 25 
     percent decrease. During the same time frame the number of 
     congressional nominations, a strong indicator of interest in 
     attending a service academy, has decreased 22 percent from 
     6,148 to 4,756. A recent survey of those applicants who 
     declined an offered appointment to the Naval Academy 
     indicated that twenty-three percent did so because of the 
     six-year service obligation.
       I strongly believe, as these statistics indicate, that the 
     Active Duty Service Obligation issue is one of recruiting, 
     and not retention. The Naval Academy Class of 1989 had a five 
     year obligation, yet our records show that 75% of them are 
     still on active duty at the six year point. We are losing 
     good applicants by legislation that targets the 25% who get 
     out before reaching the six year point, a false economy. If 
     we can get the best people admitted, the challenge is to 
     motivate a large percentage to stay 10 or 20 years, which we 
     have done with great success over the years. A five year 
     obligation will help in this effort.
       Thank you for your continued support of the Service 
     Academies and especially for your support for the return of 
     the five year active duty service obligation.
           Sincerely,

                                                  C.R. Larson,

                                               Admiral, U.S. Navy,
     Superintendent.
                                                                    ____

                                       U.S. Air Force Academy,

                           USAF Academy, Colorado, August 2, 1995.
     Hon. Dan Coats,
     Chairman, Personnel Subcommittee,
     Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Coats: We understand the Senate Armed Services 
     Committee is recommending to restore the Active Duty Service 
     Obligation for Service Academy graduates from 6 to 5 years. 
     We support that position.
       The propensity for young people to serve in the Armed 
     Forces has declined significantly in the post-cold war era. 
     For example, our applications in the past 7 years are down 
     nearly 50 percent. We believe the increased service 
     commitment to 6 years has contributed to this trend. Over the 
     past 3 years, in telephone interviews with those who declined 
     appointments to the Academy, over 20 percent stated that the 
     6-year military obligation was a major factor in their 
     decision.
       We believe returning to the 5-year service obligation will 
     enhance our efforts to recruit quality students.
           Sincerely,

                                                Paul E. Stein,

                                         Lieutenant General, USAF,
                                                   Superintendent.

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I have letters from the Superintendent of 
the West Point U.S. Military Academy, from the Air Force Academy and 
from the Naval Academy. Let me just quote from those letters:

       Dear Senator Coats: When legislation to extend the Active 
     Duty Service Obligation for academy graduates was proposed 
     for the FY 1990 defense authorization bill, all the services 
     opposed the change. We believed the extension was 
     unnecessary.

  Now they have had some experience with this and, as a result of that, 
they write to us and say that there are concerns that the longer 
obligation would harm the recruiting of high school students who have 
many other college and career options, especially minority applicants. 
They were concerned at the time when this was put in that this would 
adversely affect them.
  The Superintendent of the military academy goes on to say that ``we * 
* * believe the 5-year obligation is a better requirement. It helps the 
recruiting effort and it supports sound officer management policy.''
  General Stein, Superintendent of the Air Force Academy, says:

       The propensity for young people to serve in the Armed 
     Forces has declined significantly in the post-cold-war era. 
     For example, our applications in the past 7 years are down 
     nearly 50 percent. We believe the increased service 
     commitment to 6 years has contributed to this trend. Over the 
     past 3 years, in telephone interviews with those who declined 
     appointments to the academy, over 20 percent stated that the 
     6-year military obligation was a major factor in their 
     decision.

  Finally, Admiral Larson, Superintendent of the Naval Academy says:

       Our admissions statistics indicate that the FY 90 extension 
     of the Active Duty Service Obligation has had a negative 
     impact on the 

[[Page S 11417]]
     total number of applicants and on the number of young men and women 
     seeking congressional appointments . . . A recent survey of 
     those applicants who declined an offered appointment to the 
     Naval Academy indicated that 23 percent did so because of the 
     6-year service obligation.

  Mr. President, I believe we need to listen to the people who run the 
academies. They are the ones who are in charge of the recruiting of 
top-flight high school graduates to attend the academies. Each of them 
has specified to us that the 6-year obligation is not only unnecessary 
but it hurts their recruiting.
  As they call and interview, those who they have selected to be at the 
Academy, and ask them, ``Why did you turn down a free education,'' we 
are finding that one-fifth or more of those who rejected the 
appointment have said the 6-year obligation was simply too long.
  There are a lot of opportunities for bright, young people today. The 
people that are applying for the Academies are top-flight people that 
have other options, not only in terms of their educational and academic 
options, but in terms of employment opportunities when they leave. 
Those individuals are saying, ``I am not prepared at this point to 
commit to 6 years.''
  Now, the logical response to that is, well, then that means they 
would not stay on as officers in the respective services. If they are 
concerned about a 6-year obligation, why should the taxpayer pay for 
their education only to have them leave 5, 6 years later? But just the 
opposite is true. Those individuals who do accept and graduate from the 
Academy, a vast proportion, and very high percentage of those graduates 
choose a career of service in the military.
  The difference is that when you are an 18-year-old making a decision, 
6 years seems like an eternity. But once you have received the 
education, gone through the academy and graduated, begun to serve in 
the service, the decision is to stay in the service. So that is not a 
deterrent.
  Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona who 
initiated this proposal and was instrumental in urging the committee to 
adopt it.
  Mr. McCAIN. How much time do the proponents have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opponents have 4 minutes, 36 seconds. The 
proponents have 2 minutes, 56 seconds.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Indiana for the outstanding work he has done as chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Personnel, especially the personal interest he has 
taken in the service academies. I know of no one who has taken more 
time and effort to be involved in the issues surrounding the service 
academies than the Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. President, in case the Senator from Ohio did not hear about it, I 
received information concerning candidates for the Naval Academy. In 
1994, applicants for that class, in a comparison between the 94 and 99 
applicants from the State of Ohio for the Naval Academy, dropped 21.5 
percent. Candidates--those selected and then asked to be members at the 
Naval Academy--dropped 22.5 percent.
  I am not sure where the Senator from Ohio is getting any figures. But 
we have received information which I will make part of the Record from 
all three service academies that both applicants and candidacies have 
dropped. It is a fact of life.
  Mr. President, also, in the letter that the Senator from Ohio made a 
part of the Record from the Assistant Secretary of Defense, it clearly 
states, in a rather weaselish way, that the Department of Defense did 
not approve of the increase when it was enacted, and they stand by 
their original position on this matter. I think it is clear that they 
did not approve of it then and they do now.
  Let me tell you what this is all about, Mr. President, and I will get 
right down to it. We are in an all-volunteer force. Today, a majority 
of the men and women in the services who are enlisted are minorities. 
Today, Mr. President, the overwhelming majority of the members of the 
officer corps are white individuals. There is a significant and 
dramatic imbalance between the makeup of the enlisted corps and the 
officer corps in the military today.
  The service academies have worked night and day to try to correct 
that imbalance by attracting minority individuals into the service 
academies. It is entirely appropriate that there be some reasonable 
balance between the numbers of minorities, percentages of minorities in 
the officer corps and in the enlisted corps. I do not have to explain 
to Members the kinds of contradictions that evolve from that.
  What the service academies are finding is that if a minority person 
is qualified to enter a service academy, that same person is qualified 
to get a scholarship to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Berkeley, Stanford, 
or any other major college or university.
  We are having significant problems, Mr. President--when I say ``we,'' 
I mean the service academies. They are having significant difficulties 
in recruiting members of minorities into the service academies. They 
are not able to reach their goals. In fact, there was a steady increase 
for a while, and that has now leveled off and even declined.
  Now, Mr. President, I do not disrespect the view of the Senator from 
Ohio. But I have to tell the Senator from Ohio that I respect the view 
of the people who are running the admissions programs in these service 
academies more than I do his. Why the Senator from Ohio is hung up on 
this issue is not clear to me, because we are dear friends.
  But I would ask the Senator from Ohio, who pretends to be an expert 
on this issue--which he is not--to listen to the people that are the 
experts on this issue and then this issue would be quickly resolved.
  Mr. President, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved a 
provision in the Defense authorization bill that would restore to 5 
years from 6 the minimum active duty service obligation for Service 
Academy graduates. We believe that this position will go a long way to 
help reverse the alarming decline in the number of applicants for the 
Service Academies.
  Opposition to lowering the active duty service obligation comes from 
a mistaken belief that a longer service obligation will absolutely 
result in more officers making the military a career. Historical data 
shows, however, that there is no direct correlation between the length 
of the service obligation and the decision to make the military a 
career. In fact, in the past when there was no service obligation or a 
considerably shorter obligation, the military was very successful in 
motivating a large percentage of Service Academy graduates to remain 
for 20 years.
  The real objective of restoring the service obligation to 5 years is 
to enhance recruiting efforts at the Service Academies. With the 
current 6-year service obligation, we are losing many good applicants. 
A 5-year service obligation will focus instead on getting the best 
people admitted. As a clear indication that a 5-year obligation is not 
detrimental to efforts to keep officers in the military, it is 
significant that 77 percent of graduates from the U.S. Naval Academy 
Class of 1989, which had a 5-year obligation, are still on active duty 
at the 6-year point.
  The real issue here is recruiting, not retention, of officers from 
the Service Academies.
  Mr. President, it may be useful to explain to this body some of the 
history of Senator Glenn's amendment on the 6-year active duty 
obligation. During the 1991 legislative session, Congress increased the 
active duty obligation of Service Academy graduates from 5 to 6 years.
  Mr. President, my amendment steals an old argument from 1991, when 
the Congress recommended a provision that would require all 
commissioned officers to be initially appointed as reserve officers. 
The Congress felt that regardless of commissioning source, that all 
officers should compete for regular commissions on the basis of their 
demonstrated performance and potential. Additionally, those that argued 
on the side of debate for reserve commissions stated that competition 
is healthy and consistent with equal opportunity which allows the best 
officers to enter the regular component. Although, this provision was 
considered to be leveling the playing field with respect to reserve 
commissions; legislation also was included with respect to an 
academies' length of obligated service in the Armed Forces which would 
require a graduate to serve on active duty for at least 6 years 

[[Page S 11418]]
immediately after commission. In comparison, an ROTC graduate's length 
of obligated service in the Armed Forces is only 4 years immediately 
after their commission.
  Mr. President, the country receives an adequate return on its 
investment with the 5-year obligation. However, the delicate balance 
between accession and attrition in the military manpower world may soon 
tilt for the worse when the academy classes of 1996 graduate and they 
incur a 6-year active duty service obligation. Because of the pyramidal 
shape of the officer corps, for example the progressively smaller 
number of officers in each rank as rank increases, we only need to keep 
55 percent of our academy graduates beyond the 5-year point. History 
shows us that when there was little or no obligation, all the services 
were exceeding this 55 percent retention requirement. If too many 
officers are retained beyond the 5-year point, then the desired shape 
of the officer corps pyramid becomes distorted, there aren't enough 
meaningful jobs for junior officers, there is a demoralizing increased 
promotion pass-over rate, personnel management flexibility is reduced, 
and there are morale problems because of disgruntled officers who feel 
they are being kept on active duty beyond a reasonable pay back period 
for education.
  Mr. President, the Services' own study of the 6-year active duty 
obligation shows that the increase in active duty obligation at the 
academies reduces the number and quality of young persons applying to 
the academies. This is because top-notch youngsters at age 17 or 18 are 
simply not sure what career they wish to devote their lives to and they 
are not willing to obligate their lives to one field, military or non-
military, for a long period of time. This naive uncertainty is only 
exacerbated by the changing face of the military as it goes through 
excruciating cutbacks and is buffeted by the shifting winds of what may 
be called the leadership theory of the day. These teenagers want to 
keep their options open.
  Mr. President, many fine young people will enter the Service 
Academies out of a spirit of patriotism and are proud to serve on 
active duty for 5 years with the expectation that they may make the 
service a career. But obligations in excess of that amount will drive 
them away from Service Academies to civilian colleges, who eagerly 
desire these quality youth and require no obligation after graduation, 
even after public funding. Many businesses are offering highly 
qualified young people free college educations today with work pay back 
commitments considerably below the Service Academy 6-year obligation. 
The adverse impact of the increased active duty obligation will become 
more pronounced as the 18-year-old age population in
 our country continues to decline beyond 1994.

  Our challenge in the military is to attract the best youth we can to 
the service academies and then through good leadership and career 
satisfaction inspire them to stay in the service, rather than require 
them to stay in.
  More importantly, Mr. President, the increase obligation has an even 
greater impact on minority and women applications. Minorities and women 
are well aware that the services were once white, male bastions and 
although they are patriotic and wish to serve the country, they are 
skeptical about a military career. A long obligation deters minorities, 
as well, from applying to the academies out of a concern that they 
would be irrevocably committed to something they may not like for a 
long period of time.
  Mr. President, qualified minorities and women are highly sought after 
by many colleges in the country. With a 6-year obligation the service 
academies will not be competitive in minority recruiting. The military 
urgently needs to increase the number of minority officers. For 
example, today the U.S. military has 20 percent of African-Americans in 
the enlisted force and only 7 percent of African-Americans in the 
officer corps. Even more disturbing, the U.S. Navy has only 3 percent 
of African-Americans in the officer corps. Mr. President, service 
academies with their own preparatory schools to assist minorities, who 
require additional academic preparation, are the best way to increase 
minority officer representation. I firmly believe this. Many of you in 
the Senate know me to be a strong supporter of the service academy 
preparatory schools. In fact, that is because over 50 percent of the 
African-American students at the academy enter the academy through the 
preparatory schools. If a minority graduates from the service academy 
preparatory school, goes through the academy in 4 to 5 years, and has a 
6-year service obligated commitment on top of his education, then that 
equals 12 years of military service. This is a near lifetime for a 17-
year-old prospective candidate.
  The different active duty obligation of service academies and ROTC 
programs, 6 versus 4 years, will create difficulties. First, high 
quality young people who would otherwise apply for the service 
academies will now seek entry into the ROTC or may not seek a career in 
the military. Second, having officers from the services' two prime 
commissioning sources, with different obligations, serving side-by-side 
in their various assignments, causes difficult morale and career 
management problems. Next, a longer obligation for service academy 
graduates than ROTC graduates conveys to ROTC officers that the 
military wants academy graduates more than them, causing them to become 
demoralized and possibly decide against making the service a career. A 
viable officer corps requires that the services attract career officers 
from all the commissioning sources. We must carefully avoid the 
perception that one source is favored over the others.
  In summary, the 6-year obligation provides no advantages. It is a 
detriment in every respect. The service academies had little or no 
active duty obligations for over 100 years, and their graduates served 
the country well.
  I hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment to return the 
academy active duty service obligation to 5 years.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time for Senator Coats.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes, 56 seconds. There 
are 31 seconds on the other side.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, the idea of minorities being influenced 
more by going from 6 to 5 years or 5 to 6 years, and making that 
particularly applicable to minorities, is a bit disingenuous, I submit. 
We have talked to the people at the Pentagon, who have indicated to us 
verbally--and I am sorry I did not get a letter--that there has not 
been any decline in minority applicants. The percentages remain about 
the same.
  As far as being experts, that brings up the key point of this 
amendment. This amendment says to do the study, get the experts, do not 
go with anecdotal evidence, like a single letter from the head of an 
academy, but do an honest-to-goodness study that breaks it down into 
minorities and SAT scores, and all the other things needed to get good 
academy applicants. We will know what we are doing.
  Next year I may join my friend to reduce it to 4 years to get the 
type people we need. But now we are saying ``ready, fire, aim.'' We are 
saying, ``OK, we are going to take it upon ourselves to say we will go 
from 6 back to 5.'' In this bill, it says we will do the study, and it 
is due in next April, and we are making the decision now even though 
the real study that gives us all the information will come later.
  That just, to me, does not make any sense. What I would much prefer 
to do is do a study. It will let us know definitively what the problem 
is, if there is a problem, if we are having a problem recruiting 
minorities, or anybody else, and then next year, we can make a very 
informed decision as to whether we reduce the required time or not.
  I was very disappointed in the letter that the Senator from Arizona 
referred to that came over from the Pentagon, because it certainly did 
not express what I had been told verbally from the Pentagon before as 
to what the situation was. It was my understanding that there was 
general support over there for the 6 years. Maybe I misread some of 
that. But let them do a study and it will be better information for the 
Pentagon as well as for us, also. Until we know what we are doing, let 
us not decide before we have the study done. That makes no sense 
whatsoever.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona made a mistake. He 
said the Senator from Indiana has 

[[Page S 11419]]
worked the hardest on this. That is not true. The Senator from Arizona 
has been passionately interested in maintaining top quality at the 
academies. Nobody cares more about attracting the kind of people we 
need to lead our armed services than him. That is why he is concerned, 
because we are not getting those people. The people who run the 
academies are saying one of the primary reasons we are losing people is 
the 6-year obligation. We are trying to defer to the wishes of those 
who run the academies and admit the students, and they are telling us, 
drop it from 6 to 5.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time on the amendment has 
expired.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I do not take second place to anybody on 
this. The academies deserve to get the best students. It is not 
athletics, it is combat we are preparing people for. So our military 
deserves the very finest leadership possible.
  This amendment does not say keep it at 6. It says to do the study, 
then decide next year. And a study is already required in this 
legislation. I do not have to put that in.
  All I am saying with this legislation is, take the commonsense 
approach of getting the information before we make the decision, and do 
not rely just on anecdotal data. I believe all time has run out. I 
yield back the remainder of my time.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
first vote in the voting sequence there be 4 minutes for debate, to be 
equally divided in the usual form between each succeeding vote, and 
that succeeding votes also be limited to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 2121

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
proposed by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin].
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Harkin amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered and the 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] 
and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] and 
the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 365 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--26

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grams
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Lautenberg
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Pell
     Pressler
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bumpers
     Gregg
     Pryor
     Stevens
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2121) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion to table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate there are two more votes in 
this series. Under the order, there will be 4 minutes, if necessary. 
Most of us were here and heard the debate. I do not see why it is 
necessary to have 4 minutes. Maybe somebody wants to take the 4 minutes 
and have 2 minutes on each side to review the amendment before the 
vote.
  We will move to table the Levin amendment. But before we do that, I 
wanted to indicate that there have been a number of us here through the 
evening trying to determine how many more amendments will be offered by 
Members on this side of the aisle and on that side of the aisle so we 
can put together a finite list. We started off with 185 this morning. 
We have worked through a number of those. There are 26, I think, now in 
the process of being cleared, and 16 have been cleared, and there are 
10 in the process. There may be additional amendments that can be 
cleared.
  We are trying to determine whether we want to stay all night and 
finish this, if it is possible to finish it if we stay until 5 or 6 
o'clock, or whether we can work out some agreement here and get some 
smaller list, stack some votes and have those votes following 
disposition of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill tomorrow. There 
are a lot of people--probably 50, 60, or 75 relevant amendments--
Republicans and Democrats who have put ``relevant.'' We do not know 
what the amendments are or whether they intend to be offered. We 
learned from one Senator who has six, he is going to offer all six. I 
hope he wins the prize so somebody else will not try to be 100 percent.
  But, in any event, during these next two votes, if people have 
amendments they are going to offer, I wish they would tell Senator Nunn 
or Senator Thurmond so we can make some announcement following the last 
vote.


                           Amendment No. 2122

  Mr. DOLE. I move to table the Levin amendment, and I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Did the Senator yield back the time?
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. May we hear an explanation of the amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there are about $770 million in a Guard and 
Reserve package. Literally in the last few hours of the deliberations 
in the committee, an earmarking of this $770 million was presented to 
the committee dividing it all up for particular projects. In the last 3 
years the Armed Services Committee has been generic. We have done this 
generically so that the Guard and Reserve could do the most important 
modernization work. We did not divide it up line by line in the Senate 
Armed Services Committee. The House tries to do that each year. We have 
resisted that for the last 3 years.
  So this really is a good amendment so that all of our States will 
have an opportunity to weigh in for this money.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate?
  There should be order so we can hear the Senator explain the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. LEVIN. My amendment is supported by Senator Nunn and others. It 
is very close to what the Appropriations Committee did in this area, 
trying to leave this generic so that all of our State Guard and Reserve 
units will have an opportunity to provide all of these components--the 
Army, Navy, and so forth--as to what the highest priorities are.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will use 2 minutes. 

[[Page S 11420]]

  Mr. President, the Senate Armed Services Committee reviewed this 
policy very, very carefully by a majority of votes and decided it would 
be the Senate of the United States that made the decision of how these 
funds should be expended, not simply some two-star Reserve or Guard 
commander. It is as simple as that. We are not about to relinquish that 
decision to a two-star general. There it is.
  We strongly urge that the Members of the Senate back the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, a majority of the members of that committee, and 
move to table this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on 
agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Kansas to lay on the table 
the amendment of the Senator from Michigan. On this question, the yeas 
and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] 
and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] and 
the Senator from Arizona [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 366 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bumpers
     Gregg
     Pryor
     Stevens
  So, the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2123

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the amendment of the 
Senator from Ohio. There are 4 minutes of debate, evenly divided.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. I yield myself such time as may I require.
  Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. In 1990, we required 
academy graduates to do active duty service beyond their academy years. 
We moved that requirement from 5 years up to 6. The bill this year 
requires the study of that, whether it has worked well, whether we are 
still getting good people or not, what the status is. And my idea was 
that we wait until we get the study before we go ahead and make that 
decision, so we will know what we are doing. We just have anecdotal 
information unless we do that.
  What was put into the bill was that the bill reduces from 6 back to 5 
without getting the study. And, to me, that is like ready, fire, aim. 
It puts the cart before the horse, or any other cliche you want to have 
in there.
  I think we should have the best study we can. There is anecdotal 
information that varies all over the lot. Basically, the information I 
have is that the SAT scores for academy students across the average of 
all three academies for 1996, 1997, 1998 is 323 points higher than the 
national average. The class at the military academy had scores higher 
than previous classes. Some of the falloff in the number of applicants 
started in 1988 because of some of the downsizing of the military. We 
have the Air Force Academy in particular; their scores have remained 
very, very high. The grade point average at the end of the freshman 
spring semester was higher than the class of 1992-1994.
  All I am proposing is that since we are not under duress in this 
area, since all the SAT scores appear to be back--I may lead the charge 
next year to reduce it to 5 or 4, if there is a problem. But let us do 
a definitive study and then decide. Let us not decide now to reduce the 
number and then get the study next spring. That is keeping things in 
the wrong order.
  All I say is, get the study. We will decide next year. It is that 
simple.
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the evidence is in. We do not need another 
study. It was originally raised from 5 to 6 years by the Senator from 
Ohio without a study. But the superintendents of the three academies of 
West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy in Colorado have all 
said--they are the ones who are in charge of bringing the applicants to 
the academy and making sure that we have the top-flight people--they 
have written to us. And each have said that they support the reduction 
from 6 to 5.
  The reason they do so is they are losing top-flight academy 
applicants. When they follow up with interviews of those who are 
accepted to the academies, the ones that do not come, and ask those 
individuals, ``Why didn't you come?'' More than 20 percent in two 
different surveys and studies conducted by the academies have said, 
``The 6-year requirement is too much.''
  Now, the logical question is, well, if they do not want to commit to 
6 years, and we are paying for their education, they will not stay and 
be career officers. Just the opposite is true. To an 18-year-old trying 
to make a decision, a 6-year commitment on top of a 4-year academy 
experience seems like a long, long time. But once they go through the 
academy, and once they serve in the services, the vast majority of 
those, nearly 80 percent or more, become career soldiers, sailors, and 
airmen.
  So I think we should listen to the superintendents. They are the ones 
that are in charge of getting the quality people to the academy. They 
are the ones that are saying, ``We need this help to recruit the top-
flight candidates. Please drop this from 6 to 5.''
  The committee supported that position. I hope the Senators will do 
that.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to table the amendment.
  Mr. DOLE: I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. GLENN. Time has not run out yet. Will you withhold the tabling 
motion?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time on both sides has expired.
  Mr. THURMOND. I understood the time had expired.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  If the Senator would want to make a point, he can do that.
  Mr. GLENN. One additional minute for each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GLENN. The point I want to make is we spent a quarter of a 
million dollars on the people in the academy for the 4 years. This is 
not a small expenditure.
  We require time for doctors who are going through training. We 
require additional years, I think it is 8 years or something like that, 
for flight training now. This is normal. This is not something unusual. 
If we make this big investment, we are expecting the academies to be 
the leaders of our military in the future. If they are not willing to 
make a commitment going in, I think we are shortchanging.
  We do not have any information that indicates we are getting a lesser 
quality academy applicant these days than we were in the past. I think 
it is a good deal for the taxpayers. We stay at 6, not go back to 5, 
unless we have a study that shows otherwise.

[[Page S 11421]]

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table amendment No. 2123. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] 
and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] and 
the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 367 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bumpers
     Gregg
     Pryor
     Stevens
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2123) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as I understand, I have been told by the 
minority leader there will not be any more time agreements--which I 
think is unfortunate--on any amendments. It will just take us longer. I 
assume that we can finally reach a point where we will be able to 
finish this.
  If we can put together a list of the real amendments--we thought we 
had a list, and we were told it was not an accurate list. I do not know 
how many additional amendments have been added. Maybe we can make a 
reasonable judgment. Otherwise, I do not know what alternative the 
leader has. We are trying to complete action, and we are not given any 
assurance there is ever going to be any end to it--how many amendments 
and no time agreements.
  How much time will the Senator from Pennsylvania need?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may respond, I am advised that this 
will be accepted. I will speak for not more than 6, 7 minutes.
  Mr. DOLE. I understand the Senator from New Mexico may be prepared to 
offer amendments. Is he prepared to offer amendments?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me respond to the original comment 
made by the majority leader. We have polled our Members, and based upon 
conversations I have had in the last 10, 15 minutes, I would say we 
have somewhere between 45 and 60 amendments. Most of our members, at 
this point, are unwilling to agree to time agreements. The next 
amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico is an 
amendment that deals with tobacco. I do not know how long that will 
take. We cannot agree to a 30-minute time agreement on our side. A lot 
of Members will want to be heard on that issue.
  For that reason, I guess I am not able to provide any understanding 
at this point beyond what I have already shared with the majority 
leader about how long it will take to finish.
  Mr. DOLE. We will just proceed.


                           Amendment No. 2081

 (Purpose: To provide authority for the surrender of fugitives and the 
  provision of judicial assistance to the international tribunals for 
Yugoslavia and Rwanda, in accordance with the obligations of the United 
    States under certain resolutions of the United Nations Security 
                                Council)

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

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2081.

  Mr. SPECTER. 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:
       On page 403, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

     SEC. 1095. JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL 
                   FOR YUGOSLAVIA AND TO THE INTERNATIONAL 
                   TRIBUNAL FOR RWANDA.

       (a) Surrender of Persons.--
       (1) Application of united states extradition laws.--Except 
     as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), the provisions of 
     chapter 209 of title 18, United States Code, relating to the 
     extradition of persons to a foreign country pursuant to a 
     treaty or convention for extradition between the United 
     States and a foreign government, shall apply in the same 
     manner and extent to the surrender of persons, including 
     United States citizens, to--
       (A) the International Tribunal for Yugoslavia, pursuant to 
     the Agreement Between the United States and the International 
     Tribunal for Yugoslavia; and
       (B) the International Tribunal for Rwanda, pursuant to the 
     Agreement Between the United States and the International 
     Tribunal for Rwanda.
       (2) Evidence on hearings.--For purposes of applying section 
     3190 of title 18, United States Code, in accordance with 
     paragraph (1), the certification referred to in the section 
     may be made by the principal diplomatic or consular officer 
     of the United States resident in such foreign countries where 
     the International Tribunal for Yugoslavia or the 
     International Tribunal for Rwanda may be permanently or 
     temporarily situated.
       (3) Payment of fees and costs.--(A) The provisions of the 
     Agreement Between the United States and the International 
     Tribunal for Yugoslavia and of the Agreement Between the 
     United States and the International Tribunal for Rwanda shall 
     apply in lieu of the provisions of section 3195 of title 18, 
     United States Code, with respect to the payment of expenses 
     arising from the surrender by the United States of a person 
     to the International Tribunal for Yugoslavia or the 
     International Tribunal for Rwanda, respectively, or from any 
     proceedings in the United States relating to such surrender.
       (B) The authority of subparagraph (A) may be exercised only 
     to the extent and in the amounts provided in advance in 
     appropriations Act.
       (4) Nonapplicability of the federal rules.--The Federal 
     Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 
     do not apply to proceedings for the surrender of persons to 
     the International Tribunal for Yugoslavia or the 
     International Tribunal for Rwanda.
       (b) Assistance to Foreign and International Tribunals and 
     to Litigants Before Such Tribunals.--
      Section 1782(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting in the first sentence after ``foreign or 
     international tribunal'' the following: ``, including 
     criminal investigations conducted prior to formal 
     accusation''.
       (c) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       (1) International tribunal for yugoslavia.--The term 
     ``International Tribunal for Yugoslavia'' means the 
     International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons 
     Responsible for Serious Violations of International 
     Humanitarian Law in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia, 
     as established by United Nations Security Council Resolution 
     827 of May 25, 1993.
       (2) International tribunal for rwanda.--The term 
     ``International Tribunal for Rwanda'' means the International 
     Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for 
     Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International 
     Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and 
     Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such 
     Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighboring States, 
     as established by United Nations Security Council Resolution 
     955 of November 8, 1994.
       (3) Agreement between the united states and the 
     international tribunal for yugoslavia.--The term ``Agreement 
     Between the United States and the International Tribunal for 
     Yugoslavia'' means the Agreement on Surrender of Persons 
     Between the Government of the United States and the 
     International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons 
     Responsible for Serious Violations of 

[[Page S 11422]]
     International Law in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia, signed at 
     The Hague, October 5, 1994.
       (4) Agreement between the united states and the 
     international tribunal for rwanda.--The term ``Agreement 
     between the United States and the International Tribunal for 
     Rwanda'' means the Agreement on Surrender of Persons Between 
     the Government of the United States and the International 
     Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for 
     Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International 
     Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and 
     Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such 
     Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighboring States, 
     signed at The Hague, January 24, 1995.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as I had stated a few moments ago, it is 
my understanding that this amendment has been cleared on both sides. It 
is an important amendment. It is to provide authority for the surrender 
of fugitives and the provision of judicial assistance to the 
International Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, in accordance with 
the obligations of the United States under certain resolutions of the 
United Nations Security Council.
  Mr. President, as it is well known, there has been considerable 
debate in this Chamber and in the House of Representatives on the 
atrocities in Bosnia, and the actions there leading this body and the 
House to call for the unilateral lifting of the arms embargo. And while 
there is some substantial controversy as to what ought to be done on 
that subject, with the disagreement with the President and prospective 
veto and possible override effort, there is unanimity that the action 
of the International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia, and also by 
implication for Rwanda, is something which really ought to be carried 
out in an efficient and rigorous and really tough manner.
  Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have seen extraordinary atrocities in 
Bosnia, with the ethnic cleansing, the summary executions, the 
tortures, massive and systematic rape, attacks on medical and relief 
personnel, and the estimates show that some 200,000 people, mostly 
Bosnian Moslems, have been killed or are missing; 2.2 million are 
refugees, and another 1.8 million have been displaced in Bosnia.
  We have seen the photographs of young women in their teens and early 
twenties hanging themselves by the trees in the Bosnian forest because 
they prefer suicide to facing the Bosnian Serbs. We have heard reports 
verified about the Bosnian Serbs entering the U.N. safe havens and 
taking 11-year-old boys, slicing their throats and leaving them in 
large mounds on the streets in an effort to stop the next generation of 
Bosnian Moslems looking ahead. It is just an extraordinary and horrible 
situation.
  I personally have pushed, in the course of the past decade, 
resolutions to establish a general International Criminal Court which I 
think ought to be done. It ought to be done on international drug 
trafficking and on terrorism, where we have situations where nations 
will not extradite to the United States. Colombia is an example. If we 
had an international criminal court, we could have extradition.
  This is a subject that I have worked on for many years as District 
Attorney of Philadelphia on a microcosm as to what I submit ought to be 
done internationally. But we have had the United Nations resolutions 
which have provided for International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia 
and Rwanda.
  With respect to the atrocities in Rwanda, this amendment would 
provide authority for fugitives to be surrendered, because we have no 
current extradition treaties with the International Court, and would 
provide authority for the United States to turn over evidence to the 
International Criminal Court.
  The circumstances here are really extraordinary, Mr. President. Our 
colleague, Senator Kohl, recently repeated a saying that the loss of a 
single life is a tragedy, while the loss of 1,000 lives is a statistic. 
Regrettably, we are treating the atrocities in Bosnia and Rwanda as 
statistics, without really focusing on the individual tragedies.
  There will be a hearing next Wednesday jointly by the Foreign 
Relations Committee and by the Senate Intelligence Committee to shed 
some additional light on the atrocities in Bosnia.
  I submit this is a very important amendment, Mr. President. We need 
to get it enacted so we will have the authority to extradite these 
fugitives to the International Criminal Court and turn over the 
important evidence.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND. On this side of the aisle we are willing to accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. We are willing to accept the amendment on this side. If the 
Senator from Pennsylvania could enlighten us, I understand this is 
similar to the administration's legislation they have been seeking.
  Mr. SPECTER. This is legislation which the administration is seeking, 
if I may respond.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I recommend this be 
accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further question, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2081) was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. If I could have the attention of the managers, I 
understand it is in order for me to submit my landmine amendment with a 
10-minute time agreement equally divided.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is correct, but I wish to note 
that I will vigorously oppose the amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2124

(Purpose: To support proposals to implement the United States' goal of 
eventually eliminating antipersonnel landmines; to impose a moratorium 
on use of antipersonnel landmines except in limited circumstances; and 
  to urge imposition of certain sanctions against foreign governments 
                  that export antipersonnel landmines)

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself, Senators Lugar, Graham of Florida, Kassebaum, Simon, Inouye, 
Jeffords, Reid, Hatfield, Ford, Harkin, Sarbanes, Feingold, Kohl, 
Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerry, Bradley, Moseley-Braun, Bumpers, Kennedy, 
Boxer, Pell, Chafee, Dorgan, Mikulski, Wellstone, Daschle, Murray, 
Simpson, Bryan, Moynihan, Kerrey, Feinstein, Akaka, Conrad, Johnston, 
Pryor, Breaux, Exon, Campbell, Robb, Rockefeller, Lieberman, Levin, 
Byrd, Gorton, Specter, McConnell, Bingaman, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] for himself, Mr. 
     Lugar, Mr. Graham, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Simon, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
     Jeffords, Mr. Reid, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Ford, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
     Sarbanes, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Dodd, 
     Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bradley, Ms. Mosley-Braun, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. 
     Kennedy, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Pell, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Dorgan, Ms. 
     Mikulski, Mr. Daschle, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Bryan, 
     Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Kerrey, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
     Conrad, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Exon, Mr. 
     Campbell, Mr. Robb, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
     Levin, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Specter, Mr. McConnell, and 
     Mr. Bingaman propose an amendment numbered 2124.

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

     SEC.   . LANDMINE USE MORATORIUM.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On September 26, 1994, the President declared that it 
     is a goal of the United States to eventually eliminate 
     antipersonnel landmines.
       (2) On December 15, 1994, the United Nations General 
     Assembly adopted a resolution sponsored by the United States 
     which called for international efforts to eliminate 
     antipersonnel landmines.
       (3) According to the Department of State, there are an 
     estimated 80,000,000 to 110,000,000 unexploded landmines in 
     62 countries.
       (4) Antipersonnel landmines are routinely used against 
     civilian populations and kill and maim an estimated 70 people 
     each day, or 26,000 people each year.
       (5) The Secretary of State has noted that landmines are 
     ``slow-motion weapons of mass destruction''.

[[Page S 11423]]

       (6) There are hundreds of varieties of antipersonnel 
     landmines, from a simple type available at a cost of only two 
     dollars to the more complex self-destructing type, and all 
     landmines of whatever variety kill and maim civilians, as 
     well as combatants, indiscriminately.
       (b) Conventional Weapons Convention Review.--It is the 
     sense of Congress that, at the United Nations conference to 
     review the 1980 Conventional Weapons Convention, including 
     Protocol II on landmines, that is to be held from September 
     25 to October 13, 1995, the President should actively support 
     proposals to modify Protocol II that would implement as 
     rapidly as possible the United States goal of eventually 
     eliminating antipersonnel landmines.
       (c) Moratorium on Use of Antipersonnel Landmines.--
       (1) United States Moratorium.--(A) For a period of one year 
     beginning three years after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the United States shall not use antipersonnel landmines 
     except along internationally recognized national borders or 
     in demilitarized zones within a perimeter marked area that is 
     monitored by military personnel and protected by adequate 
     means to ensure the exclusion of civilians.
       (B) If the President determines, before the end of the 
     period of the United States moratorium under subparagraph 
     (A), that the governments of other nations are implementing 
     moratoria on use of antipersonnel landmines similar to the 
     United States moratorium, the President may extend the period 
     of the United States moratorium for such additional period as 
     the President considers appropriate.
       (2) Other nations.--It is the sense of Congress that the 
     President should actively encourage the governments of other 
     nations to join the United States in solving the global 
     landmine crisis by implementing moratoria on use of 
     antipersonnel landmines similar to the United States 
     moratorium as a step toward the elimination of antipersonnel 
     landmines.
       (d) Antipersonnel Landmine Exports.--It is the sense of 
     Congress that, consistent with the United States moratorium 
     on exports of antipersonnel landmines and in order to further 
     discourage the global proliferation of antipersonnel 
     landmines, the United States Government should not sell, 
     license for export, or otherwise transfer defense articles 
     and services to any foreign government which, as determined 
     by the President, sells, exports, or otherwise transfers 
     antipersonnel landmines.
       (e) Definitions.--
       For purposes of this Act:
       (1) Antipersonnel landmine.--The term ``antipersonnel 
     landmine'' means any munition placed under, on, or near the 
     ground or other surface area, delivered by artillery, rocket, 
     mortar, or similar means, or dropped from an aircraft and 
     which is designed, constructed, or adapted to be detonated or 
     exploded by the presence, proximity, or contact of a person.
       (2) 1980 conventional weapons convention.--The term ``1980 
     Conventional Weapons Convention'' means the Convention on 
     Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain 
     Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed To Be Excessively 
     Injurious or To Have Indiscriminate Effects, together with 
     the protocols relating thereto, done at Geneva on October 10, 
     1980.

  Mr. LEAHY. I understand there are 5 minutes to a side with no second-
degree amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there are few issues that I have ever felt 
more strongly about than the cruel devastation of whole societies by 
landmines. They are the worst of human depravity, a coward's weapon. At 
$2 or $3 dollars each, landmines like this one I am holding are sold by 
the hundreds of thousands and even millions.
  There are 100 million unexploded landmines in over 60 countries. 
Armies leave, tanks withdraw, guns are unloaded, cannons are destroyed, 
the fighting ends, people even forget what the fighting was about, but 
the landmines stay, sometimes for decades.
  In one country, they describe clearing the landmines an arm and a leg 
at a time. The children are often the innocent civilians. Every 22 
minutes, somebody is horribly maimed or killed.
  Mr. President, I hope this amendment is adopted overwhelmingly by 
this body to send a message to the world, so the United States can take 
the moral leadership as we did 3 years ago, as we did in the United 
Nations this past fall.
  My opponents will say my amendment will endanger our troops--the same 
argument that was made against the chemical weapons ban.
  Mr. President, our troops and civilians everywhere have far more to 
gain by what we do here.
  Landmines are a weapon of choice in the very countries where our 
troops are likely to be sent in the future. A $2 mine can blow the legs 
off an American soldier as easily as it can pulverize a child.
  Mr. President, let me repeat. This is not a prohibition, it is a 
moratorium that does not begin for 3 years. It does not cover Claymore 
mines. It does not cover antitank mines. Our troops have every weapon 
that shoots or explodes. We have far better ways of tracking the enemy 
than ever before. We have the most accurate weapons.
  We are dealing with a global catastrophe. People everywhere are 
demanding an end to this madness. The U.S. Senate has led the way. We 
should continue to lead. This is not a weapon we need for our national 
security. It is a terrorist weapon used most often against the 
innocent.
  I ask unanimous consent that several documents related to this matter 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              Department of Social


                                  Development and World Peace,

                                   Washington, DC, August 3, 1995.
       Dear Senator: We understand that the landmine issue will 
     soon be before the Senate. As you know, at our General 
     Meeting in June, the Catholic Bishops of the United States 
     approved unanimously a pastoral reflection entitled Sowing 
     Weapons of War: A Pastoral Reflection on the Arms Trade and 
     Landmines. In it, the U.S. Bishops joined Pope John Paul II 
     and bishops from around the world in calling for an end to 
     the manufacture and use of anti-personnel landmines.
       Two months ago, the Holy Father stated, ``I should once 
     again like to make a vigorous appeal for the definitive 
     cessation of the manufacture and use of * * * `anti-personnel 
     mines'.'' The 100 million landmines that are strewn around 
     the world kill an estimated 500 people per week, most of whom 
     are civilians. Landmines cannot differeniate between civilian 
     and soldier or between periods of peace and war. From 
     Cambodia to Angola, they render large areas uninhabitable, 
     prevent refugees from returning home, inhibit post-war 
     reconstruction and development, and remain a long-term threat 
     to innocent life.
       The bishops welcome the current U.S. moratorium on exports 
     of anti-personnel landmines and urge the United States to 
     take steps ``to further retrict its own use of landmines, 
     while it pursues with urgency and persistence international 
     agreements to restrict use globally.'' The Landmine Use 
     Moratorium Act (S. 940) would contribute to this goal by 
     prohibiting U.S. military exports to countries that continue 
     to export landmines and by imposing a one-year moratorium on 
     use by the United States of anti-personnel landmines, except 
     along international borders in monitored minefields. These 
     measures are a reasonable response to a serious problem that 
     affects millions of lives around the world.
       We urge you to support Sen. Leahy's measure and to oppose 
     any amendments or substitutes that would weaken it.
           Sincerely,

                               Most Reverend Daniel P. Reilly,

                                              Bishop of Worcester,
     Chairman, Committee on International Policy.
                                                                    ____

                           Land-Mine Ban Woes

       In 1994, about 100,000 land mines were removed from former 
     war zones at a cost of $70 million. At the same time, another 
     2 million mines were deployed elsewhere.
       These and other sobering, frustrating statistics came out 
     of a three-day international conference in Geneva last week 
     on mine-clearing.
       The daunting prospect of new mines being sown at a rate 20 
     times faster than they can be removed is matched by the 
     apparently futile attempts to ban the sale and manufacture of 
     these inexpensive weapons.
       There is some momentum to enact an international ban, with 
     25 nations adopting moratoriums on mine exports and three--
     Mexico, Sweden and Belgium--calling for comprehensive bans on 
     their sale and manufacture. But in Geneva, it was concluded 
     that banning land mines must be a long-term goal.
       Despite the clear evidence that these weapons often can 
     serve as everlasting and deadly vestiges of wars long 
     resolved, some countries demand the right to keep them in 
     their inventories.
       The nations that want to have land mines in their 
     inventories typically are not the same 64 countries where 
     collectively 100 million land mines kill or maim 500 persons 
     each week. If they were, perhaps a comprehensive ban would 
     not be so elusive.
                Sanity May Take Root in Land Mine Debate

       Far too many of us still see the hurt and disbelief in the 
     eyes of someone who has just been hit by a land mine. The 
     eyes that still bore into my mind are those of a little 
     Vietnamese girl who set off a mine while washing clothes on 
     the bank of the Perfume River in Hue in 1990--a full 15 years 
     after the war was supposed to be over for her and everyone 
     else.
       The girl lay in a hospital bed in Hue with bandages over 
     most of her body. Her mother was attending her because of the 
     shortage of nurses. The mother looked up from her bedside 
     chair and asked me through a translator why the ``booms'' 
     were still going off. Her daughter just stared at me in 
     searing silence.

[[Page S 11424]]

       I had no answer then, but have something hopeful to say 
     now. The U.S. Senate, perhaps this week but certainly this 
     summer, will confront the scourge that maims or kills 
     somebody in the world every 22 minutes. As many as half of 
     the victims are children like the one I saw in Hue.
       Soldiers know how to detect and disarm mines. Children 
     don't. Sowing mines is like poisoning village wells: The 
     soldiers on both sides realize the danger, drink from their 
     canteens and move on. Not so with the villagers.
       Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., and more than 40 Senate co-
     sponsors have drafted legislation that would declare a one-
     year moratorium on sowing mines on battlefields, starting 
     three years from now. Claymore mines, which infantrymen 
     spread around their positions at night and use in ambushes, 
     would be excluded from the experimental, one-year ban. So 
     would anti-tank mines. Also, international borders, like the 
     demilitarized zone between North and South Korea, could still 
     be sown with mines.
       The Leahy proposal is but a short step toward the goal of 
     inspiring an international agreement to ban land mines the 
     way the nations managed to ban the use of poison gas and dum-
     dum bullets. But it is a symbolic step. It will at least 
     force the Congress, the military and the public to confront 
     this uncontrolled sowing of poison seeds.
       In the Senate, Leahy plans to tack the moratorium 
     legislation onto another bill on the floor, perhaps the 
     defense authorization bill.
       In the House, Rep. Lane Evans, D-Ill., a Marine grunt from 
     1969 to 1971, is pushing a similar measure but has not 
     decided when to push for a vote. The hawkier House--which 
     seems determined to give the military almost anything it 
     wants--almost certainly will reject the amendment until the 
     Joint Chiefs of Staff say they favor it.
       This hasn't happened despite expert testimony that it would 
     do the U.S. military more good than harm if land mines were 
     banned. No less a soldier than Gen. Alfred Gray Jr., former 
     Marine Corps commandant, has said:
       ``We kill more Americans with our mines than we do anybody 
     else. We never killed many enemy with mines--. . . What the 
     hell is the use of sowing all this [airborne scatterable 
     mines] if you're going to move through it next week or next 
     month . . . I'm not aware of any operational advantage from 
     broad deployment of mines.''
       Leahy warns that ``vast areas of many countries have become 
     deathtraps'' because 62 countries have sown between 80 
     million and 110 million land mines on their land. ``Every day 
     70 people are maimed or killed by land mines. Most of them 
     are not combatants. They are civilians going about their 
     daily lives.''
       Yet mines are so cheap--costing as little as $2--that small 
     armies all over the world are turning to them as the poor 
     man's equalizer. American forces increasingly are being sent 
     to these developing areas and would be safer if land mines 
     were banned.
       ``The $2 or $3 anti-personnel mine hidden under a layer of 
     sand or dust can blow the leg off the best-trained, best-
     equipped American soldier,'' Leahy notes.
       At the United Nations last year, President Clinton called 
     on the world to stop using land mines. He could weigh in 
     heavily on the side of the one-year moratorium and push the 
     chiefs in that direction. But don't count on it. He seems 
     determined during his re-election drive not to offend the 
     military and its conservative champions.
       Belgium and Norway this year forbade the production, export 
     or use of land mines. Leahy and Evans hope the upcoming 
     debate will create a climate for a similar stand by the 
     United States. Lest you conclude the land mine moratorium is 
     being pushed by peacenik lawmakers, note that among the 
     senators supporting it are decorated war veterans Daniel K. 
     Inouye, D-Hawaii, J. Robert Kerrey, D-Neb., John F. Kerry, D-
     Mass., and Charles S. Robb, D-Va.
       The case for the Leahy-Evans moratorium is overwhelming. 
     Even so, Congress probably will lose its nerve and refuse to 
     enact the moratorium this year. But I think I could tell that 
     little girl in Hue, if she lived through her maiming, that 
     reason is beginning to assert itself. Man is beginning to see 
     the folly of fouling his own nest with mines. There is at 
     least a dim light at the end of the tunnel.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I lend my strong support to Senator Leahy's 
amendment to push for the eventual elimination of antipersonnel 
landmines. Senator Leahy has been a long-time champion of this cause, 
and I admire his perseverance and hard work.
  Landmines, which have been used in warfare for more than 200 years, 
are cheap, insidious, silent predators that continue to kill long after 
the cessation of conflict. Worldwide, 26,000 people are killed annually 
by landmines.
  Landmines hold hostage the people, the land, and the economies of 
those countries in which they are used. At the end of conflicts, often 
the most immediate need is to return and reintegrate refugee 
populations. Landmines inhibit the travel of refugee populations. They 
inhibit the travel of relief and assistance organizations. They reduce 
the amount of land available to be inhabited by returning refugees. 
They kill and maim that population upon their return. Upon 
resettlement, landmines will inhibit the population from earning a 
living for many years to come.
  As Americans, we believe that the cost of transitioning from conflict 
to peace is greater than the cost of continued conflict. Landmines 
multiply the cost of the transition from conflict to peace, straining 
the limited resources of both the country in question and the 
international donor communities. Moreover, uncleared landmines 
jeopardize new, always fragile, peace agreements by extending the 
causes of conflict--poverty, hunger, and despair.
  The proliferation of landmines are an obstacle to economic 
development and political stability. Landmines prevent farmers from 
tilling the land--they undermine food security and create famine. They 
destroy the agricultural industry of a country.
  Landmines undermine the national infrastructure and impede national 
development. They isolate transportation networks, powerlines, bridges, 
and waterways from reconstruction, repair, and maintenance. The quality 
of national infrastructure either supports or impedes economic activity 
and development. When railways and roadways are disrupted, the end 
result is heavy inflationary pressure on the currency because the costs 
of transporting goods and services always rises. It only takes a few 
landmines to render a roadway impassable. People will not choose to 
travel a road that is known to be mined.
  Landmines create health care and other costs that strain the national 
budgets of developing countries. The maimed victims of
 landmines require medical treatment, physical rehabilitation, 
artificial limbs and prosthetics, and vocational training. Reduced 
worker productivity, additional expenditures for mine awareness 
training and demining activities are all financial burdens on countries 
attempting to recover from the ravages of war.

  The sheer cost of removing landmines can be an insurmountable 
obstacle to economic growth. In Cambodia, the United Nations estimates 
that the aggregate cost of landmine clearance is from $200 to $1,000 
per mine. Cambodia's annual per capita GDP is $200. To demine Cambodia 
would consume every penny produced in that economy for 1 to 5 years.
  As you know, the continent of Africa presents some of the greatest 
challenges for sustainable development on the globe. Africa, a 
continent that has seen far too much of its share of disasters, must 
contend with the disasters of landmines every day:
  Angola: With a population of 13 million, Angola has between 9 and 15 
million landmines--about one for every man, woman and child in the 
country. There are between 150 and 200 landmine victims every week. 
Angola has more amputees per capita than any other country in the 
world.
  Mozambique: The United Nations reports that all 28 major road systems 
in the country are blocked by uncleared landmines. Mozambique has about 
1 million uncleared landmines.
  Ethiopia: Has about 500,000 landmines and even more pieces of 
unexploded ordnance.
  Liberia: After 5 years of civil war, Liberia is estimated to have 
1,000 mines.
  Rwanda: Has about 50,000 landmines that were implanted during their 
civil war.
  Sudan: Has about 1 million landmines as of 1993. That number is 
expected to have grown and to continue to grow as the conflict 
continues.
  Zimbabwe: Though the civil war in Zimbabwe ended over a decade ago, 
there remain areas that are not authorized for settlement due to the 
presence of uncleared landmines.
  In addition to the social and developmental consequences of landmines 
I have mentioned, the basic fact about landmines is that they kill--
easily and indiscriminately. I urge support for the Leahy landmine 
amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. I withhold the balance of my time.
  Mr. THURMOND. I yield such time as the Senator from Virginia may 
require.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there is no Senator that would not like to 
see this weapon removed. But where do you start in the series of 
weapons? Where do you start and where do you end? 

[[Page S 11425]]

  Military history shows that whenever we move into an area--and mind 
you, in most instances, our troops must deploy forward, often into 
unknown country, against an adversary who is in place--if we were to 
agree to an international conference such as this, the enemy would know 
exactly where the mines would go, and we would lose an advantage.
  Furthermore, when we deploy into an area, we, in number are less in 
many instances than the adversary who is in place. We need to have an 
advantage. We need to seal off what is known in military parlance as 
``avenues of approach'' and do it very quickly, if necessary, by air, 
to drop landmines and other ordinances to seal off an avenue of 
reproach.
  This would stop that. We are tying our hands. Therefore, we simply 
can not, with due respect to my distinguished colleague, agree to this 
amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the last thing I want to do in war is tie 
our hands, but that is not the issue. We are the most powerful nation 
history has ever known. This amendment allows us to use antitank mines. 
It allows us to use claymore mines, to use mines along borders and in 
demilitarized zones. It simply says let us take a step so we and other 
countries can get rid of these hidden killers.
  The fact of the matter is, Mr. President, the people who are a danger 
are the agronomists from the University of Virginia or the doctors from 
the University of Vermont or the missionaries from Tennessee or any 
other State who try to go to these 60 countries that are infested with 
mines. They are the ones, they are the ones in danger.
  It is usually the civilians who suffer. Face it, is somebody going to 
march across the Canadian border against the United States or across 
the Mexican border? It is the child walking down the jungle path who 
loses a leg. They are who clear landmines an arm and a leg at a time. 
It is the people in Chechnya who die from them. It is the Afghans, a 
million and a half of whom are on the border of Pakistan, because they 
cannot go back to their own country. It is the 100 million landmines 
that make it impossible for countries to develop. It is the landmines 
that the president of the International Red Cross speaks about.
  It is the landmines that the Pope and the American bishops and so 
many others are opposed to. What I am asking is that we take a small 
step, a small step.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the landmines currently employed by the 
U.S. forces have a self-destruct mechanism, which means after a period 
of time, which can be fixed, they self-destruct and are no longer 
harmful to anyone.
  That is as far as we can go, I say to my good friend from Vermont. 
That is as far as we can go.
  I yield such time as the Senator desires.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, how much time remains? I would like to ask a 
couple of questions, if I could.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes and 45 seconds.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, could I ask my friend from Vermont, I think 
all of us agree with the purpose and motive, what he is trying to do 
here. But I have two or three questions.
  Do we already have a prohibition on export that is in the law that 
the Senator from Vermont sponsored? Do we not have that in the law so 
the United States does not export any?
  Mr. LEAHY. Not a prohibition, we have a moratorium, as do over 20 
other countries.
  Mr. NUNN. If I could just ask, we do have a moratorium on export?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes.
  Mr. NUNN. The Leahy amendment, once it goes into effect, would it 
preclude the allied forces, United States and Korean forces, having any 
mines in the DMZ in Korea?
  Mr. LEAHY. No, in fact it specifically permits the use of mines in 
demilitarized zones.
  Mr. NUNN. Because of the international border?
  Mr. LEAHY. It refers to demilitarized zones.
  Mr. NUNN. Now, what if we were in Somalia? At night we used mines 
around the bases in Somalia to protect our troops. Would that be 
barred?
  Mr. LEAHY. Claymore mines would be used for that, and they are 
permitted. There is an exception for them by definition.
  Mr. NUNN. Claymore mines are excepted. We have mines around 
Guantanamo Bay, would that be excepted?
  Mr. LEAHY. That would be excepted. It is also in a border area that 
is marked and guarded.
  Mr. NUNN. My counsel says those are not exceptions. Your counsel says 
they are.
  I hope this legislative record will help clarify that.
  The Senator is saying the DMZ would be excepted, and Guantanamo Bay 
would be excepted?
  Mr. LEAHY. Claymores and antitank mines would be excepted under any 
circumstances, anywhere, whether on such a border or not.
  Mr. NUNN. When we were in the Persian Gulf war and we had an exposed 
right flank, we laid down a considerable number of mines to prevent the 
Iraqis from hitting our exposed right flank. Would that be precluded 
under the Leahy amendment?
  Mr. LEAHY. Antitank mines are excepted.
  Mr. NUNN. What about antipersonnel?
  Mr. LEAHY. Antipersonnel mines would not be.
  Mr. NUNN. Antitank mines are excepted but antipersonnel mines are 
not?
  Mr. LEAHY. That is correct.
  Mr. NUNN. Could the Senator tell us the difference between a claymore 
mine and any other?
  Mr. LEAHY. A claymore mine is one where you make the determination 
whether it goes off. You trigger it with a triggering device.
  Mr. NUNN. My counsel says that is not excepted in this amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. By the definition, I am told by counsel, by the definition 
it is excepted.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, there is considerable confusion about this 
amendment. Whatever happens on this vote, I think we are going to have 
to do some work on it in conference, if it passes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
3 minutes to be given to each side for purposes of debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, let me read to the Senate exactly what our 
distinguished colleague has in his amendment.

       The United States moratorium. For a period of one year, 
     beginning three years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the United States shall not use antipersonnel landmines 
     except along internationally recognized national borders or 
     in demilitarized zones within a perimeter marked area that is 
     monitored by military personnel and protected by adequate 
     means to ensure the exclusion of civilians.

  Mr. President, with no disrespect for my colleague, it is simply 
impossible to go to war under these rules. We are asking our young men 
and women to take risks which are just not fair to them as individuals. 
It says nothing about the other forces, be it the enemy or such allies 
as we may have working with us.
  I say to my distinguished colleague, I do not think this amendment 
has been well thought through. We all recognize and join in our desire 
to stop this type of weaponry throughout the world, but this simply 
will not do it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is indeed a well thought out 
amendment. It is an issue we have spent years working on. There have 
been debates here. There have been debates at the United Nations. The 
President of the United States has called for the eventual elimination 
of antipersonnel landmines. The United States has joined with other 
nations, virtually all other nations, in calling for that.
  We cannot pass laws and tell other countries what to do, but we can 
say that we will start to limit our use of antipersonnel landmines, to 
challenge other countries to do the same.
  It is not a question of putting our young people at risk in war. It 
is a question of trying to protect our young people today. Today we 
have far more of our people in danger of being killed or maimed by the 
proliferation of landmines in parts of the world where we send 
peacekeepers, where we send medical personnel, where we send USAID 

[[Page S 11426]]
people. Can anybody imagine what it is going to be like in the former 
Yugoslavia, if the fighting ever stops and we have to go in and help 
clean up well over a million landmines?
  Even with the millions that were strewn in the Persian Gulf war, that 
was not what won that war. Most were Iraqi mines. But in the aftermath 
we saw Kuwait, a wealthy country, spend $1 billion to try to clear a 
portion of the landmines there, and 85 people died doing it--after the 
fighting. Not during it, but after the fighting, from clearing 
landmines.
  As one who testified before the Senate, a relief worker from 
Colorado, said, when a landmine went off under his Jeep he sat there 
with his foot in his hand, trying to put it back on.
  Those are the people damaged. This amendment permits 3 years, as we 
told the Pentagon to do, to develop alternatives to landmines.
  Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator yield for a brief question? I think it is 
important. I think the Senator will agree the mines he was talking 
about that the Kuwaitis cleared were not the United States mines, they 
were the ones laid by the Iraqis. Is that not correct?
  Mr. LEAHY. That is correct.
  Mr. NUNN. The U.S. mines were the ones that self-destructed.
   Mr. LEAHY. No, there were mines of ours, too.
  Mr. NUNN. But those mines did not cause the Kuwaitis any problem 
because they self-destructed.
  Mr. LEAHY. I am told by the Pentagon, and you would have access to, 
at least, the same numbers, at least 1,700 of the self-destruct mines 
never detonated. We can put down 100,000 self-destruct mines and have 
at least 90 percent of them work and you still have about 10,000 that 
do not.
  We have exceptions for some mines. We have 3 years to develop 
alternatives, as the Pentagon says it is doing. During those 3 years, 
if they are unable to, I will be happy to join with my colleagues, I 
will be here during those 3 years, to talk about other methods.
  The fact of the matter is, one of the reasons why virtually every 
editorial writer from the left to the right, why virtually every human 
rights group, every church group, every medical group, veterans and 
others, have called for passage of this, is because they know the 
threat exists, not during the battle, the threat exists for decades 
afterwards.
  Mr. President, how much time is left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 57 seconds. The 
Senator from South Carolina, 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Let us go ahead and vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield back the time.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield back the time.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There being no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment, No. 2124.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], 
the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. Gregg], the Senator from Indiana, 
[Mr. Lugar], and the Senator from Alaska, [Mr. Stevens] are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] and 
the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 67, nays 27, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 368 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pell
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--27

     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brown
     Cochran
     Craig
     DeWine
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bumpers
     Campbell
     Gregg
     Lugar
     Pryor
     Stevens
  So, the Amendment (No. 2124) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                                 usuhs

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, there is an issue relating to the 
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences which I would like 
to raise with the senior Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn].
  As the Senator knows, I have advocated closing down the Uniformed 
Services University of the Health Sciences because I feel there are 
more cost-effective means of supplying our military with physicians. I 
have introduced legislation to close the school both in the 103rd 
Congress and in the 104th Congress.
  This Administration, and previous administrations, have advocated 
closing USUHS and legislation has passed in the other body to 
accomplish this purpose.
  During last year's consideration of the fiscal year 1995 Defense 
Authorization bill, I was prepared to offer an amendment, based on the 
legislation I have introduced, that would have phased-down USUHS. 
However, as the Senator from Georgia recalls, pursuant to an agreement 
with the distinguished Senator, as well as the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. 
Inouye] and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes], I instead agreed 
to a provision directing the General Accounting Office to review 
certain aspects of USUHS, and to report back by June 1, 1995, in time 
for this coming fiscal year's cycle of Defense authorization and 
appropriation bills.
  As the Senator knows, the GAO did not complete its work by the 
statutory deadline, and the resulting delay means that the USUHS study 
will not be finished in time for floor consideration of the fiscal year 
1996 Defense Authorization bill.
  Even though I am satisfied that there are more cost-effective 
alternatives to USUHS for our military's physicians, given the 
agreement we made last year, and the subsequent delay in the GAO's 
work, I am withholding offering an amendment with respect to the 
medical school at this time.
  However, I want to make it very clear that I believe it is critical 
that this issue be confronted by the Congress in the very near future. 
Given the pressure to achieve a balanced budget, programs like USUHS 
are increasingly difficult to justify. Year after year, USUHS appears 
on target lists for elimination for this very reason.
  In light of the fact that the GAO report is expected to be presented 
next month, there will be additional opportunities to revisit this 
issue before the end of the session. I hope the committee will joint me 
in pressing GAO to make sure there is no further delay in completion of 
its assignment.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for his comments on this 
matter. I know he has had concerns about the cost-effectiveness of the 
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and I understand 
his frustration with the delay in the GAO's review of the school.
  I also want to thank the Senator for approaching this issue in a 
straightforward and thorough manner. I think it is appropriate for this 
body to have the benefit of the GAO's work before acting on the school, 
and I appreciate the Senator from Wisconsin's willingness to wait for 
that anaylsis.
  I assure the Senator that I fully support his resolve to have GAO 
complete its report at the earliest possible time so that the Congress 
can have the benefit of its input during this session, as 

[[Page S 11427]]
contemplated in the agreement relating to the Senator from Wisconsin's 
amendment regarding USUHS.


 need for a congressional debate on national security requirements in 
                            the 21st century

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to talk 
about my view of the role of Congress in shaping the debate on our 
future national security.
  The Congress is accustomed to dealing with national defense policy 
and funding in the context of annual authorization and appropriations 
bills, and in the process, we often lose sight of the framework in 
which our deliberations play such an important part. Today, because of 
the great volatility and complexity of relations among nations, it is 
imperative that we broaden our focus to reassess the role of the United 
States and its military forces in the world in the next century.
  After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, it was clear that a 
reassessment of U.S. national security strategy and military forces was 
needed. The Bush Administration undertook a preliminary reassessment of 
our strategy and proposed the first wave of reductions in military 
force levels, termed the new base force. Then, in 1993, Secretary of 
Defense Les Aspin attempted to initiate and innovative and much-needed 
analysis of our military force structure in light of the changes 
brought about by the end of the cold war.
  The concept of the Bottom Up Review [BUR] was excellent; 
unfortunately, the result was not as innovative as many had hoped. What 
was advertised as a critical review and reshaping of a new military 
force instead became just another top down review, unduly limited by 
fiscal constraints and bureaucratic inertia. It became largely an 
exercise in defending existing force levels and composition within 
established levels for future defense budgets, rather than a new 
approach to military strategy and requirements in a changed world. To 
complicate matters further, independent assessments of the cost of the 
BUR force show that it exceeds the funding levels in the Future Years 
Defense Program [FYDP] by $42 to $488 billion.
  What is needed today is another attempt at conducting a bottom up 
review, but this time, we must not artificially and arbitrarily limit 
the scope of the study. We certainly cannot ignore the fiscal realities 
of our debt-ridden Federal Government, but we would be foolish to 
predetermine the defense budgets of the future in conducting this 
analysis. Instead, we should follow a logical thought process, starting 
with an analysis of potential threats, formulation of a strategy to 
deal with those threats, and a determination of force structure 
requirements, which should then drive resource allocation decisions.
  I should note the significant work already undertaken in this area by 
the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Earlier this 
year, CSIS published a document entitled ``Defense in the Late 1990s: 
Avoiding the Train Wreck'', which concluded as follows:

       . . . there is a profound crisis in security planning and 
     the near certainty of a defense ``train wreck'' should the 
     U.S. defense program continue on its present course, that is, 
     inadequate funding of a force too large for the limited 
     objectives for which the administration seeks to employ 
     military power.

The report states that insufficient defense budget levels combined with 
a flawed foreign policy approach have isolated the United States from 
its allies and friends.
  As a nation, we face the challenge of defining the role of the United 
States in a world of continually shifting alliances and relationships. 
We face the challenge of moving beyond tactics and philosophies 
developed painstakingly to counter the apocalyptic threats of cold war 
adversaries. We face the challenge of planning for future threats in a 
world where the only constant is uncertainty. Finally, we face the 
challenge of sustaining or, in the view of some, regaining the courage 
to lead.
  The Congress has an important oversight role in this process, well 
beyond the familiar but narrow choices between funding one program or 
another with the limited resources available for defense. We should 
begin to think about these ``big picture'' issues--identifying 
potential future threats, developing a national security strategy to 
address them, and building the right mix of forces to implement that 
strategy.
  Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to outline very 
briefly some important points to consider as we study the issue of our 
national security posture in the 21st century.
  The threats of the future fall into four general categories: the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver 
them, the rise of radical Islamic fundamentalism, and the increase in 
regional and ethnic conflicts. Another area of concern is electronic 
and information warfare, where the potential for disrupting global 
communications and world trade could rest in the hands of one 
individual.
  Clearly, these potential threats are more diverse, less deterrable 
through conventional means, and less easily defeated. Our potential 
adversaries are less easily identified, as are our allies. We have seen 
over the past decade that the adversary of today may become the ally of 
tomorrow. This uncertainty requires
 a national strategy that broadly encompasses our national interests 
and goals, yet is quickly adaptable to changes in the threats to 
facilitate early and effective action to defuse any potential crisis.

  Finally, our military must be designed as a ``cache of capabilities'' 
from which an appropriate response to any threat to our security can be 
formulated. An appropriate response is one designed to affect the 
outcome of a situation in a manner favorable to our national interests 
and objectives. An appropriate response need not always entail the 
deployment of U.S. military personnel. Instead, an appropriate response 
might be as simple as redirecting overhead reconnaissance assets, 
providing precision-guided munitions and targeting data, selected 
intelligence-sharing, or providing military planning assistance.
  Selectively and correctly utilizing our unique capabilities and 
talents may allow us to leverage the outcome of a conflict, without 
requiring the commitment of American lives and capital in an ongoing 
crisis. Acquiring the specialized capabilties--the tools--that would 
permit this type of selective response will allow our leaders to create 
and deploy a trained and equipped force, when necessary, or to tailor a 
lesser commitment of U.S. technological expertise to effectively defend 
against any threat scenario and to respond to any potential type of 
crisis.
  To this end, I suggest a series of questions which must be answered 
if we are to plan properly the force of the future.
  Two Major Regional Contingencies (MRCs) versus New World Disorder. Is 
the BUR force too rigidly structured for the two-MRC scenario? Can the 
BUR force respond to the potential threats of the future? Does the two-
MRC strategy deal effectively with the financial and readiness drain of 
Operations Other Than War (OOTW), as well as the political difficulties 
of abandoning OOTW to respond to two MRCs? Is the two--MRC planning 
concept broad enough to cover the wide variety of challenges that 
today's world is likely to generate?
  Airpower. What role doe we expect tactical air forces to play in 
future conflicts? How should we conduct battle management and optimize 
the use of these resources? Which munitions should be procured? What 
type and mix of aircraft platforms are most likely to be required in 
the future?
  Naval Forces. What type of Naval force will be required to counter 
future threats? What will be the lead ship of tomorrow's Naval Battle 
Group? How should we distribute emphasis among ship platforms?
  Army Modernization. How long can the Army maintain its readiness with 
only upgrades and modifications of existing
 equipment? What is planned and scheduled for procurement in the 
future?

  Expeditionary Forces. Will the expeditionary force truly become a 
``911'' force? What equipment will expeditionary forces require? Will 
we find ourselves facing more deployment requirements than we have 
forces available? How will expeditionary forces adapt to joint 
operations, and how will other services adapt themselves to support 
these forces?
  Reserve Forces. What is the appropriate role of the reserve 
components? 

[[Page S 11428]]
Should we cease funding units that have proven to be undeployable in 
times of crisis? Should we restructure the missions assigned to the 
reserves to focus on activities that are directly related to civilian 
occupations, such as airlift, medical support, public affairs and 
information services? Should we move noncombat support functions into 
the reserve, maintaining only combat and combat support missions for 
active duty personnel.
  Recapitalization versus Readiness. What are we doing to balance near-
term readiness requirements against our need for future modernization? 
What is our R&D strategy? Are we correctly differentiating between 
modification and modernization of existing systems, and next generation 
systems?
  Missile Defenses. What emphasis needs to be placed into funding this 
category and with what priority? What threat will be posed to the 
United States and our allies and friends by ballistic missiles in the 
future and how will we respond? Will defense of allies from ballistic 
missiles require us to maintain Aegis upper tier ships on station in 
the same manner as we now maintain carrier forces abroad?
  Nonproliferation and Counter Proliferation. Are our non-proliferation 
policies and programs effective? What improvements should be 
undertaken? Will we emphasize unilateral or multilateral efforts to 
control proliferation? What programs are required to protect against 
the failure of nonproliferation policies?
  Nuclear Weapons. What role will nuclear weapons have in the near-
term? The far-term? What is the most effective means of eliminating the 
need for nuclear weapons, and of monitoring other nation's nuclear 
forces? How should we plan for their eventual elimination? How should 
we plan to maintain safe and reliable nuclear weapons until they are no 
longer necessary?
  Industrial Base. What goods or services are unique to military 
readiness that cannot be supplied by the private sector, immediately or 
relatively quickly? What can not be provided for by a freemarket?
                              Base Closure

  When should we mandate another round of base closings? Do we need to 
see the shape of the future military before proceeding with further 
closures? Do we really understand how to close bases and achieve 
savings? How can we improve the current process to respond better to 
the needs of both the military and the local communities?
  With these questions in mind, we must now step up to the task of 
answering them, and the many other important issues that I have not 
mentioned. In its oversight role, the Congress shares in the 
responsibility of providing adequate forces, properly trained and 
equipped to deal with whatever consequences a changing world portends 
for the United States. We have an opportunity to chart a new course for 
national security, and we cannot afford inaction when offered a chance 
to abandon ``business as usual''.
  Starting this fall, I plan to undertake a series of hearings in the 
Readiness Subcommittee to explore the questions discussed above. The 
objective of the hearings would be to formulate recommendations for a 
national security strategy and military force structure for the 21st 
century.
  This year, the Readiness Subcommittee held several broad-based 
hearings entitled ``Readiness 2001'' which were designed to assess the 
readiness of our current force to meeting the projected threats of the 
future. The results of those hearings were not encouraging. We must 
recognize, as we approach the watershed of the next century, that our 
military forces cannot remain static in a changing world. The hearings 
I am proposing for this fall will attempt to divine an appropriate 
force structure for the future at an affordable price.
  I believe the subcommittee should solicit testimony from a wide 
variety of national security experts, like the CSIS, as well as 
Administration officials, to ensure all viewpoints are considered. 
While I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss this matter with 
Chairman Thurmond, I look forward to working with him and with the 
other subcommittee chairmen with expertise in many of these areas.
  As we undertake this effort to develop a new national security 
vision, we must recognize that we will fail the American public if we 
continue to ignore the reality of decreasing defense funding. Because 
of the need to balance the federal budget and reduce our nation's 
massive federal debt, the debate in the future will focus ever more 
narrowly on ``guns versus butter''. I believe that, when the 
subcommittee's review is complete, we may well find that less money is 
needed to maintain a smaller, smarter military force that can adapt to 
the changing threats to our security in the future.
  We cannot continue to fund every new program with a unique or 
interesting capability. Instead, we must thoroughly assess the threats 
facing our nation, determine our national security interests, and then 
carefully select only those programs which are directly relevant to 
protecting those interests and which are affordable in the future.
  If we do not make the hard choices in entering into commitments with 
our allies and friends, and if we then fail to prioritize among weapons 
systems to enable us to support those commitments, we will fail in our 
most basic responsibility--protecting the security of the American 
people.


                               elk hills

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, S. 1026, in compliance with the Budget 
Resolution, requires selling the Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1 
(Elk Hills) no later than the end of fiscal year 1996. The 
Administration recommended that the sale take place over at least two 
years to ensure enough time to finalize the equity shares, conduct an 
outside evaluation of the quantity of hydrocarbons in the reserve and 
the value to the taxpayers, and carry out a competitive bidding 
process. I commend Senator Bingaman for his efforts in the amendment he 
cosponsored with Senators mcCain and Campbell to title XXXIII of the 
bill to ensure that the government will receive full value for the 
assets when sold. The Elk Hills property currently generates net 
revenues to the Treasury in excess of $400 million a year. I hope the 
Armed Services Committee and the Senate as a whole will take a hard 
look during the reconciliation process at how this extremely valuable 
national asset is sold in order to meet near term budget goals.
                           Amendment No. 2112

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am in strong support of the Exon-Hatfield 
amendment to strike the $50 million authorization for hydronuclear 
testing. This provision is a waste of money and is not necessary, and 
could potentially damage our ability to achieve a truly Comprehensive 
Test Ban Treaty.
  Many of my colleagues have cited the report released yesterday by the 
JASONs--the country's top nuclear experts--who find that ``a 
persuasive case has not been made for the utility of hydronuclear tests 
for detecting small changes in the performance margins for current U.S. 
weapons.'' After one thousand nuclear tests over 50 years, we have 
sufficient experience from which to assess the safety and reliability 
of our nuclear stockpile.
  As I read the study, the conclusion is clear--we do not need 
hydronuclear testing. Any benefits that could be derived from further 
testing are resoundingly dwarfed by the benefits to our security 
achieved through a comprehensive test ban. The arguments for 
hydronuclear testing relate to technical measurements and scientific 
curiosity. The arguments against it relate to nonproliferation and the 
long-term security of the United States and the world. There simply is 
no reason for this program.
  Mr. President, I urge support for the Exon-Hatfield amendment, and 
for a true comprehensive test ban.


                        military exchange stores

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, section 372 of Senate Bill 1026 
proposes to eliminate certain restrictions on the purchases and sale of 
items in military exchange stores. In particular, the bill prohibits 
any restriction on cost, prices, categories, or size of items offered 
for sale. I strongly oppose this provision, as does the National 
Federation of Independent Businesses which represents small business 
owners nationwide.
  While I initially intended to offer an amendment to strike this 
section of the bill, I have since spoken with Senator Coats who is 
chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee. 
I am confidant that the chairman understands my 

[[Page S 11429]]
concerns and that they will be addressed in conference. In the interest 
of making progress in completing action on this bill, I will not offer 
my amendment. I would, however, like to briefly express my concerns 
about section 372 of this bill.
  If enacted as currently written, this bill would permit a military 
exchange to sell virtually any product. As it stands, a military 
exchange does not have to pay rent, pay taxes on revenue, or obtain 
local licenses. Without these requirements typically faced by private 
store owners, a military exchange enjoys an unfair competitive 
advantage. In addition, because a military exchange does not collect 
State sales tax, local businesses are further disadvantaged.
  As a consequence of this preferential treatment, private businesses 
cannot afford to offer the same low prices as a military exchange. If--
as this bill would allow--a military exchange is permitted to sell a 
virtually unlimited variety of products at prices which are lower than 
those available at comparable private sector stores, then the 
consequences for small business owners will be devastating.
  I believe that the existing regulations--while not perfect--do impose 
some restrictions to protect local private sector vendors against 
unfair competition from military exchanges. At the same time, existing 
regulations also ensure that military personnel have access to 
necessary goods at reasonable prices. I am grateful to my friend and 
colleague Senator Coats for working with me to address my concerns.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I wonder if the managers might be in the position to 
indicate now if they have any opportunity to find out how many 
amendments are remaining and if we can reach some agreement on the 
number of amendments.
  As I understand, there are no amendments on this side. Well, I think 
two exceptions--one, I think, may be part of the managers' amendment; 
one may be offered by the Senator from Colorado. He has been 
negotiating with the other side. So, I would say at most there are 
maybe two or three amendments on this side of the aisle.
  I do want to commend the managers. We wasted 5 hours yesterday on 
this bill. Then we had 7 hours--was that yesterday?--so long ago, the 
day before, I guess. We had 7 hours on one amendment. So I think if you 
take out those 12 hours, we made a lot of progress on this bill. But I 
get the strange feeling that there are a number of people on the other 
side who do not want the bill to ever pass. If that is the case, they 
might as well be up front about it, and we can take the next step.
  So we are down to about at least two or three amendments on this 
side.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I do not know, I guess I would have to go 
back and look and see how many amendments are offered every year on 
this bill normally. I would guess it is somewhere between 80 and 100.
  I have been able to poll most of our colleagues. Two or three are not 
here and had specifically listed a number of amendments. But we have 
been able to tabulate the number. It is at least 41. And to my 
knowledge, except for Senator Bingaman, there are no Senators on our 
side who are prepared tonight to enter into a time agreement.
  So, this bill will be debated for some time to come, if each of these 
Senators can be accommodated. But that is where we are right now.
  Mr. DOLE. I would say, as far as absent Senators, if we are going to 
start accommodating absent Senators, we will never get anything done 
around here. We accommodated Senator Bumpers because of the special 
circumstance. I understand Senator Pryor has an amendment on the bill 
tomorrow. We are trying to accommodate him because of an illness in the 
family. I am not suggesting that.
  But if absent Senators are going to determine what the rest of us do 
who stay here, then we will never finish any bill. But it is pretty 
clear from the leader there is no intention to let us pass this bill. 
That follows the pattern we have had all year long, to slow down every 
time you get close. ``Wait a minute. Let's don't pass this. We don't 
like the ABM vote. We don't like some of the other votes.'' It makes it 
very difficult for the majority leader, whether it happens to be a 
Democrat or Republican, when there is no cooperation.
  And we do not have much leverage except for nominations and other 
things that we can hold up. And we will do that. We will do that. But I 
would rather work something out where we do precisely--can we get a 
list of the 41 amendments? That would be fewer than the 105 amendments 
we had earlier. Can you identify the 41 amendments?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I think we would be prepared to list them. In fact, they 
are listed.
  Mr. DOLE. It says ``relevant.''
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is as good as we can do. We cannot list the 
specific issues in some cases because the Senators have not been 
prepared to list them tonight. No one told them tonight they had to 
list exactly what the topic is or the time agreement of which they 
would have to debate the amendment. All they were required to do is 
list the fact that they were relevant. They have done that. We are 
prepared to give that list to the majority leader and go from there.
  Mr. DOLE. Will somebody hand it to me? Who has it?
  Mr. DASCHLE. We are going to have to work through the longer list 
that we had. We have been able to get to the point where I think we 
have a list of 41.
  Mr. DOLE. We ought to vote tonight. Are there any amendments on this 
side that we can get a time agreement on?
  Does the Senator from Arizona have an amendment? We will work on this 
side of the aisle, if they do not want to work on that side of the 
aisle.
  The Senator can offer his amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. I can say to the majority leader one little note of at 
least slight encouragement. There has been a crosswalk between the ones 
that we have both been working on to clear and the 41 listed. We have 
16 that we know we cleared on both sides. We can handle those tonight. 
And we have 10 more that we are working on to clear. That is 26 total 
amendments. The last 10 have not all been cleared. Some of them--we 
think that most of them will be cleared. So that is 26 amendments. We 
have a correlation between that list and the 41 amendments listed here. 
That can be done. When it is done you can have a different picture. You 
can have, instead of 41 amendments, you could conceivably have half 
that number.
 And that gets within reach.

  Mr. DOLE. There were about 18 cleared last night. It is not that we 
have not taken care of a lot of amendments for, I guess, Members on 
both sides of the aisle. I think the managers are prepared to look at 
others, if they can be negotiated; is that correct?
  Mr. NUNN. Right.
  Mr. DOLE. I do not know what the correlation is. Are there amendments 
on this side of the aisle?
  Mr. BROWN. Yes, I am prepared to offer one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                           Amendment No. 2125

 (Purpose: To clarify restrictions on assistance to Pakistan and other 
                               purposes)

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment. I send it to 
the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2125.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section--

     SEC.   . CLARIFICATION OF RESTRICTIONS.

       Subsection (e) of section 620E of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195) is amended:
       (1) by striking the words ``No assistance'' and inserting 
     the words ``No military assistance'';
       (2) by striking the words ``in which assistance is to be 
     furnished or military equipment or technology'' and inserting 
     the words 

[[Page S 11430]]
     ``in which military assistance is to be furnished or military equipment 
     or technology''; and
       (3) by striking the words ``the proposed United States 
     assistance'' and inserting the words ``the proposed United 
     States military assistance''.
       (4) by adding the following new paragraph:
       (2) The prohibitions in this section do not apply to any 
     assistance or transfer provided for the purposes of:
       (A) International narcotics control (including Chapter 8 of 
     Part I of this Act) or any provision of law available for 
     providing assistance for counternarcotics purposes;
       (B) Facilitating military-to-military contact, training 
     (including Chapter 5 of Part II of this Act) and humanitarian 
     and civic assistance projects;
       (C) Peacekeeping and other multilateral operations 
     (including Chapter 6 of Part II of this Act relating to 
     peacekeeping) or any provision of law available for providing 
     assistance for peacekeeping purposes, except that lethal 
     military equipment shall be provided on a lease or loan basis 
     only and shall be returned upon completion of the operation 
     for which it was provided;
       (D) Antiterrorism assistance (including Chapter 8 of Part 
     II of this Act relating to antiterrorism assistance) or any 
     provision of law available for antiterrorism assistance 
     purposes;
       (5) by adding the following new subsections at the end--
       (f) Storage Costs.--The President may release the 
     Government of Pakistan of its contractual obligation to pay 
     the United States Government for the storage costs of items 
     purchased prior to October 1, 1990, but not delivered by the 
     United States Government pursuant to subsection (e) and may 
     reimburse the Government of Pakistan for any such amounts 
     paid, on such terms and conditions as the President may 
     prescribe, provided that such payments have no budgetary 
     impact.
       (g) Return of Military Equipment.--The President may return 
     to the Government of Pakistan military equipment paid for and 
     delivered to Pakistan and subsequently transferred for repair 
     or upgrade to the United States but not returned to Pakistan 
     pursuant to subsection (e). Such equipment or its equivalent 
     may be returned to the Government of Pakistan provided that 
     the President determines and so certifies to the appropriate 
     congressional committees that such equipment or equivalent 
     neither constitutes nor has received any significant 
     qualitative upgrade since being transferred to the United 
     States.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this is not the amendment I hoped to offer 
early this evening. I hoped to offer a comprehensive settlement of the 
outstanding question we have with Pakistan, and that results over a 
$1.4 billion paid to us for military hardware which has not been 
delivered because of restrictions and sanctions under our current law.
  They are in the circumstance of--one of our best allies and most 
faithful friends--having paid their money, $1.4 billion, but not 
delivered the equipment that they paid for. I am sure every Member is 
uncomfortable with treating a friend that way.
  There is, indeed, a reason for those sanctions. They relate to our 
firm commitment as a country to nonproliferation. I do not rise to 
express concern about that. But that aspect of our settlement with 
Pakistan is in dispute. There are Members who feel very strongly that 
any compromise on the shipment of military hardware is inappropriate. 
So I have not chosen to offer that aspect.
  All that is offered in this amendment is the exact language that came 
out of the Foreign Relations Committee. It passed 16 to 2. We have been 
assured by the interested parties, at least most of them, that they do 
not object to it. What it includes is an authorization for cooperation 
with Pakistan for the suppression of the narcotics trade.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, that effort of suppressing the----
  Mr. DOLE. The Senate is still not in order. Will Senators take their 
seats?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Senators will 
take their seats. Please take conversations off the floor.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, that effort of suppressing the narcotics 
trade is very much in our country's interest. It talks about allowing 
us to proceed in dealing with them in terms of suppressing terrorism. 
That effort is very much in our country's interest.
  Two things I think are worth emphasizing. This amendment does not in 
any way deliver the disputed arms that are subject to debate and which 
I hope to offer at a different time. It does not in any way repeal the 
Pressler amendment, and its restrictions on military sales continue on. 
But it does in the economic area try and allow discourse between the 
countries that we think is important.
  OPIC is allowed to operate, suppression of narcotics is allowed to 
operate in our cooperative programs, efforts to suppress terrorism are 
allowed to operate with those programs. This was considered in depth by 
the Foreign Relations Committee. It was passed out on a vote I believe 
of 16 to 2.
  Mr. President, I want to simply add one other thing. We have a 
dispute with Pakistan. It is based on very sincere and important 
grounds. But it is also important that we have a way of continuing 
relations with that country. They are a country that has stood by the 
United States through thick and thin. They were there when it counted 
for us.
  Some may remember when Francis Gary Powers flew his observation 
missions over the Soviet Union. It was from Pakistan that his plane 
took off.
  Some may remember that the United States, when it sought to build 
SEATO, found one of its first members in Pakistan at a time when other 
countries in the region were lucky to align themselves with the United 
States.
  Some may remember the pivotal war in Afghanistan that preceded the 
fall of the Soviet Empire. Pakistan put themselves and their country on 
the line for us when that came about.
  Time after time after time, when the United States has sought help 
from Pakistan, they have been there to work with us.
  When we asked for troops to cooperate in Somalia, it was Pakistan who 
came forward and sent their troops and, incidentally, suffered large 
casualties. When we talked about troops in Bosnia, they came forward. 
When we talked about troops in Haiti where there were not a lot of 
volunteers, Pakistan came forward.
  I mention all these things, Mr. President, because while there is a 
dispute and a legitimate dispute about whether or not those arms should 
be delivered, there should not be a dispute that is to our advantage to 
have some discourse with Pakistan. There should not be a dispute that 
they have been good friends through difficult times.
  All Members may remember the threats that the leaders of the Soviet 
Union issued against Pakistan, and yet they stood firm by this country 
throughout the cold war.
  So, Mr. President, this is a very small step. It only deals with 
economic matters, basically, but it is important, I think, as a step of 
moving toward developing a continuing relationship with one of 
America's oldest and dearest friends.
  I might mention at this point the words of President Clinton as he 
shared them with the Prime Minister of Pakistan. President Clinton 
said:

       I don't think what happened was fair to Pakistan in terms 
     of money . . . I don't think it is right for us to keep the 
     money and the equipment. That is not right. And I am going to 
     try to find a resolution to it. I don't like it.

  The President is referring to the payment of $1.4 billion and not 
getting the equipment and not getting their money back. That is now 
resolved by this amendment. But to let this moment pass without any 
effort to extend our hand in friendship to Pakistan, without any effort 
to recognize that this is a relationship that we should not throw away, 
I think, would be a mistake.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I support this proposal to make 
whole our obligations to Pakistan, a country which is an ally of the 
United States.
  The Pressler amendment halted the transfer of F-16 planes and other 
military equipment for which the Government of Pakistan has paid in 
full. I believe we have an obligation to equitably resolve this 
outstanding transaction.
  Mr. President, I want the United States to be seen as a country that 
keeps its word. We entered into a contract with Pakistan to sell 
military equipment, and we accepted more than $1 billion for that 
equipment. Likewise, the United States has made it quite clear that we 
will not do business with countries that proliferate. We all understand 
that the transfer of the F-16's cannot be completed because Pakistan 
has chosen not to work with the United 

[[Page S 11431]]
States on proliferation issues. However, the United States cannot 
continue to retain both the planes and the money.
  Since the sale cannot be completed, I believe we have an obligation 
to come to an agreement to reimburse the government people of Pakistan. 
The President has offered a thoughtful proposal, which is being offered 
by the distinguished Senator from Colorado. I support this proposal to 
provide recompense the people of Pakistan.
  This proposal does not send the F-16 planes to Pakistan. The 
administration will seek an alternate buyer for the planes, and only 
after the sale is completed will the proceeds be forwarded to Pakistan. 
This proposal also transfers to Pakistan the $370 million in other 
military equipment, which, I am told, will not alter the balance of 
power in the region.
  Mr. President, I believe this proposal is fair. It is certainly just. 
I will vote in favor of the Brown amendment.
  Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I reluctantly must rise in opposition to 
this amendment. Let me say that in 1985, when we adopted the Pressler 
amendment, it was supported by Pakistan. Frankly, it was the Reagan 
administration's amendment to settle the dispute. At the time, Pakistan 
said they had no nuclear program, and the Foreign Relations Committee 
was considering the Cranston amendment to shut off aid. My colleagues 
will recall the Carter administration had previously shut off aid. Our 
former colleague from California had sought a complete cut-off. This 
amendment, which conditioned aid on an annual certification, was a 
compromise put forth by the Reagan administration. George Bush was very 
much involved in it, and Pakistan supported the original so-called 
Pressler amendment.
  At that point, they began buying planes and other military equipment 
knowing that they, at the same time, were developing nuclear weapons. 
But they were telling George Bush in his trips over there just the 
opposite. George Bush was very disturbed about this matter.
  When he became President in 1990, the United States CIA had certified 
that Pakistan, in fact, had been lying and had a nuclear weapon. I know 
Pakistan has done a lot of things for us. I have been in there many 
times and want to be friends with the Pakistanis. But the fact of the 
matter is we acted in good faith. We adopted an amendment they asked us 
to adopt, and it was Reagan administration policy.
  Then at that point in time, in 1990, we could no longer deliver a 
previous order of military equipment under an agreement that they 
sought with us. And that is how the now infamous fleet of F-16's came 
to be parked on the tarmac. Those planes were part of a $1.4 billion 
contract of military equipment that was made prior to the Pressler 
amendment, but could not be delivered after Pressler was invoked.
  Recently, I proposed a plan so that the Pakistanis could be paid back 
their money. I proposed that the President of the United States could 
offer for sale these planes to Taiwan or to the Philippines or to 
another third party, and the President has done this. That is a 
positive step. That is moving forward. The rationale for not seeking 
their delivery is obvious: F-16's are nuclear delivery vehicles. We 
would be more than waiving the Pressler amendment if the F-16's were 
delivered. We would be striking at the very heart of our Nation's 
nonproliferation policy.
  I have been critical of both India and Pakistan in the nuclear area. 
In recent weeks, we have received more disturbing news: The New York 
Times and Defense News reported last month that Pakistan received from 
Communist China key components that could be used in M-11 ballistic 
missiles.
  Without question, a nuclear war between India and Pakistan would be 
cataclysmic. The names of the perpetrators and their accessories would 
be cursed for a millennium. To its credit, Mr. President, the U.S. 
Senate has taken the initiative to promote peace and stability in South 
Asia, and the core of that is the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
  A decade ago, under the chairmanship of the Senator from Indiana 
[Senator Lugar], we voted to adopt an amendment that allowed United 
States aid to Pakistan to continue as long as the President can certify 
that Pakistan was not in possession of a nuclear device. That is how 
this came about. Why did the committee, and ultimately the Congress, 
take this action? Pakistan was the third-largest recipient of United 
States foreign assistance, receiving as much as $600 million annually. 
Pakistan was, and is today, an ally of the United States. The brave 
people of Pakistan were instrumental in channeling resources to Afghan 
refugees and rebels as they sought to repel Soviet invaders. United 
States officials rightly were concerned that the Government in 
Islamabad was interested in developing a nuclear weapon, a course of 
action not in our national interest.
  Therefore, given the vast amounts of United States aid made available 
to Pakistan, we believe that the threat could be used to further two 
policy goals: First, to give Pakistan an incentive to ensure that the 
nuclear program serves a peaceful purpose, or the American people will 
stop subsidizing Pakistan. In short, the so-called Pressler amendment 
was designed to send one message: Nuclear proliferation has a price.
  In addition, I urge my colleagues to look at some of the recent 
intelligence reports. I might say that there is available a transcript 
in this building of a recent briefing for Senators on Pakistan by the 
CIA. Obviously, I cannot state what that said. But I will say what the 
New York Times and Defense News reported last month--that Pakistan has 
been receiving from Communist China key components that can be used in 
making M-11 ballistic missiles.
  To conclude my argument, it is this. This was an amendment that 
Pakistan asked for in good faith. George Bush went over and met with 
them when he was Vice President. He was very involved in this 
amendment. This was a Reagan-Bush amendment. And the truth has not been 
told and is still not being told today. That is the problem we have 
here.
  I wish it were otherwise because I want to have good relations with 
both Pakistan and India. I have traveled to Pakistan and India several 
times. This problem will go on and on until the Pakistanis are willing 
to be honest with us in our dealings and to say what our intelligence 
people say and has been published in the New York Times and Defense 
News, and so I must very reluctantly oppose this amendment.
  Mr. BROWN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. PRESSLER. Yes.
  Mr. BROWN. I appreciate the Senator's leadership on this issue and 
his speaking out. My hope is to at least identify where the concerns 
are. Subparagraph (A) makes it clear that the prohibitions in the law 
described in the Pressler amendment do not apply to international 
narcotics control. This would allow us to cooperate with them in 
controlling international narcotics.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I have no problem with that, but the larger problem is 
that we are not seeking any concessions from Pakistan on the 
nonproliferation front.
  Mr. BROWN. That is one of the primary functions. The second one--I 
think, the second most important--is making it clear that the Pressler 
amendment would not prohibit peacekeeping and other multilateral 
operations. Paragraph (B)----
  Mr. PRESSLER. Facilitating military-to-military contact, training--
including chapter 5 of par II of this act--and humanitarian and civic 
assistance projects.
  I think that has to go into Senator Mitch McConnell's appropriations 
Subcommittee on Foreign Ooperations. I believe if we have the time to 
study this and the other proposal we discussed in private, we could 
resolve this issue.
  Mr. BROWN. Part B, as I read it, facilitating military-to-military 
contact, training, and humanitarian and civic assistance projects.
  Would the Senator have concerns about allowing military-to-military 
contact for the purposes of civic assistance projects?
  Mr. PRESSLER. It depends on what the training means. If it is limited 
to humanitarian and civic assistance projects, I personally would not 
have a problem.

[[Page S 11432]]

  Mr. BROWN. That is the intent. Under (C) it says, ``Peacekeeping and 
other multilateral operations--or any provisions of law available for 
providing assistance for peacekeeping purposes.''
  Does the Senator object to us being allowed to cooperate with the 
Pakistanis for the purpose of peacekeeping purposes?
  Mr. PRESSLER. No, of course not. Once again, we are getting no 
concessions from Pakistan in the area of nuclear non-proliferation. I 
am basically opposed to this because it is unconditional. We are 
getting no concessions on nonproliferation. Indeed, according to what 
is happening, we are getting less cooperation lately. You can go 
through each of the lines, but the larger, fundamental problem remains.
  Mr. BROWN. I mention that because this is not military, does not 
involve a package of military equipment.
  Mr. PRESSLER. It says, ``The President may return to the Government 
of Pakistan military equipment paid for and delivered to Pakistan and 
subsequently transferred for repair or upgrade.'' So we are getting 
into a whole host of things here.
  Mr. BROWN. Well, if I----
  Mr. PRESSLER. I think we can get a solution if we sought the 
assistance of the Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, and his 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. I believe we can work on this 
through him. Again, I am opposed to it because it is unconditional. We 
are getting no concessions.
  Mr. BROWN. Would the Senator allow me to clarify the point he raised?
  Mr. PRESSLER. Well, there is another question.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, who has the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota has the floor.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I will yield to the Senator for a question.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to get recognition in my 
own right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes] is 
recognized.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to speak in a broader 
context with respect to this issue, because I think there is a failure 
to understand the Pressler amendment and what it did.
  The Pressler amendment, at its time, was a special exception for 
Pakistan. The Pressler amendment, at its time--the consequence of it 
was to enable the United States Government to send aid to Pakistan, 
which otherwise would have been prohibited since the nonproliferation 
law said that there was no United States aid to any country that 
delivers or receives nuclear materials or technology, except under IAEA 
supervision and safeguards.
  Now, what the Pressler amendment allowed was a special exception just 
for Pakistan that allowed the President to waive the law if he 
certified that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device, and 
that United States aid would reduce the risk that Pakistan would get 
one. No other country received this special waiver.
  Subsequently, through the 1980's, there were other special waivers 
for Pakistan from the nonproliferation laws. I say to the distinguished 
Senator from Colorado that maybe the American taxpayers should get back 
the money they gave to Pakistan during this period, on the premise that 
Pakistan would not go nuclear. That was the premise. And the Pressler 
amendment allowed this aid to flow from 1985, when the Pressler 
amendment went into effect, through 1990, when President Bush concluded 
he could no longer make this certification that Pakistan did not 
possess a nuclear explosive device. The Pressler amendment allowed $3.3 
billion in direct U.S. aid to flow to Pakistan, even though Pakistan 
had violated our nonproliferation laws. Over $2 billion of that aid 
from 1985 to 1990 went to buy weapons. And the express purpose of 
making that money available to buy weapons for Pakistan was so that it 
would not need or seek nuclear weapons. In other words, the deal was 
that we do not want you to go nuclear. We know you are acquiring 
nuclear materials and technology, not conforming to the 
nonproliferation laws, but we are going to provide this military aid in 
order to keep you from going nuclear. That was the deal.
  Now, the Pressler amendment was clearly explained, it was fully 
publicized. Pakistan knew the consequences if it decided to pursue 
nuclear weapons, despite our aid and our warnings. Yet, what they did 
is they took the money--almost $3.5 billion over this 5-year period, 
and more than $2 billion in military aid--and, at the same time, went 
nuclear.
  This has to be understood because it is portrayed as though some 
terrible unfairness were done and he even quoted the President to that 
effect. But the fact of the matter is, is that the Pressler amendment, 
at its time, gave Pakistan an exception to the nonproliferation law.
  The premise was we will provide them very significant economic and 
military assistance, seek to strengthen them, greatly enhance their 
conventional defensive posture as part of a deal that they not go 
nuclear.
  As long as the President could continue to certify that they did not 
have a nuclear explosive device, they would continue to receive 
assistance.
  Now, what happened is in 1990 President Bush finally said, ``I can't 
certify this any longer. I can't certify it.'' They have gone to a 
nuclear device, contrary to the deal that was contained in the Pressler 
amendment. I invite the Senator from South Dakota, if I am misstating 
the situation, to correct it.
  As a consequence, what Pakistan did, they accepted this aid and they 
continued their nuclear program anyhow. That was not part of the deal. 
They, in effect, flouted our laws, took our money, and then complained 
when we finally said ``enough is enough,'' when President Bush said, 
``I cannot certify this any longer,'' and we cut off the aid.
  Now, people say this was a terrible unfairness to Pakistan. The 
unfairness, if I may say so, was to the American taxpayers who provided 
$3.5 billion on the premise that Pakistan would not move to acquire a 
nuclear explosive device. They took the money. They went ahead and 
acquired the nuclear explosive device anyhow, and now they say, ``We 
were treated unfairly.''
  Mr. PRESSLER. If my friend would yield for a question, he is stating 
it exactly correctly.
  I might say, with some sense of humor, when this was working in the 
1980's, it was known as the Reagan-Bush amendment; it was only when it 
became controversial that they started calling it the Pressler 
amendment, I point out.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I think the discussion we have had has been 
very helpful in giving background.
  Let me emphasize a couple of things. What is offered here is not the 
compromise proposal that the President had asked to resolve the 
situation over, $1.4 billion military equipment. That is controversial. 
I understand there are strong feelings on both sides. I have not 
offered that.
  I would like to offer it at a future point, but I have not offered it 
in deference to getting things resolved on this bill quickly tonight. 
What is offered is solely the portion that was worked out with the 
administration and with the Foreign Relations Committee. It passed 16 
to 2 out of committee, and what we literally did was try and eliminate 
anything that was controversial.
  What this does is try and go through the Pressler amendment and 
clarify areas where it may not apply.
  Let me emphasize something. It does not repeal the Pressler 
amendment. It does not deliver military equipment.
  Specifically, Members should know there are six things this amendment 
does. No. 1, it allows us to participate with Pakistan in international 
narcotics control. I cannot believe there is a single Member of the 
Senate that would object to that.
  No. 2, it allows military-to-military contacts for the purposes of 
humanitarian and civic assistance. I have a difficult time believing 
anyone here would object to that.
  No. 3, it allows peacekeeping and multilateral operations.
  Now, Mr. President, we have gone to Pakistan and asked them as a 
favor to us to participate in these operations. When volunteers went to 
Haiti, they were not in abundance, Pakistan responded to our request. 
When people were losing their lives in Somalia, Pakistan responded with 
the largest 

[[Page S 11433]]
group. When people were asked to go to Bosnia, which is not a pleasure 
scene, Pakistan responded.
  The third thing that it does is allow peacekeeping operations. They 
have been at our request.
  No. 4, it allows us to cooperate with antiterrorism activity. That is 
in our interest. That is desperately in our interest. They have 
returned terrorists to us and they have worked with us.
  The language of the Pressler amendment does not make it clear that 
they can cooperate and we can cooperate with them in those areas. That 
is why this amendment is necessary. It is necessary because the 
existing language does not clearly state that these activities can 
still be carried on.
  There are two other items this amendment does. It allows the 
President--and it is may, not mandatory language--to pay for the 
storage costs. It simply gives him that authorization, something the 
President asked for, for the items of military equipment that they have 
paid for but not received.
  Appreciate what has happened, Mr. President. We not only have 
contracted with them for the equipment and had it built and gotten 
their money for it and refused to deliver it, but we now charge them 
storage on the equipment that we refuse to deliver to them.
  Last, Mr. President, it allows the return of other military equipment 
that the administration was comfortable with returning that was not 
involved in the sale, that was owned by Pakistan, that was returned to 
the United States for repairs, and it was caught in the breach. That 
is, returning equipment they have always had title to and was simply 
here to be repaired. I do not believe that is a major controversial 
item either with the administration or with India.
  We have talked with the Indian Ambassador about this package 
specifically. The Indian Ambassador, I understand, has expressed less 
than full endorsement of the package to Senator Pressler. In my 
discussions with the Indian Ambassador, he indicated his concern was 
about the sale of the planes which are not included in this, and not 
with regard to the package.
  Mr. President, I want to make it clear to Members, the items that are 
in this, I believe sincerely, are noncontroversial and to our 
advantage. They are meant to make it clear that the Pressler amendment 
does not prohibit us from cooperating with the Pakistanis in these 
areas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BROWN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. McCAIN. Is it accurate to say that this passed 16 to 2 through 
committee?
  Mr. BROWN. Yes, it voted out 16 to 2.
  Mr. McCAIN. Exact same package?
  Mr. BROWN. Exact same language. Nothing has been added to what the 
Foreign Relations Committee worked on.
  Mr. McCAIN. Would the Senator be ready to enter into a time agreement 
on this?
  Mr. BROWN. I am happy to enter into any agreement that those 
concerned about the amendment would wish.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask if the distinguished minority leader would be 
prepared to propound a time agreement.
  Mr. DOLE. We are making an inquiry.
  Mr. LEVIN. I would like to ask before I respond whether the Senator 
from Colorado would tell us whether or not the question of the delivery 
of M-11's to Pakistan is a question he has resolved in his own mind, 
No. 1. If so, whether he would tell the Senator from Michigan whether 
or not such a delivery would violate the missile technology control 
regime. And if so, whether or not sanctions should then be applied to 
Pakistan rather than a resolution such as this.
  The answer to those questions are very relevant in terms of the time 
agreement, if I can say so to the leader, because we recently had a 
briefing on this issue up in 407 and that document is very, very clear 
on this subject. It is very important, that if, in fact, my questions 
are answered a certain way by this Senator or other Senators, then that 
briefing and the thrust of that briefing be made available to this 
Senate in executive session.
  Mr. BROWN. Let me respond to the Senator by quoting to those who are 
in a much better position to know than I. This was a July 28 statement 
by Secretary of State Warren Christopher. He said, ``At the present 
time, although there is a fairly large body of evidence, we do not 
think that there is the evidence that would justify the imposition of 
sanctions.''
  Now, let me say to the Senator, he raised an important question, and 
I think he is rightly concerned about the missiles. Let me emphasize 
something: This amendment does not bar in any way sanctions or 
interfere with sanctions in any way. If they are justified under the 
Pressler amendment, they go ahead.
  This will not restrict or shortchange that at all. But it does say, 
when we are trying to stop terrorist activity, that we are at least 
allowed to cooperate with the Pakistani Government to stop narcotics, 
to stop terrorism, to allow them to participate in peaceful forces.
  So I know the Senator has legitimate concerns, and I do not mean to 
shortchange them at all. I do quote the Secretary of State because I 
think he studied this and has looked at it and is in a better position 
than I. But let me emphasize, this amendment does not in any way 
inhibit sanctions, should they be justified under existing statutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator. But the evidence that was presented--
and I am not free in this setting to disclose what that evidence is--in 
S-407 is very relevant to that issue. And it is very critical that 
Members of this Senate, I believe in executive session, read what the 
briefing was on this issue. And I cannot say much more than that. But 
we hear of a resolution in front of us, which is presented suddenly to 
us tonight--I am not on Foreign Relations, and we were talking out in 
the hallway about a different formula of a resolution, and I thought 
there was going to be a different resolution presented to a group of 
six of us--suddenly this resolution is on the floor.
  But the question of the delivery of M-11 missiles from China to 
Pakistan is the most fundamental question of missile proliferation. We 
are worried about missiles. We all are. That was what the debate was 
all about yesterday.
  My question to the Senator from Colorado is this. If, in fact, we are 
satisfied that M-11's have been delivered to Pakistan, whether or not 
that would trigger sanctions under the Missile Technology Control 
Regime? That is my question to the Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. The MTCR, Missile Technology Control Regime, does provide 
for sanctions for violation. Let me assure the Senator, that has 
nothing to do with this amendment. Those would take place if they are 
justified, and not take place if they are not justified. This amendment 
in no way interferes with those sanctions at all.
  I would simply also add to the Senator, I think he is to be commended 
for his urgings to the Members. I think that briefing he suggested is 
valuable and worth going to.
  Second, I think he is right to be concerned about the issue. I would 
not come to this body and urge that we ignore the Missile Technology 
Control Regime.
  Mr. LEVIN. My specific question however is this. If the M-11 were in 
fact delivered by China to Pakistan, if that were true, would sanctions 
then be triggered under the MTCR?
  My question is not a general one, whether MTCR provides for 
sanctions. My question is, if we are satisfied that the M-11 were 
delivered by China to Pakistan, would sanctions then be appropriate 
under MTCR? That is my question.
  Mr. BROWN. Under our statutes, the President is charged with the 
enforcement of the MTCR. I read a quote from the Secretary of State. 
But let me assure my colleague that, at least in my understanding, is 
in the hands of the President. I assume it would be properly enforced 
if he feels there is a violation.
  Mr. LEVIN. It seems to me----
  Mr. COHEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BROWN. I yield to the Senator from Maine.
  Mr. COHEN. I am just going to ask a question of the Senator from 
Michigan. If we were satisfied that the missiles were in fact 
delivered, the question I 

[[Page S 11434]]
would have for the Senator from Michigan, would he conclude that the 
law requires us to apply sanctions against China? I mean, there are 
many violations. I know the Senator has been attacked--or accused; not 
attacked--criticized for bringing this amendment up because it flies in 
the face of what we were seeking to do, namely to dissuade the 
Pakistanis from acquiring nuclear weapons. I think most of us voted for 
that, along with Senator Glenn.
  But the notion that somehow the Pakistanis have deceived us does not 
put them in a unique category. I think we can talk about the Indians, 
for example, who for years said, ``We are conducting peaceful nuclear 
explosions,'' only to find out years later that they were, in fact, 
developing a nuclear capability.
  We now have the Russians, with whom we have relations, who are also 
conducting, I believe, experiments in a field that should be of concern 
to this body, in the field of chemical weapons and biological weapons. 
The same thing with respect to China.
  I think the Senator from Colorado raises a valid point this evening. 
He is not seeking in any way to repeal or modify the Pressler 
amendment. What he is seeking to achieve is maintain the kind of 
relations, as I understand it, with Pakistan, that they have maintained 
with us. He did not mention, by way of specificity, at least, the name 
Yusef. Here we had a major international terrorist, as such, who was 
involved in the terrorist bombing in New York. It was Pakistan who 
helped us get him back.
  I think what he is trying to achieve, namely, to maintain a 
relationship with Pakistan that does not contradict or undermine the 
Pressler amendment, is something that is very worthy of our 
consideration this evening, tomorrow, however long it takes.
  But I think, if we are talking about whether we are going to trigger 
the Missile Technology Control Act, we have to look at those who are 
selling it as well. That would involve China and perhaps even other 
nations.
  Mr. BROWN. Let me say this to the Senator from Maine, if I could, by 
way of clarification. In discussions with the administration, they 
indicated to us that there were real questions with the Pressler 
amendment as to whether or not they were allowed to participate in 
narcotics control operations with Pakistan, real questions about 
participation in humanitarian assistance, real questions about allowing 
them to participate with them in peacekeeping, real questions about 
allowing them to cooperate with them in antiterrorism activity.
  It was my belief that there was value in clarifying the Pressler 
amendment in these specific areas.
  Mr. SARBANES. What about the other areas?
  Mr. BROWN. I think the Members would feel comfortable that these are 
things that are to our advantage, and ones that I would think--at least 
my own view is they probably are not ones the Senator from South Dakota 
meant to outlaw. But, obviously, he would be a far better spokesman on 
that.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BROWN. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. SARBANES. Does the Senator also think there are real questions 
with respect to the application of the Pressler amendment with respect 
to the storage costs and the application of the Pressler amendment to 
the other arms he was talking about providing under his amendment, as I 
understand it?
  Mr. BROWN. Yes. I think the Senator is right to point those out 
because they are slightly different.
  The return of military equipment is a question with nothing to do 
with the purchase of the military equipment, as I am advised by the 
administration. What it involves is military equipment which Pakistan 
owned and which needed repairs, and they sent parts or whole pieces of 
equipment back to the United States, as, of course, this country would 
like to have done, to be repaired and sent back. So these were things 
caught in the transition. I think that fairly falls in an area of 
clarification. But I think the Senator could well question that.
  The question of storage costs, though, I think the Senator is 
absolutely accurate. It is a different thing. It was something 
requested by the administration. But I must tell the Senator I do not--
if there are Members who object to our trying to work out something on 
the storage cost for equipment they paid for that we did not deliver to 
them, obviously, I hope they will speak forth on this issue. But I 
think the Senator is right, the storage cost question is different.
  Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield, they got $2.5 billion--over 
$2 billion from us to buy military equipment. We gave them that $2 
billion under a special exception to the nonproliferation law, the 
Pressler amendment, or, as the Senator from South Dakota pointed out 
earlier, called the Reagan-Bush amendment. I think the Senator was 
accurate in doing that. We gave them this money in order to buy 
weaponry, not to go nuclear. And the premise upon which the money was 
given was that they would not go nuclear.
  They took the money and went nuclear anyhow. That is the problem, and 
that is why President Bush finally, in 1990 said:

       I cannot do this certification anymore, in terms of waiving 
     the law, because I cannot waive the law because I cannot 
     certify that Pakistan does not possess a nuclear explosive 
     device.

  So they took their money and they went nuclear anyhow.
  I would like to raise a question, why does Pakistan not give us back 
the money which they took on the premise that they would not go 
nuclear, since they have since gone nuclear?
  Mr. BROWN. I want to assure the Senator, if he is successful in this, 
he has a lot of other countries we want him to talk to in that area, 
and could well balance the budget if we move in that area.
  Let me respond to the Senator's first question because I think he 
raises--the Senator is an expert in this area and I think all of us 
value his counsel. Specifically, he is pointing out as to why 
assistance may have been offered to Pakistan through the 1980's. My 
view is a bit different. And by stating that, I do not mean to compare 
my expertise to that of the Senator. But let me, at least, share what 
my view is of the primary motivation of why the United States offered 
military equipment during that period.
  Members may remember that the Soviet Union and the cold war had 
reached an intense point. At that period of time, which the Senator 
described, the Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan. As all Members 
know, they are neighbors next to Pakistan. Pakistan played a critical 
role in helping the Afghans resist the invasion and turn back the 
Soviet tide. They did so for their own interest in protecting their 
country. But they also did so at great peril to their nation, and 
several Soviet leaders specifically contacted the Pakistani leadership 
and threatened their very existence as a country if they continued to 
provide that. They never flinched. They never backed down.
  When we needed them, when we really needed them, they were there for 
us. I do not dispute in any way the suggestions that there are problems 
and that their government at the time was not truthful in some regards.
  But, Mr. President, I think we would be remiss to think that the aid 
that we gave them during that period was solely to urge them not to 
have a nuclear program. I think the aid we gave to them was 
preliminarily related to our own survival and our own interest and our 
own hope that the Soviet expansionism could be stopped, and they stood 
up for it. They put their neck on the line. And when you are half a 
world away from the United States and right next to the Soviet Union, 
that takes guts.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I had risen earlier to see if there was any 
chance of getting a time agreement on this amendment. There are a 
number of Senators apparently who want to speak.
  Mr. GLENN. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. DOLE. Yes.
  Mr. GLENN. We thought we were making some progress a little while 
ago, as the Senator from Michigan said a little while ago out in the 
lobby. And 

[[Page S 11435]]
I understood that we were going to have some language drawn up, and we 
had all agreed to determine if we could have an agreement on. The next 
thing I know this was going on with the Senator from Colorado on the 
floor presenting it.
  I think just from what has happened here so far, we see this is a 
very, very complex issue. There was a report out of the Washington Post 
yesterday morning that because of MTCR violations, we should put more 
sanctions on Pakistan. He is right here if we want to have an executive 
session. I am not saying it is true. I think I would recommend that we 
go with the tone set by the Senator from Michigan a few moments ago. 
This claims that the MTCR has been violated. There is no doubt about 
it. This is only one item.
  I have a whole file full of things that I was going to talk about on 
the floor if this came up. The Senator is not guaranteed that we will 
bring up the arms matter later on. This is just dealing with the 
economic matters here. But I think in the context of this particular 
bill that we are on here, the defense authorization bill, this is an 
extremely complex matter, and I could not personally agree to any time 
agreement on it or even give an estimate of the number of hours we 
would have to talk about it. This is extremely complex.
  I am happy to have this brought up at a separate time and go into 
executive session and go into all of these things and get the same 
intelligence reports that some of us have been into, as I know other 
Members have at the agency, or whatever. But this is not something that 
is going to be solved I think on this.
  I would have to object to any time agreement. I hate to do that. I do 
not like to delay. But this is a very serious matter.
  Let me just add one other thing, if I might. The Senator from 
Maryland talked about waivers. He did not even get into them. I have 
nine specific waivers where we went into things for Pakistan. Each one 
of those should be the subject of thorough discussion here on the 
floor. I would be glad to go into them tonight, if you want to. But I 
do not think we can make any agreement for time on this at all.
  Mr. DOLE. I would be happy to yield. It seems rather obvious to me 
that we are not going to get a time agreement. It is a very serious 
matter. I am not suggesting there should be. I am trying to find out if 
it is possible. If not, then I would hope we could have some other 
disposition.
  Is the Senator from Iowa a supporter of the amendment?
  Mr. HARKIN. This Senator is supportive of the Brown amendment. I 
would like to speak on it. I feel very strongly about it.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the majority leader yield so I can put one quote 
in the Record, because I think it is very important to get the context 
of this correct.
  The Senator from Colorado suggested that the purpose of the aid was 
not to dissuade them from acquiring a nuclear explosive device. I 
simply want to quote from letters to the Congress from President Reagan 
and President Bush who said:

       The proposed United States assistance program for Pakistan 
     remains extremely important in reducing the risk that 
     Pakistan will develop and possess such a device. I am 
     convinced that our security relationship and assistance 
     program are the most effective means available for us to 
     dissuade Pakistan from acquiring nuclear explosive devices. 
     Our assistance program is designed to help Pakistan address 
     its substantial legitimate security needs, thereby both 
     reducing incentives and creating disincentives for Pakistani 
     acquisition of nuclear explosives.

  So that was clearly the rationale. The nonproliferation laws would 
have banned any aid to Pakistan. The Pressler amendment provided an 
exception to that. The rationale for doing that was to try to dissuade 
Pakistan from going nuclear, and they took almost $3.5 billion as part 
of that deal and went nuclear anyhow.
  So, finally, in 1990, President Bush says, ``I cannot do this waiver 
anymore. I cannot make this certification.'' And that is when the 
assistance stopped.
  I have a number of other quotes from high officials in both the 
Reagan and the Bush Administrations during this period making exactly 
this point in terms of the rationale for this.
  I thank the majority leader.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I wonder if I might suggest that we set aside this 
amendment, and the discussion that was going on beforehand might be 
continued either tonight or tomorrow. There apparently is some progress 
being made with all the people involved. If that is satisfactory with 
the principal sponsor of the amendment, I would suggest we set this 
amendment aside and that perhaps there could be a further discussion. 
If they cannot agree, it would be back before us.
  Would that be satisfactory?
  Mr. BROWN. Yes.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that amendment be set aside.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the majority leader tell us when we are going to get 
back to this? I have not had the chance to talk about this amendment. I 
feel very strongly about it. It seems like the other side wants to bash 
Pakistan. They have had their chance.
  Mr. DOLE. There are a number of people who support the amendment. But 
I think just in the interest of trying to move along here, it is 11:30 
p.m., and we need to decide what to do with the other 61 amendments 
that are directly related to the Defense Department authorization bill. 
This is not directly related, and I assume the others here, for the 
most part, are.
  So I would have no objection if we are going to be here for some 
time--the Senator, even if it is set aside, could still speak to the 
amendment.
  So if there is no objection, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am glad it is going to be set aside. I 
question whether this amendment is appropriate on this bill. This bill 
is a defense authorization bill. This amendment appears to be one that 
would be pertinent to the foreign operations bill; in other words, the 
foreign affairs bill. It seems to me that, if we are going to bring up 
all kinds of amendments that do not concern this defense bill, we could 
be here days and days. I think the amendment ought to be withdrawn and 
brought up later on an appropriate bill, and that would be a foreign 
affairs bill.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I think probably it is 
more appropriate, in the long run, on the State Department 
authorization bill. But if we are unable to get that, it will be on the 
foreign operations bill later on.
  But I think that Senator Brown has agreed to set it aside, and have 
further discussion with those who are directly involved. And I know it 
is very, very controversial and very, very complicated. I have learned 
a lot just listening to the debate on the floor.
  I hope we can maybe have an opportunity to discuss that tomorrow and 
see whether it will be resolved.
  Mr. President, I have been handed by the Democratic leader a revised 
list of the amendments on that side. As I understand, the total number 
is 61, and I think 5 of the 61 have already been cleared, others are in 
the clearance process as I understand it. I do not know how many more 
might be in the process, but maybe another 5 or 10.
  Mr. NUNN. My guess is of the 61 there are probably around 15 or more 
that have been cleared or are in the process of being cleared. And I 
also would say that there are a number of those 61 that I do not 
believe will require a vote. I think a number of those will disappear. 
So I really think we are talking about a list that is much shorter than 
61.
  Mr. DOLE. I think what I need to determine, because we have to decide 
what course of action to follow--if it is the intent not to let us pass 
the bill, then there is not much reason in trying to even take up the 
61 or any of the 61 amendments.
  But it would seem to me, if we are serious about this bill, if we 
intend to pass this bill and we come back to it tomorrow after 
disposition of the Postal, Treasury bill, then I would be prepared to 
recess and take up Postal, Treasury, come in at 8:30 and have opening 
statements. Then at 9 o'clock we will have the first amendment offered 
under a 3-hour time agreement. 

[[Page S 11436]]

  But I might ask the distinguished Democratic leader, is there a 
possibility we can finish this bill tomorrow?
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I can say in all sincerity, it is not my 
wish to make the job, which is extremely difficult for the majority 
leader, any more difficult than it already is. He has been fair, and I 
respect his desire to want to finish this bill.
  Let me be as candid and as frank as I can. We have had debate on some 
very consequential amendments in the last couple of days. On the basis 
of the outcome of those amendments, frankly, a lot of Members on this 
side believe there ought to be more discussion, more debate. We have 
been in consultation with the White House, and I have just received a 
letter from the assistant to the President for National Security 
Affairs, Anthony Lake. I only read the last sentence:

       Unless the unacceptable missile defense provisions are 
     deleted or revised and other changes are made to the bill 
     bringing it more in line with the administration policy, the 
     President's advisers will recommend that he veto the bill.

  I know that for a lot of Members who would like to see a conclusion 
to this bill, perhaps there are other ways and other opportunities to 
debate this issue but for many of our Members this is a very, very 
critical issue. There are other amendments. We are $7 billion over 
budget, and a lot of our Senators would like the opportunity to see if 
we can bring that cost down. They are concerned about the fact that 
this is $7 billion more than the administration requested. And while I 
am somewhat apologetic for the fact that we are having a debate here at 
11:30 at night, just in the last 20 minutes I have asked my staff to 
share with me what has happened in past years.
  In 1989, we spent 7 days and 105 amendments on this bill; in 1990, it 
was 105 amendments; in 1992, we spent 5 days with 87 amendments; in 
1993, 5 days and 105 amendments; last year we spent 5 days on this bill 
with 123 amendments. We have been on this bill for a couple half days, 
and then yesterday virtually for the whole day, and today.
  And so, Mr. President, again let me reiterate it is not my desire to 
complicate the life of the majority leader, but I must say in all 
honesty that we have some real serious problems with this bill. There 
are a lot of Senators who believe that we ought to debate it a lot 
longer--I am not suggesting necessarily a filibuster, but they believe 
there are some very significant issues that still have not been 
addressed to our satisfaction.
  So we are not inclined at this point, frankly, to want to accommodate 
the majority leader, as much as I would like to personally, because of 
the concerns that people have for the legislation. And that is as frank 
an answer as I can give the majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I appreciate that. I know that--at least I suspected there 
were a couple of amendments here that troubled the administration and 
troubled some Members on the other side. But, of course, the bill has 
to go to conference. Obviously, the President has great leverage in 
conference--the administration--because there are not enough votes to 
override a veto. The ABM vote was 51 to 48, 49. The other vote was five 
or six votes apart.
  So it would seem to me what we ought to do is go through the process, 
go to conference, and then the President can decide when it comes out 
of conference to veto the bill. But to tell us at half the way, unless 
they get everything they want, they are going to veto the bill, in my 
view is not the wise course to follow.
  There are a number of Members on both sides of the aisle who have 
spent weeks and weeks and months and months on this legislation, and 
they have been in good faith. We were going along at a pretty good 
pace, thought we would see the finish line, and then someone moved it. 
And I do not suggest that that has not happened before. We had 190-some 
amendments this morning. Now we are down to 61. So it would appear 
either they have disappeared or we have disposed of 130 of them, and 
many of these are in the process of being disposed of.
  Even though all of these are disposed of, if we agreed right now that 
the two managers, which I would not object to, get up and say, ``We 
accept all these amendments,'' then could we go to third reading?
  Mr. DASCHLE. We would not be prepared to go to third reading.
  Mr. DOLE. I think that answers my question. There is no desire to 
pass this bill. And I do not fault the Democratic leader. I have 
probably stood on this floor in the same position, saying, ``We do not 
want to pass this bill.'' But I would like to pass some bill.
  I know there are a lot of frustrations about August, and I put in the 
adjournment resolution as honestly as I could that we would like to be 
out of here by August 19. I would like to be out of here before August 
19, like next weekend. But I do not believe that the majority leader 
has any choice, if we cannot complete our work by next Friday--and that 
would be this bill, the Treasury, Postal bill, DOD appropriations bill, 
and some disposition of welfare, and the Interior Appropriations bill--
than to say we will be here the week after next. I may be the only one 
here, but we will be here, because it seems to me that this is very 
important business.
  I hope the President will let us at least go through the legislative 
process, have the conference and then make a decision. But apparently 
that will not happen. So I think the only--this is sort of a finite 
list of 61 amendments? There will not be any, cannot be any additions, 
I guess.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Under the unanimous consent agreement, as I understand 
it, there would not be any additional, but that is a finite list.
  Mr. DOLE. So could I send this to the desk and say this is the new--
do we have any amendments on this side? Are there any amendments to add 
to this?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I could just clarify, that is as 
finite a list--I do not think we would be prepared to enter into a 
unanimous consent agreement because, frankly, we cannot even reach a 
couple Senators whose other amendments may or may not be added to that 
list. But I wanted to accommodate the majority leader as best as I 
could and to give him the most accurate information.
  Having had the consultations I have had with virtually all of the 
Members of our caucus--there were some we could not talk to, could not 
reach--61 is my best estimate. But I would want to protect Members that 
I have not had the opportunity to talk with, so I would not be prepared 
tonight to enter into any agreement that would preclude others from, 
who were originally protected from being protected after this list had 
been submitted. Mr. President, I made reference to the letter from Mr. 
Lake. I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                       Washington, August 4, 1995.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     Democratic Leader, United States Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: On July 31, the White House issued a 
     Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on S. 1026, the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. In 
     that SAP, the Administration warned that S. 1026 raises 
     serious constitutional, national security, budget and 
     management concerns, and that the President will not support 
     the bill unless those concerns are addressed.
       As I made clear in my remarks to the Democratic Senators 
     policy lunch on Tuesday, first and foremost among our 
     concerns about the bill are the unacceptable provisions 
     relating to the ABM Treaty and National Missile Defense 
     (NMD). In our view, these provisions, if enacted into law, 
     would effectively abrogate the ABM Treaty by mandating 
     development for deployment by 2003 of a non-compliant, multi-
     site NMD and unilaterally imposing a solution to the on-going 
     negotiations with Russia on establishing a demarcation under 
     the Treaty between ABMs and theater missile defenses (TMDs). 
     The effect of such actions would in all likelihood be to 
     prompt Russia to terminate implementation of the START I 
     Treaty and shelve ratification of START II, thereby leaving 
     thousands of warheads in place that otherwise would be 
     removed from deployment under these two treaties. For this 
     reason, Secretary Christopher, Secretary Perry and General 
     Shalikashvili have made their objections to these provisions 
     clear in separate letters to the Senate.
       On Thursday, the Senate voted on an amendment offered by 
     Senator Levin and cosponsored by Senator Nunn and many other 
     Democrats that would have struck the ABM and NMD provisions 
     in the bill that are the most objectionable. On behalf of the 
     President, I would like to commend Senator Levin, Senator 
     Nunn, and all the other Democratic and Republican Senators 
     who 

[[Page S 11437]]
     made such cogent speeches in support of the amendment. Regrettably, it 
     was defeated 51-49.
       I understand that debate on S. 1026 will continue today and 
     perhaps into next week and that other amendments relating to 
     ABM and NMD may be offered. I hope that our serious concerns 
     about these issues as well as others outlined in the 
     Statement of Administration Position may yet be addressed. 
     But let me be clear: unless the unacceptable missile defense 
     provisions are deleted or revised and other changes are made 
     to the bill bringing it more in line with administration 
     policy, the President's advisors will recommend that he veto 
     the bill.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Anthony Lake,

                                        Assistant to the President
                                    for National Security Affairs.
     

                          ____________________