[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 134 (Thursday, August 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12140-S12151]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         REGULATION OF TOBACCO

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the President of the United States just held 
a press conference as it relates to the regulation of tobacco. I will 
make a few remarks in response to that.
  The President's announcement today is very disappointing. After weeks 
of attempting to arrive at a solution with the White House, offering 
proposal after proposal, my farmers lost out to the zealots. We had 
agreed to almost everything the White House proposed, with ways to put 
teeth into that agreement. I know that, because I have been attempting 
to negotiate since day one. No one, to my knowledge, was attempting to 
block the President's position of reducing underage smoking. We were 
offering a fair and enforceable way to get there.
  Mr. Kessler wanted a scalp on his belt, and the White House was 
determined to give it to him. Even Representative Ron Wyden of Oregon, 
a strong antitobacco advocate, asked the President to basically agree 
with our offer. The administration has chosen litigation over 
compromise, delay over action. The President has chosen a press 
conference instead of a negotiating conference. He has chosen a process 
that reaches his goals later rather than sooner.
  I am not only disappointed, Mr. President, but I am hurt. My first 
thought was to be vindictive, use every means I have available to me--
and there are several--to get back at the White House. But I have 
decided not to take that course. I will, however, try to seek out 
people of reason to help work through this problem.
  I have never been one who thought it wise to appoint a person to your 
administration from another, especially if he or she was of a different 
party. Mr. Kessler is a carryover from the Bush administration, and I 
am not sure he is doing this administration any favors.
  The President said he wants to work to pass legislation that would 
accomplish these goals. I will introduce such a bill when we return in 
September and believe it will be acceptable to the White House. The FDA 
is so far behind now in making important decisions and with the attempt 
to acquire additional work, I believe the people of this country will 
be ill-served to a much greater degree by this decision.
  Mr. President, I have five grandchildren. Three of those 
grandchildren are teenagers. None of my grandchildren smoke, thanks to 
their parents, because they have seen to it that they did not.
  I am not advocating teenage smoking. All I am trying to do here is to 
put into place an agreement with the White House so that we may proceed 
and do those things that are necessary, because today suits have been 
filed all over the country as it relates to the proposed regulations.
 So now we have confrontation where we could have had an agreement. I 
am very hopeful that when we come back in September, those who are 
reasonable and fair will join with me in accomplishing the purpose of 
reducing or eliminating smoking among teenagers and do it in a very 
fast and appropriate manner.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 2390

(Purpose: To meet the highest priority of the Secretary of Defense for 
  additional funding, namely, funding for ongoing operations in Iraq, 
    Cuba, and Bosnia, and to save $111,900,000 for the taxpayers by 
                  postponing procurement of the LHD-7)

  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself, 
     Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Exon, and Mr. Kerrey, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2390.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 81, strike out lines 16 through 23, and insert in 
     lieu thereof the following:
       Sec. 8082. (a) In addition to the amounts appropriated in 
     title I for military personnel, funds are hereby 
     appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, 
     for purposes and in amounts as follows:
       (1) For military personnel, Army, an additional amount of 
     $9,800,000.
       (2) For military personnel, Navy, an additional amount of 
     $39,400,000.
       (3) For military personnel, Marine Corps, an additional 
     amount of $6,000,000.
       (4) For military personnel, Air Force, an additional amount 
     of $61,200,000.
       (5) For reserve personnel, Navy, an additional amount of 
     $2,700,000.
       (b) In addition to the amounts appropriated in title II for 
     operation and maintenance, funds are hereby appropriated, out 
     of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, for purposes and 
     in amounts as follows:
       (1) For operation and maintenance, Army, an additional 
     amount of $171,300,000.
       (2) For operation and maintenance, Navy, an additional 
     amount of $210,400,000.
       (3) For operation and maintenance, Marine Corps, an 
     additional amount of $8,000,000.
       (4) For operation and maintenance, Air Force, an additional 
     amount of $645,100,000.
       (5) For operation and maintenance, Defensewide, an 
     additional amount of $25,800,000.
       (6) For operation and maintenance, Navy Reserve, an 
     additional amount of $1,000,000.
       (c) In addition to the amount appropriated in title VI 
     under the heading ``Defense Health Program'', funds are 
     hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September 
     30, 1996, for expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     medical and health care programs of the Department of 
     Defense, as authorized by law, an additional sum in the 
     amount of $7,400,000 for operation and maintenance.
       (d)(1) The total amount appropriated in title III under the 
     heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'' is hereby 
     reduced by $1,300,000,000.
       (2) None of the funds appropriated in title III under the 
     heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'' may be 
     obligated or expended for the LHD-1 amphibious assault ship 
     program.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment reflect that Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Exon, and Mr. Kerrey from 
Nebraska are listed as cosponsors of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment does several things. Let 
me describe what those are. It provides over a billion dollars--in 
fact, $1.63 billion--for ongoing military operations which the 
Secretary of Defense stated was his highest priority for funding if we 
were able to find any additional funds to use this year in addition to 
the President's requested budget. It does so by striking the 
expenditures in the bill by $1.3 billion for the LHD-7 amphibious 
assault ship. It also, Mr. President, strikes two other provisions of 
the bill, which I think need to be stricken, and which I will explain 
as I go forward.
  Mr. President, prior to the Armed Services Committee markup of the 
bill, we had a breakfast in the Armed Services Committee with Secretary 
Perry and General Shalikashvili to discuss what the needs of the 
Department of Defense were. The Secretary at that time told the 
committee that he would need $1.188 billion in fiscal year 1996 to fund 
ongoing operations in Iraq--on 

[[Page S 12141]]
Iraq's borders, that is, and at Guantanamo Bay and in Bosnia. He stated 
that if these operations were not funded in the authorization and 
appropriations bills that we pass this year, then he would be forced to 
come back to Congress with a supplemental next year asking for this 
exact amount of money--at least this amount of money. He indicated that 
he knew for a fact we were going to have to be spending this much in 
these different areas.
  Mr. President, this chart, I think, captures the essence of what the 
Secretary has asked for. Under Iraq, we have two ongoing activities 
there at the present time which are well known to those who follow the 
news in that part of the world. We have what we call the ``provide 
comfort'' activity in northern Iraq and the ``southern watch'' activity 
in southern Iraq. The first of those, the Secretary indicated, will 
cost a minimum of $143 million in 1996. The second of those in southern 
Iraq will cost a minimum of $504 million in the next fiscal year.
  So, in addition to Iraq, we have ongoing refugee support at 
Guantanamo. We are all aware of the fact that the military is having to 
expend funds to deal with the refugee problem in Guantanamo. The figure 
the Secretary gave us--again, this is a minimum figure as he presented 
it to us--is that the Department of Defense will have to expend $178 
million, minimum, in the next fiscal year to carry through as they were 
directed by the President.
  In Bosnia, if we do nothing more than we are presently doing--and 
there has been criticism on the Senate floor that we are doing too 
little--if we do nothing more than we are presently doing, that is, 
offering humanitarian support and the ``deny flight'' activity there, 
the estimate the Secretary gave us is that we will spend a minimum of 
$363 million next year.
  Quite frankly, Mr. President, I think these are low figures. The 
Secretary himself indicated he thinks these are low figures. But he 
says he knows for a fact that we are going to have to spend at least 
this much on ongoing operations. These are not contingencies; these are 
not things which might or might not happen; these are ongoing. It is 
not an emergency that we are responding to here. We know for a fact 
that these are expenses we are going to have in the next fiscal year.
  Despite the Secretary's plea to us, Mr. President, the authorization 
committee chose to meet only $125 million of the Secretary's request. 
That is about enough to fund these operations for 37 days and get us 
through to the 7th of November. The funding which the Secretary 
proposes for the operations was a minimum, as I indicated. We have 
added to this bill $7.1 billion above what the Pentagon requested. The 
Pentagon's request was $245.8 billion. We added $7.1 billion to that. 
But in adding all of that money, we have not funded what the Secretary 
says is his top priority request for additional funding.
  Last fall, and earlier this year, the issue of near-term readiness of 
our active duty forces was the central issue in the defense debate. I 
heard many Senators coming forward and saying we have to do more about 
readiness, we have to do better by our troops. President Clinton, at 
Secretary Perry's urging, added funding to the defense budget to 
address the problem, and both the Armed Services Committee and the 
Appropriations Committee have now essentially endorsed the Pentagon's 
operations and maintenance budgets for the next year. However, because 
of a long history, which I understand began during the Vietnam war--it 
goes back at least that far--the Pentagon did not include in its 
original request the necessary operations and maintenance for these 
ongoing operations.
  So that is what we are trying to correct with this amendment. 
Secretary Perry has promised in all future years to include the minimum 
cost that he can see for ongoing operations in the budget request that 
is sent to the Congress at the first of the year. Funding for new 
contingencies is not discussed in my amendment. Certainly, I agree with 
those who will say we do not know what additional costs we might have 
in Bosnia. I would be amazed, Mr. President, if we got through 1996 
only spending $363 million in Bosnia. I think most of us would be 
amazed. If Saddam Hussein again makes a feint toward Kuwait, obviously, 
we will need additional expenditures there. If the United States has to 
deploy ground forces in Bosnia, clearly, that will be a very, very 
major expense for which the Secretary would have to come back to 
Congress with a request.
  But, Mr. President, I think for us to add $7 billion to this bill and 
still not provide the funds the Secretary and administration have asked 
for for ongoing operations is really dishonest with the American 
people, because we know that we are going to have to pay for these 
items. There is no question about that. We ought to go ahead and pay 
for them in this bill, and that is what I am trying to get accomplished 
with this amendment.
  Now, the offset that I have identified is the LHD-7. This is an 
amphibious assault ship which is not in the Navy's budget request until 
the year 2001. A great deal is being made of the fact that it is in the 
FYDP. For those people who have been around Washington too long, they 
know what that means. The FYDP is the 5-year defense plan that the 
military gives us each year. They say this is what we want next year 
and, by the way, here are the things we would also like in the 4 years 
after that. That changes every year. Things that are in the 5th year of 
the 5-year plan may not be in next year's 5-year plan, or they may. We 
just do not know.
  But the committee has chosen, in the case of this amphibious assault 
ship, the LHD-7, to move the procurement from 2001, where it appears in 
the long-term plan of the Defense Department, up to next year. I think 
that is a mistake. I think the question that we need to be addressing 
in this amendment, and we are addressing in this amendment, is: Should 
we fund the top priority of the Secretary of Defense for next year, or 
should we begin next year to buy a ship which the Secretary says he may 
in fact want us to buy for the Navy in the year 2001?
 To my mind, it is very clear that we should go ahead and put this 
money in these ongoing operations instead.

  There was a discussion we had before the Armed Services Committee 
earlier this year and General Sheehan, who is the commander of USA Com 
said in that discussion, ``The force that we have in the inventory 
right now is a quality force.''
  This was his response to questions being raised by my colleague from 
Mississippi, Senator Lott. ``The real issue is what we can afford. This 
Nation very frankly has got to manage risk in a better way than we have 
in the past because we just cannot afford to buy everything we need.''
  Mr. President, that is why my argument with regard to the LHD-7--I am 
not opposed to buying another amphibious assault ship at some stage if 
the need is still there, and I understand also the argument which will 
be made by the proponents of maintaining that funding, that we can save 
money if we buy it now.
  Mr. President, when I first came to Washington I was startled to see 
that they were having enormous sales out at all of the department 
stores one weekend. On Friday I picked up the paper and it seemed to me 
that every major department store was having a great big sale that next 
day. I thought how fortunate I am to have discovered or to have been in 
town on the day when all these department stores are having a sale.
  Now I have been here 13 years, and I notice every Friday they are 
having enormous sales at all the department stores the next day. That 
is exactly what we are faced with here.
  The contractor on this project has indicated they will give us a 
better price if we go ahead and buy this now than in the year 2001. I 
say that there is no defense contractor that has ever been in business 
that would not make a similar pledge in order to get business committed 
at an early stage.
  Mr. President, I need to make another point which I think is obvious 
to most who try to follow defense-related issues. We have in this bill, 
and it is admitted in the committee report accompanying the 
authorization bill, we have in this bill more defense than we are able 
to afford under the budget resolutions, the budget plan, that has been 
adopted in this Congress for the next 7 years.
  It is clear to me that we do not have the resources and are not going 
to have 

[[Page S 12142]]
the resources in these outyears to buy everything that is in these 
defense bills.
  I think it is also clear to those who are proponents of this 
additional LHD-7 amphibious assault ship, that they know that the 
getting is better now than it is likely to be 2 years from now or 4 
years from now, and they want to get this ship authorized and 
appropriated now while there is still money to be had in the defense 
budgets.
  Mr. President, as I say, I have no particular dislike for that ship. 
I think it is a question of priorities. I think it is clear that if 
this amendment is adopted we will do several things: We will fund the 
ongoing operations which the Secretary of Defense has said is his top 
priority for any additional funding that we can find.
  We will save taxpayers over $100 million because, in fact, the 
savings by not going ahead and purchasing this ship next year, will 
fund all of these ongoing operations and, in addition, save us $111 
million. That is the estimate I have been given. It does those two 
things.
  Let me say there is also another very good part of my amendment which 
I want to call to the attention of my colleagues.
  When looking at this bill which we are now dealing with, there are 
some provisions in there, Mr. President, which I have great difficulty 
understanding, and I propose to strike those provisions out.
  I call my colleagues' attention to section 8082 on page 81 of the 
bill. It provides ``None of the funds available to the Department of 
Defense shall be available to make progress payments based on costs to 
large business concerns at rates lower than 75 percent on contract 
solicitations issued after enactment of this act.''
  That is one provision, Mr. President. Let me just focus as to what 
this language means. I am proposing in my amendment to strike that 
language. I want to tell people why.
  Essentially, that is saying that the present practice of paying 75 
percent progress payments of total amount due as progress payments, 
that is going to be changed in the case of large businesses, large 
defense contractors, up to 85 percent.
  In other words, the government is going to start paying money faster 
to large contractors. Not to all of its contractors, but just to those 
that meet this definition of large business--whatever a large business 
is.
  Mr. President, I certainly am not arguing that we should not pay our 
bills. We should pay our bills. We should pay them promptly. There is 
no doubt about that.
  I have great difficulty understanding why we need to be paying 85 
percent of progress payments instead of 75 percent as we historically 
have.
  I have tried to keep some general knowledge about the financial 
performance of some of our defense contractors. I am pleased to say 
that they are doing very well, thank you. I have here a chart that is 
entitled ``Financial Performance of Top 20 Department of Defense 
Contractors for the First Quarter of 1995.''
  We can go right down the list. McDonnell Douglas reports profits of 
$189 million; Lockheed Martin, $137 million; General Motors, $2.154 
billion; Raytheon, $173 million.
  Each of these companies is doing quite well in its profit reports and 
its financial performance, Mr. President. I wish them well. I think it 
is important that we have successful, profitable, defense contracts in 
this country.
  I cannot understand why we are putting a provision in law here saying 
we have to pay them 85 percent progress payments rather than 75 percent 
progress payments.
  Let me also focus my colleagues' attention on the other provision 
that I am proposing to strike as part of this amendment. That is 
section 8083. It says in this provision ``Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, the Department of Defense shall execute payment in 
not more than 24 days after receipt of a proper invoice.''
  Mr. President, the practice throughout the business community as far 
as I am aware and the practice throughout government as far as I am 
aware is to pay your bills within 30 days. I think that is a reasonably 
good practice. I certainly believe we should pay our bills and do so 
promptly.
  I cannot understand why we are separating out the Department of 
Defense for a different standard and saying, no, no, when we are 
dealing with defense contractors, we do not want to use the general 
provision that applies to all other contractual arrangements the 
Federal Government makes. When we are dealing with defense contractors, 
instead of paying them in 30 days we have to pay them in 24 days. That 
is exactly what this provision calls for.
  Mr. President, I have proposed to strike the provision in the bill 
that says we have to go to 85 percent progress payments rather than 75. 
I have also proposed to strike the provision which says that we have to 
go to 24 days for payment of all of our bills, rather than 30 days.
  I have proposed to fund all of the ongoing operations, the remainder 
of the ongoing operations that the Secretary of Defense has indicated 
are his top priority for funding and which we all know--every Member of 
this body--knows that we are going to pay the bill that is being 
identified here.
  It is a question of whether we do it in a straightforward above-board 
way in this bill or whether we put it off until next year and come back 
to the American people and say, by the way, we had an emergency, 
unexpected contingency came up and we will have to spend this money.
  The truth is, we know we have to spend this money. The Secretary of 
Defense has said it is his top priority. Mr. President, I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment. I think it is a very 
straightforward amendment which will return over $100 million to the 
taxpayers of the country.
  In addition, we will see to it that our priorities are straight in 
this legislation.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am about ready to make a motion to 
table. Is the Senator from Mississippi wishing to talk for a while?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Can I make a couple points?
  Mr. STEVENS. Can we have an agreement on time? Can I yield to the 
Senator from Mississippi for 5 minutes and then I be recognized again?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. I am easy to yield, but I want to get to this motion to 
table soon. Upon the completion of that, if someone else wants time for 
a reasonable period, I will be glad to do it.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I did not hear the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request was to yield to the Senator from 
Mississippi for 5 minutes and then move to table.
  Mr. STEVENS. No, to come back to me, that I be recognized at that 
point.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. If there is a request, I ask I be given 5 minutes to 
summarize my arguments before we go to a final vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I will be more than willing to enter into a time 
agreement on the amount of time between now and the time we would vote. 
I intend to make a motion to table.
  I see the Senator from Nebraska. Could I inquire how much time these 
Senators wish?
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, 4 minutes is adequate.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I would like 5 minutes to sum up my position before we 
go to a final vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, could we have it, then, 12 minutes on a 
side? I might want to make a comment myself before I make the motion to 
table. I ask unanimous consent there be 12 minutes on a side controlled 
by Senator Bingaman on his side and by me on my side. Is that 
agreeable?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, my remarks are going to be directed to 
the issue of taking the funds that are appropriated in this bill for 
the LHD-7 and transferring them to the account suggested by the Senator 
from New Mexico.
  The Senate should understand that the funds in this bill for this 
ship have 

[[Page S 12143]]
been authorized by the bill as reported from the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. They have also been funded fully in this bill. And the 
reason is simple. It is to try to save about $700 million in the costs 
of our shipbuilding program.
  Right now, the Navy has a contract, an agreement to construct this 
ship. If it does not fund and complete the construction of this ship, 
it is going to cost, according to the Secretary of the Navy in a 
memorandum he sent to the Secretary of Defense the other day, the sum 
of $415 million in constant-year dollars.
  This is a cost-effective provision in this bill. According to Admiral 
Boorda, the Chief of Naval Operations; General Mundy, then Commandant 
of the Marine Corps when he testified before our committee; the 
Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of the Navy--this is a ship the 
Navy wants, the Navy needs, in order to fill out the 12 amphibious 
battle groups that rely upon this ship as its centerpiece.
  This is the amphibious ready group that is called upon in case of 
serious problems that may break out anywhere in the world. They are the 
ones that are called on to provide the quick--quick response.
  Senators will remember, last May, for example, it was the U.S.S. 
Kearsarge, LHD-4, that provided the force that launched the mission to 
rescue Capt. Scott O'Grady after his F-16 had been shot down over 
Bosnia.
  In Haiti, last August there was the U.S.S. Inchon that led an 
amphibious ready group to that area just a matter of a couple of weeks, 
2 weeks, after coming back from spending 6 months off Bosnia and then 
Somalia. It was an amphibious ready group that stood off the coast of 
Somalia, that guaranteed the safe withdrawal of U.N. forces from 
Somalia.
  There is no doubt about it, according to the testimony from senior 
military and Navy officials, the LHD-7 is an essential part of our 
fleet, and it ought to be constructed as soon as possible. The 
additional funds that are provided in this bill are sufficient to fund 
the construction of this ship. The budget did not request it for this 
year because of the fact that the budget simply did not have the funds 
that were then provided in the budget resolution that passed the 
Congress, that was approved by the Congress.
  So it makes sense to use these funds. It saves the Government 
substantial sums. The ship is needed, according to everybody's 
testimony, to sustain the ability of our country to provide the forward 
presence and the war-fighting capability that we need.
  I urge the Senate to reject this amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a memorandum for the Secretary of Defense from John Dalton, dated 
August 2, 1995.
  There being no objection, the memorandum was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    The Secretary of the Navy,

                                   Washington, DC, August 2, 1995.
     Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense.
     Subject LHD 7.
       1. I am following up on your question to me concerning 
     Congressional action on the LHD 7. Both the Senate Armed 
     Services Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee 
     have recommended funding the LHD 7 in fiscal year 1996.
       2. As you know, the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) 
     contains funding for buying the LHD 7. Because of funding 
     limitations, we were not able to buy the LHD 7 until the end 
     of the FYDP. By accelerating the procurement of the LHD 7, we 
     will be able to avoid an expensive break in production and 
     save an estimated $415m in Constant Year Dollars. Bringing 
     forward the program will also free up shipbuilding funds at 
     the end of the FYDP which we will need to resource submarine 
     construction and other shipbuilding requirements.
       3. There is no question we do need to procure the LHD 7 at 
     some point in order to sustain twelve Amphibious Readiness 
     Groups (ARGs). The LHD 7 is the last of the LHD 1 WASP class 
     amphibious assault ships planned to meet the 12 ``Big Deck'' 
     (LHA/LHD) amphibious ships necessary to meet the Defense 
     Planning Guidance and the CINCs' requirements.
                                                   John H. Dalton.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized for 4 
minutes.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Bingaman 
amendment. The amendment takes the funds added into the Defense 
appropriations bill for an unrequested $1.3 billion LHD-7 assault ship 
and shifts them to the readiness accounts to cover the cost of ongoing 
United States operations in Bosnia and Iraq.
  As I stated earlier in my opening remarks on the defense 
authorization bill, the cost of the 1996 defense budget to the taxpayer 
is not complete at the committee-passed funding level of $264.7 
billion. Members of the Senate as well as those at home watching this 
debate should be aware that there is a built-in cost overrun in the 
appropriation bill before the Senate. In the rush to fund unrequested 
and unnecessary weapons programs totaling billions of dollars, the 
committee did not fund the anticipated expenses for ongoing Department 
of Defense operations in crisis spots such as Iraq and Bosnia. This 
unfunded expense, the cost of which will in the mean time come out of 
Pentagon operations accounts, will come due next calendar year and I 
warn my colleagues to not be surprised when this $1 billion cost 
overrun is covered in part by more domestic spending cuts.
  Ironically, this built-in cost overrun is nearly identical to the 
cost of the LHD-7 assault ship added on to the administration's budget 
request. I find to interesting that the so-called readiness debate we 
used to hear so much about is dead after only 1 year. This year, the 
funding increases in the bill are going to new ships, planes, and 
weapons systems the administration has not asked for. The operation and 
maintenance accounts we watched so many in Congress wring their hands 
over last year are now being undercut in this year's multibillion-
dollar arms spending spree. The committee decided to short-change the 
Pentagon's readiness funding in order to feed the large appetite of 
home State defense contractors. I believe this is fundamentally wrong. 
I support the Bingaman amendment because it corrects this upside-down 
order to defense funding priorities. The Bingaman amendment places the 
operations funding of our troops in the field above the cost of 
building an unneeded naval vessel, as is appropriate.
  We have heard that the LHD-7 is part of the Pentagon's future years 
defense program and therefore is a legitimate requirement. We have also 
been told that by buying the LHD-7 earlier than anticipated it will 
cost us less. Both of these points are true.
  But this is true of everything we ever buy. If we buy it now, it is 
going to be cheaper than if we buy it next year. That is because of 
inflation. It is common sense that this money will be saved by buying 
something today rather than 5 years from now--it is just not sound 
budgeting. Does that mean we should accelerate the funding for every 
future ship in the 1996 budget, under the assumption and for the reason 
that if we buy it now, we will save money in the future? That is like 
my wife going to a sale and being forced to buy a dress because of the 
amount of money she has saved.
 Of course, such a proposal would be foolish. So the question remains, 
why the $1.3 billion LHD-7?

  The present 6-year shipbuilding would have us purchase the LHD-7 in 
the year 2001, 5 years from now. Under the committee bill, we are 
leapfrogging it over all other ships to be bought during this time 
period. Also, why should this accelerated purchase and the resulting 
$1.3 billion add-on to the budget request take precedence over the 
readiness needs of our troops overseas, in the field, participating in 
ongoing operations in Iraq and Bosnia. In my opinion, first things 
first. We should fund the readiness needs of our military before we 
start looking into next century and start picking out pet projects for 
certain home States and buying them well in advance of their military 
need.
  Mr. President, I simply say the amendment offered by the Senator from 
New Mexico is a very sound one. Ordinarily I would be for these 
additional ships as needed on down the line but I do see no reason 
whatsoever to be moving them up in the priorities now, especially when 
we would definitely be hurting readiness.

[[Page S 12144]]

  I urge Senators to vote for Bingaman amendment and eliminate the 
billion-dollar cost overrun hidden in this bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield some time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the Senator 6 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Alaska for yielding this time.
  Mr. President, the Bingaman amendment has three problems:
  First, it creates an authorized slush fund for ongoing military 
operations in Iraq, Cuba, and Bosnia--operations Congress has not 
approved; removes funding for a ship that we need and is in the Defense 
Department's procurement plan; and will ultimately require additional 
$700 million to buy the ship in 2001;


                            contingency fund

  Second, Congress should not preauthorize money for military 
operations. We did not do this for Somalia or Haiti--and we should not 
do it now.
  Creating a preauthorized slush fund creates a huge outlay imbalance. 
Ship construction money pays out over 5-7 years. The Bingaman amendment 
will outlay $1.2 billion almost immediately.


                        requirement for the ship

  Third, a valid military requirement exists for this ship. Military 
leadership across the board has endorsed the need for the ship.
  Adoption of the Bingaman amendment will increase the cost of the ship 
by $700 million. Competitively awarded firm fixed-price contract option 
exists for the LHD now. If you wait until 2001, the price increases 
$700 million.
  The Secretary of Defense does not support using LHD funds for 
military contingency funding.


                       lhds and recent experience

  LHD-3 U.S.S. Kearsarge rescue of downed pilot, Capt. Scott O'Grady in 
Bosnia--June 1993; LHD-2 U.S.S. Essex March 1995 Somalia withdrawal; 
and LHD-1 U.S.S. Wasp September 1994 Haiti operations.


                            lhd capabilities

  Carries 2,000 marines; 14 tiltrotor aircraft; 8 Harrier jump jets; 7 
Sea Stallion helicopter; 5 Cobra helicopters, and 2 Huey helicopters.
  It also has a 600 bed hospital, 6 operating rooms, 22,000 square feet 
of vehicle space, and 100,000 square feet of cargo space.


                               conclusion

  Someone once said: ``To be always ready for war is the best way to 
avoid it.''
  Buying the LHD-7 now makes sense. We need it and should buy it when 
it costs the least.
  As General Wilhelm commander of marine forces in the Atlantic said, 
the LHD-7 ``can be regarded as either a ship of war or a ship of peace, 
with a degree of versatility absolutely unrivaled by any other ship 
afloat.''
  Buying the LHD-7 is one of the best ways to ensure that the United 
States is always ready to fight and win. Being ready to fight is 
perhaps the best way to avoid it.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Bingaman amendment. This 
matter was considered in the Armed Services Committee. We had a 
considerable debate about what to do with these contingency funds for 
the ongoing operations, and the committee really felt that we should 
not authorize these slush funds for ongoing or anticipated military 
operations whether they be in Iraq, Cuba, or Bosnia.
  Congress has this one way of keeping the control and insisting on 
information about what is happening with these ongoing operations or 
future operations.
  Not since Vietnam--I want to emphasize that to my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle. That is when this funding in advance of 
activities was really stopped. We have not done this sort of thing. We 
should not move into a program now where we give hundreds of millions 
of dollars in sort of a honey pot to be used for these ongoing 
operations. We need to keep a close check on what is happening with 
this money, and what is happening with these operations.
  Conversely, the Bingaman amendment removes funding for a ship that we 
need, and is in the Department of Defense procurement plan for the 
future. If we delay this acquisition, it will cost us hundreds of 
millions of dollars more to buy a ship that we must have. Congress 
should not get into this position of preauthorizing money for military 
operations, and we should not take an action to pay for it that will 
wind up costing us even more money.
  I have before me letters from the administration emphasizing how 
strongly they feel about the LHD, one from the Secretary of the Navy, 
John Dalton, in which he says:

       The LHD-7 is the last of the LHD-1 WASP class amphibious 
     assault ships planned to meet the 12 ``Big Deck''. . . 
     amphibious ships necessary to meet the Defense Planning 
     Guidance and the CINC's requirements.

  Then there is a letter received by the Senator from New Mexico from 
Secretary of Defense Perry who responded through Comptroller John Hamre 
to this effect. He said:

       Secretary Dalton correctly relayed to the Secretary that 
     the LHD-7 is in our future year defense plans.

  And:

       If offsets are needed in your amendment, we would ask that 
     you first consider those programs the Committee added that 
     are not in our future year defense plans.

  So I think that this amendment should not go forward. I thought we 
would probably have a chance to consider it as a part of the 
authorization bill. But that has been delayed. Now here we are 
considering it on an appropriations bill.
  The leaders of this committee have done excellent work. The Senators 
from Alaska and Hawaii have come up with a proper balance for 
shipbuilding and for the future defense of our country. They are very 
hesitant to get into funding these operations before we even know 
exactly what is happening with them.
  And, therefore, I urge that we defeat this amendment overwhelmingly.
  I yield any time I might not have used back to the distinguished 
Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes and 45 seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that we add about 5 minutes on 
each side because we have had an additional request for time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on that basis, does the Senator wish to 
use his time now?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I defer to the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time remains altogether?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes and twenty-six seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield 4 minutes each to the Senator from South 
Carolina and the Senator from Maine, if I may.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, in April of this year I sent a letter to 
the distinguished chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator 
Domenici, in which I expressed my concerns about this year's defense 
budget and requested additional funding for a number of specific 
initiatives. Among other observations, I noted a continuing decline in 
procurement funding over the past 10 years and highlighted its current 
level, the lowest since 1950. I also commented on the unfortunate 
consequences. Critical new systems had been pushed into the future, 
while aging equipment imposed relentlessly increasing demands for 
maintenance support.
  The observations of this letter evolved into markup guidance for the 
subcommittee chairmen. Evaluating the markup results, I think that the 
Seapower Subcommittee followed this guidance with great care. Its 
recommendation to authorize the amphibious assault ship, LHD-7, is a 
case in point.
  There is clearly a commanding requirement for this ship, justified by 
a series of studies and testimony by a long list of senior defense 
officials and military commanders. Despite this compelling requirement 
and an opportunity to buy LHD-7 now at a good price or pay $700 million 
more under the future years defense plan, funding constraints have kept 
it in the out years. The superb capability that the 

[[Page S 12145]]
LHD class can bring to bear was amply demonstrated by U.S.S. Kearsarge 
(LHD-4), whose embarked marines rescued Capt. Scott O'Grady after he 
was shot down in Bosnia.
  Conversely, because it has been unable to procure LHD-7, the Navy has 
been forced to keep an old ship, USS Guam, in service will beyond its 
scheduled retirement date at a great cost in terms of lost capability 
and maintenance. Guam and her sister ships were built in the mid-
1960's, are manpower intensive, have an inadequate command and control 
capability by today's standards, and for years have imposed an 
inordinate maintenance burden to keep them operational.
  While I do not deny that ongoing contingency operations with which 
Congress concurs should be funded,
 there are established procedures to obtain it that begin with 
submission of a supplemental request by the Department of Defense. No 
such request has been received. I acknowledge the letter that the 
Secretary of Defense sent immediately prior to our markup. However, it 
has no formal standing with our Senate Appropriations Committee, which, 
as you all know, is very sensitive that established procedures should 
be followed. It is a fact that the $125 million that we added for 
support of such contingency operations during our markup was not 
supported by the Appropriations Committee in its markup. Until the 
Department of Defense has been able to work out an agreement with 
Congress that revises existing procedures, there is no reason to 
believe that the diversion of funds proposed by this amendment would 
not meet a similar fate.

  Mr. President, on the one hand I have the committee markup, which 
matches available resources to an urgent requirement for procurement of 
LHD-7. On the other hand I have an amendment that would ship them off 
to an uncertain future, leave the requirement for an amphibious assault 
ship unsatisfied, and cost the taxpayer at least $700 million more in 
the long run. I have no difficulty with that choice. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield back any time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from Maine. I 
am trying to save 2 minutes.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the Senator 
from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 4\1/
2\ minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, the argument has been made to support this amendment 
that this ship is not in the President's budget. The fact is that the 
President's budget is lower than the budget approved by the U.S. 
Senate. So, because the President's budget is smaller, the argument is 
we have to reduce down what we think is required for the national 
security interests of this country. We fundamentally disagree with the 
President on this issue. We think we have to do more in the way of 
procurement, not less. We cannot continue to go on any kind of a 
procurement holiday, as some in the military have expressed. We have 
had a shortfall in readiness. We have tried to measure up to that 
shortfall. But we are now compromising on procurement. In fact, our 
procurement budget as a percentage of that budget is lower now than it 
was back 45 years ago. We cannot go down any lower. So we decided that 
we have to do more.
  Some have argued that this is like buying a dress. We are not talking 
about dresses. We are talking about warships. We are talking about war-
fighting capability. This is a war-fighting capable ship. It is the 
kind of ship that we are going to have to deploy to those amphibious 
operations that we are talking about off the coast of Iraq, or Iran, or 
the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf and Haiti, and elsewhere; Bosnia. 
Those are the kinds of deployments that this ship is going to be used 
for.
  Is there no need for this ship? The President says there is a need in 
the 6-year plan. They just do not want it in this year's plan.
  So that is the argument made by my colleagues from Mississippi. We 
can buy this now, and the reason to buy it now and not later is to save 
$700 million. That is the reason we are buying it now. We are not 
buying an unneeded dress, or an unneeded ship. We need the ship, and we 
provide the money to pay for the ship.
  So the notion somehow that this is unnecessary, this is simply window 
dressing, so to speak, that we do not really need this kind of 
capability is absurd. We need the ship. We ought to pay for it this 
year. We can save money in doing so. There is not a person in this 
country who said if you have a requirement for it that you ought not to 
buy it at the best possible price. This is the best way to achieve 
savings for the American people.
  Mr. President, I hope that when it comes time for this motion to 
table that we will listen to the Senator from Alaska, who has looked at 
this, and to the Senator from Hawaii who has looked at this, and the 
Armed Services Committee which has looked at this and said this is a 
requirement that the Navy has. It has expressed this. Two consecutive 
CNO's have said we need this capability. What the Senate would like to 
do, if you follow this amendment, is to defer it to the future. Well, 
if you defer it to the future, there is a chance you might not have the 
money in the future.
  If you defer it to the future, it is going to cost you another three-
quarters of a billion dollars. That is the kind of economics I think 
has brought this country to a point where it no longer is willing to 
support what is necessary for strong national defense.
  So I hope at the conclusion of the debate the Senator from Alaska 
makes a motion to table and our colleagues will resoundingly move to 
table and defeat the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 2 minutes and 13 
seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend from Hawaii.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized for 1\1/
2\ minutes.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I support my chairman, and I am opposed to 
this amendment. No. 1, the Marines want it and need it. It is of the 
highest priority. No. 2, the master plan of the Defense Department 
calls for the acquisition of this 12th LHD. And No. 3, there is no 
question that we have a good deal at this time. If we do not buy 
according to the contract of this day, we purchase it in the year 2000, 
we are looking at a $2 billion tab.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 12 minutes and 
41 seconds.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much remains for the opposition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opposition has 2 minutes and 24 seconds.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield myself all but 2\1/2\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we have heard a great many arguments as 
to why this amendment should not be adopted.
  Let me try to go through several of them. First, the argument has 
been made that this ship is sorely needed by the military.
  I earlier erred when I was describing the request of the Department 
of Defense. I thought they had asked for this in the last year of the 
5-year plan. It used to be they referred to the 5-year plan. The FYDP 
was an abbreviation for the 5-year defense plan. They have now gone, I 
am informed, to a 6-year defense plan, and now the FYDP stands for 
future year defense plan, and this ship is not requested in the 5 
years; it is requested in the 6th year of the 6-year plan. So clearly 
there is a request, but it is way in the future, as far in the future 
as you can get and still be requesting.
  As I understand it, we just had the launching of one of these 
amphibious ships in February of this year. We have two more that are 
under construction at this very time. This will be the 12th of these 
amphibious ships if we go ahead and fund it as proposed in the bill. 

[[Page S 12146]]

  Mr. President, I do not doubt that in a perfect world it would be 
nice to buy a 12th amphibious assault ship and to do so in 1997 rather 
than the year 2001. But we have to exercise some discipline in this 
body and some sense of priorities. The priorities of this 
administration are to put the funds in ongoing operations where the 
Secretary of Defense has said we need them.
  Here is a quotation from the letter that the Secretary sent to our 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond. He says, 
``I suggest that you fund these contingencies first if you decide to 
increase the DOD budget this year.''
  Mr. President, we have decided, the Congress has decided to increase 
the DOD budget this year by over $7 billion, and yet we are not funding 
these ongoing operations. Not only are we not funding them first, we 
are not funding them. We are saying to the American people, ``Do not 
pay attention; we will come back next year and ask for this money next 
year, and we will tell you then that it is an emergency. And so, then 
you ought to be willing to accept it.''
  Mr. President, that is not responsible. We should not be doing that. 
We should go ahead and pay for those things we know need to be paid for 
in this bill.
  I also want people to recognize that the debate has shifted very 
dramatically in this Senate on defense spending. I remember when we 
started the year I heard a drumbeat from my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle about how we had a shortfall in readiness, how we had 
been neglecting readiness, how the Clinton administration had not asked 
for enough money for readiness and the operations and maintenance of 
our troops.
  Mr. President, the administration is asking for funding for 
readiness. Anyone who votes against this amendment needs to desist from 
further requests for funding for readiness, because, quite frankly, we 
have a very direct request here, and anyone who is not willing to fund 
it is being given a very good chance to do so.
  Let me just summarize what we are doing in the amendment. I think it 
should be clear to my colleagues, but let me summarize it again. We are 
adding $1.188--$1,188,000,000--to pay for known bills for ongoing 
operations in northern and southern Iraq, in Cuba, and in Bosnia. This 
is not a honeypot that we are creating here. I heard my colleague from 
Mississippi say we are creating a honeypot. These are ongoing 
operations. These bills are coming due every day, and they will be 
coming due every day as we get into this new fiscal year as well.
  So we need to provide these funds. We are providing the $1.3 billion 
for the LHD-7 amphibious assault ship not because it is a good ship but 
because it has been requested in year six of the future year defense 
plan, and it is something we need to put off until someday when we can 
afford it. We cannot afford it this year.
  In addition, this amendment strikes two provisions of the bill which 
I believe really cannot be justified. I have noticed that none of the 
comments on the other side in opposition to the amendment have even 
addressed these issues because there is really no argument to be made.
  I am striking two provisions in the bill that increase outlays by 
$1.238 billion by forcing the Pentagon to pay large contractors 85 
percent rather than 75 percent progress payments and to pay bills in 24 
days instead of 30-days. We do not require that anywhere else in the 
Government. We do not require it of any other Department of Government. 
We are saying to the Department of Defense, you have to pay these 
defense contractors faster than you have paid them in the past. You 
have to give them a higher progress payment than you have given them in 
the past or than we give to anyone else who does business with the 
Government.
  General Sheehan when he testified to our committee did not equivocate 
on this. He said it would be nice to buy these things, but we cannot 
afford everything. And that is essentially the point of our amendment 
here today. We cannot afford everything.
  The claim that we are going to save $700 million by going ahead and 
buying this LHD-7 right now is pure speculation. Nobody knows what the 
bidding climate is going to be in the year 2001. I tend to think that 
there may be some defense contractors out there who are very willing to 
give us a good deal in the year 2001 just like they are willing to give 
us a good deal this year. So I do not buy the argument that we are 
saving money and we are necessarily going to have to spend more later 
if we put this off as the Department of Defense is requesting.
  There are higher priorities for this country this year than buying a 
12th amphibious assault ship. One of those priorities--in fact, the 
first of those priorities in the eyes of the Secretary of Defense--is 
to fund these ongoing operations. That is what we are trying to do in 
this amendment. I think it is clearly the responsible thing to do. It 
is what the American people want us to do.
  I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to put our priorities 
in order in this legislation, to go ahead and adopt the amendment, fund 
the ongoing operations which all know have to be paid for, and then do 
so by putting off, as the Department of Defense requested, any funding 
for this additional ship.
  Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 50 seconds.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Is there any additional discussion on the other side? I 
will ask the Senator from Alaska if he wishes to conduct any at this 
time.
  Mr. STEVENS. My answer is no.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just summarize very briefly.
  I think the first question you ask when you go to put a defense 
budget together, or any budget, is, what is your top priority? Here we 
know what the top priority of the Secretary of Defense is if there is 
any additional money for defense. He has made it very clear. I am just 
arguing that we should do the responsible thing and fund that top 
priority.
  It will be dishonest, Mr. President, for us to put this off and then 
come back to the American people next year and say, Surprise. All of a 
sudden we have discovered that it costs us money in 1996 to operate 
this operation down in Guantanamo. Surprise. We find it is costing us 
money to do these activities over in Iraq. Surprise. We find it is 
costing us some money to do what we are doing in Bosnia, and, 
therefore, we have got an emergency and we need to pass a supplemental 
appropriations bill to add to the defense bill that we passed last 
year.
  So it is not just what the President requested for the 1996 defense 
bill. Is not just that. It is not just the $7 billion extra. It is that 
plus the $7 billion, plus what we ask for in the supplemental which we 
know is going to come if we turn down this amendment.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, pay our 
bills as we go. You hear a lot of talk about the importance of pay as 
you go around here. That is what we are asking people to do: Pay as we 
go; fund the top priority of the Department of Defense, and do so by 
putting off the purchase of this ship, which we will have 5 more years 
in which to consider whether or not we want to go ahead with this 12th 
amphibious assault ship. I think during that time we can make a much 
better judgment than we are making today.
  Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 2 minutes 33 
seconds.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. STEVENS. I now ask unanimous consent that the time remaining on 
each side be carried forward and it be in order for me to move to table 
the amendment.
  It was the request of Senator Byrd, and others, that we have some 
time in between these stacked votes so that the proponents and 
opponents might be able to explain just briefly the subject matter for 
those who are not on the floor at the time. That is the reason for the 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
tabling motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. 

[[Page S 12147]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his courtesy.
  Mr. President, I note the Senator from Colorado is on his feet. I 
know he has an amendment. I would like to inquire if he would consider 
a time limitation before action is taken in regard to his amendment.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I will be happy to agree to a time 
limitation. I will be guided by what the distinguished chairman wants. 
My belief is the problems have been worked out on this and it will not 
require an extended debate.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am slightly without words because I do not know what 
the subcommittee involved. This is an amendment which really should be 
placed on the foreign assistance bill. It pertains to the Department of 
State; am I not correct?
  Mr. BROWN. Well, the reason the initial NATO Transition Act was on 
this bill last year was because it was specific with the military 
aspects of it. And I believe this is the place that we always planned 
to offer it. I think it does work out. It is specifically with NATO 
transition in the military that appears therein.
  Mr. STEVENS. I will just do this, Mr. President.
  If I may put the Senate on notice that this is an amendment that has 
very broad impact on the NATO forces, as I understand it. I am prepared 
to listen to the Senator from Colorado and determine what the position 
of our committee would be with regard to taking it to conference. I 
have discussed it with my friend from Hawaii.
  We are prepared to have a time limitation of 15 to 20 minutes on a 
side, if that is acceptable to the Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. That would certainly be acceptable to me.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  I just heard from the leadership that it now requires the attention 
of Senator Nunn and Senator Pell.
  Mr. STEVENS. It would be my intention to move to table the amendment 
at the end of that time. If we lose, we lose. But would the Senator 
like to wait for the time limitation, too?
  Mr. INOUYE. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask the Senator if he wishes to proceed. We can 
discuss the time limitation at a later time.
  Mr. BROWN. I will proceed. I will be happy to observe the guidance of 
the Chair and do not want to monopolize the time on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                           Amendment No. 2391

 (Purpose: To amend the NATO Participation Act of 1994 to expedite the 
transition to full membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
       of European countries emerging from Communist domination)

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment and I ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending Bingaman amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. I offer this on behalf of myself, Senator Simon, Senator 
Dole, Senator Mikulski, Senator Santorum, Senator Lieberman, Senator 
Roth, Senator McCain, Senator McConnell, Senator Warner, Senator 
Nickles, Senator Craig, Senator Hutchison, Senator Inhofe, and Senator 
Domenici.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown], for himself, Mr. 
     Simon, Mr. Dole, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Lieberman, 
     Mr. Roth, Mr. McCain, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Warner, Mr. Nickles, 
     Mr. Craig, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Domenici, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2391.

  Mr. BROWN. 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 printed in today's Record under ``Amendments 
Submitted.'')
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this amendment is a followup to the NATO 
Participation Act which was enacted last year as an amendment to this 
bill. It follows up with further clarification on the process of 
including the Central European powers, specifically Poland, Hungary, 
the Czech Republic, and the Slovak Republic, in NATO, defining their 
transition and dealing with the kind of transition assistance and 
cooperation that is essential to completion of that process.
  In the process of developing this amendment, we held extensive 
discussions with Members of the Senate and others, and the 
administration. In that process, a number of Members had suggestions, 
and the suggestions boiled down to a variety of ones by the 
administration to expand the discretion given to the President in this 
process. Those are principally embodied by Senator Lugar.
  We had a number of members in the Foreign Relations Committee make 
recommendations in that area. And to respond to that, to answer those 
concerns, an amendment to the bill, or this concept, was produced. 
Senator Lugar was the primary contributor to this, and it contains much 
of his work.
  Mr. President, so that we could incorporate those changes that 
Senator Lugar suggested and that other members of the Foreign Relations 
Committee suggested, I offer a second-degree amendment to my amendment 
at this time.
  This amendment is proposed by myself, Senator Simon, Senator Dole, 
Senator Lugar, Senator Mikulski, Senator McCain, Senator McConnell, 
Senator Domenici, Senator Warner, Senator Nickles, Senator Craig, 
Senator Hutchison, Senator Inhofe, Senator Santorum, and Senator 
Jeffords.
  Mr. President, I offer that second-degree amendment, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to offering the second-
degree amendment?
  Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
  I am just going through this amendment, and I want to put the Senator 
from Colorado on notice and the Senate on notice, I think this is 
getting into a very wide area and, if it leads to extended debate, 
could really lead us to being here next week.
  Mr. BROWN. If I might----
  Mr. STEVENS. I want to reserve the right to object later. I do not 
know how I am going to do it. Right now I cannot object to offering a 
second-degree amendment, but I do think this is a very broad issue to 
get involved in.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator, you cannot 
reserve the right to object.
  Mr. STEVENS. I understand that. But somehow in the Record I want the 
Senate to understand we are getting to a very broad subject now dealing 
with foreign assistance, coming out of an appropriations that is not 
subject to our subcommittee. This is subject to a point of order. And I 
really think--I hope my friend from Colorado will understand that it is 
inappropriate for us to get into this now.
  This is a very broad-range foreign assistance program, some $60 
million out of a bill I do not manage. I am very uneasy about that. If 
the Senator wishes to offer his amendment, again, I hope the Senate 
will stand by the managers of the bill to keep this bill clean of 
things that involve controversy that will take us into next week. I 
cannot object at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BROWN. If I might inquire of the Senator before a final 
determination is made on his part, the perfecting amendment that is 
offered is one that is designed to suit the concerns of a number of 
Members on his side of the aisle. It was put together primarily by 
Senator Lugar, and it reflects the concerns the administration had. So 
the perfecting amendment is meant to respond to the concerns that 
people had. It is not meant to strengthen the amendment. It is meant to 
make it acceptable to both sides. I have offered it in this fashion, 
that is the first amendment and the second, so Members might understand 
that what is offered is a compromise.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in response to my friend from Colorado, 
I still need to object. The Democratic leader has asked that we protect 
the rights of people to offer second-degree amendments. This would 
block that, if I understand what is being requested.

[[Page S 12148]]



                    Amendment No. 2391, As Modified

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I appreciate the point the Senator has 
made. I believe there is an easy way to accommodate that point. It 
certainly would not be my intention to block second-degree amendments 
if anyone should have them. I am not aware of them. I appreciate the 
Senator's point. I believe there is an easy way to handle that. 
Therefore, I modify my first-degree amendment with the changes that 
have been sent to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that such 
modification be allowed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Is there objection to the 
request?
  Mr. STEVENS. I only object to state that, as I understand it, the 
Senator has a right to modify his amendment at any time. I will state, 
though, to my friend, we have now contacted the chairman of the Foreign 
Operations Subcommittee, who is a sponsor with the Senator from 
Colorado, and he indicates to this Senator that this matter will be 
dealt with in the markup of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee in the 
first week of September, and he intends to support it there.
  I urge the Senator not to bring it to our bill. The chairman of the 
Foreign Ops Subcommittee is prepared to hear this the first week we are 
back in September. It is something foreign here, and I just smell a 
controversy coming at me. I also smell fish coming into the Alaska 
rivers, and I want to get home. This is not consistent with finishing 
this bill before tomorrow evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his 
amendment. His amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2391), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new title:

         TITLE ____--NATO PARTICIPATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1995

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``NATO Participation Act 
     Amendments of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Since 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     (NATO) has played an essential role in guaranteeing the 
     security, freedom, and prosperity of the United States and 
     its partners in the Alliance.
       (2) NATO has expanded its membership on three different 
     occasions since 1949.
       (3) The sustained commitment of the member countries of 
     NATO to mutual defense of their security ultimately made 
     possible the democratic transformation in Central and Eastern 
     Europe and the demise of the Soviet Union.
       (4) NATO was designed to be and remains a defensive 
     military organization whose members have never contemplated 
     the use of, or used, military force to expand the borders of 
     its member states.
       (5) While the immediate threat to the security of the 
     United States and its allies has been reduced with the 
     collapse of the Iron Curtain, new security threats, such as 
     the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, are emerging to the 
     shared interests of the member countries of NATO.
       (6) NATO remains the only multilateral security 
     organization capable of conducting effective military 
     operations to protect Western security interests.
       (7) NATO has played a positive role in defusing tensions 
     between NATO members and, as a result, no military action has 
     occurred between two NATO member states since the inception 
     of NATO in 1949.
       (8) NATO is also an important diplomatic forum for the 
     discussion of issues of concern to its member states and for 
     the peaceful resolution of disputes.
       (9) America's security, freedom, and prosperity remain 
     linked to the security of the countries of Europe.
       (10) Any threat to the security of the newly emerging 
     democracies in Central Europe would pose a security threat to 
     the United States and its European allies.
       (11) The admission to NATO of European countries that have 
     been freed from Communist
      domination and that meet specific criteria for NATO 
     membership would contribute to international peace and 
     enhance the security of the region.
       (12) A number of countries have expressed varying degrees 
     of interest in NATO membership, and have taken concrete steps 
     to demonstrate this commitment.
       (13) Full integration of Central and East European 
     countries into the North Atlantic Alliance after such 
     countries meet essential criteria for admission would enhance 
     the security of the Alliance and, thereby, contribute to the 
     security of the United States.
       (14) The expansion of NATO can create the stable 
     environment needed to successfully complete the political and 
     economic transportation envisioned by European states 
     emerging from communist domination.
       (15) In recognition that not all countries which have 
     requested membership in NATO will necessarily qualify at the 
     same pace, the accession date for each new member will vary.
       (16) Nothing in this title should be construed as 
     precluding the eventual NATO membership of European countries 
     never under communist domination, namely, Austria, Finland, 
     and Sweden.
       (17) The provision of NATO transition assistance should 
     include those countries most ready for closer ties with NATO 
     and should be designed to assist other countries meeting 
     specified criteria of eligibility to move forward toward 
     eventual NATO membership.
       (18) The evaluation of future membership in NATO for 
     countries emerging from communist domination should be based 
     on the progress of those nations in meeting criteria for NATO 
     transition assistance and evolving NATO criteria, which 
     require enhancement of NATO's security and the approval of 
     all NATO members.

     SEC. 3. UNITED STATES POLICY.

       It should be the policy of the United States--
       (1) to join with the NATO allies of the United States to 
     redefine the role of the NATO Alliance in the post-Cold War 
     world;
       (2) to actively assist European countries emerging from 
     communist domination in their transition so that such 
     countries may eventually qualify for NATO membership; and
       (3) to work to define the political and security 
     relationship between an enlarged NATO and the Russian 
     Federation.

     SEC. 4. REVISIONS TO PROGRAM TO FACILITATE TRANSITION TO NATO 
                   MEMBERSHIP.

       (a) Establishment of Program.--Subsection (a) of section 
     203 of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 (title II of Public 
     Law 103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) Establishment of Program.--The President is 
     authorized to provide expanded security assistance and other 
     related assistance to countries designated under subsection 
     (d) to facilitate their transition to full NATO 
     membership.''.
       (b) Eligible Countries.--
       (1) Eligibility.--Subsection (d) of section 203 of such Act 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Designation of Eligible Countries.--
       ``(1) Presidential review and report.--Within 60 days of 
     the enactment of the NATO Participation Act Amendments of 
     1995, the President shall transmit to the Congress an 
     evaluation of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, 
     as well as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Bulgaria, 
     Romania and Albania, in accordance with the criteria in 
     paragraph (3) and specifically designate one or more of these 
     countries to be eligible to receive assistance under the 
     program established in subsection (a). The President shall 
     provide a report of the country-by-country evaluation as well 
     as an evaluation of each designated country's progress toward 
     conformance with criteria for full NATO membership.
       ``(2) Other european countries emerging from communist 
     domination.--In addition to the country or countries 
     designated pursuant to paragraph (1), the President may 
     designate other European countries emerging from communist 
     domination. The President may make such a designation in the 
     case of any such country only if the President determines, 
     and reports to the designated congressional committees, that 
     such country meets the criteria specified in paragraph (3).
       ``(3) Criteria.--The criteria referred to in paragraph (2) 
     are, with respect to each country, that the country--
       ``(A) has made or is making significant progress toward 
     establishing--
       ``(i) shared values and interests;
       ``(ii) democratic governments;
       ``(iii) free market economies;
       ``(iv) civilian control of the military, of the police, and 
     of intelligence services;
       ``(v) adherence to the values, principles, and political 
     commitments embodied in the Helsinki Final Act of the 
     Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe; and
       ``(vi) more transparent defense budgets and is 
     participating in the Partnership For Peace defense planning 
     process;
       ``(B) has made public commitments--
       ``(i) to further the principles of NATO and to contribute 
     to the security of the North Atlantic area;
       ``(ii) to accept the obligations, responsibilities, and 
     costs of NATO membership; and
       ``(iii) to implement infrastructure development activities 
     that will facilitate participation in and support for NATO 
     military activities;
       ``(C) is not ineligible for assistance under section 563 of 
     Public Law 103-306, with respect to transfers of equipment to 
     a country the government of which the Secretary of State has 
     determined is a terrorist government for purposes of section 
     40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act; and
       ``(D) could, within five years of the determination of the 
     President under paragraph (1) or (2), be in a position to 
     further the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty and to 
     contribute to its own security and that of the North Atlantic 
     area.
       ``(4) Prohibition on funding for partnership for peace 
     activities or on funding for the warsaw initiative.--
     Effective 60 days after the date of enactment of the NATO 
     Participation Act Amendments of 1995, no funds authorized to 
     be appropriated under any provision of law may be obligated 
     or expended for activities associated with the Partnership 
     for Peace program or the Warsaw Initiative until the 
     President has designated at least one country to participate 
     in the transition program established under subsection 
     (a).''.

[[Page S 12149]]

       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Subsections (b) and (c) of section 203 of such Act are 
     amended by striking ``countries described in such 
     subsection'' each of the two
      places it appears and inserting ``countries designated under 
     subsection (d)''.
       (B) Subsection (e) of section 203 of such Act is amended--
       (i) by striking ``subsection (d)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (d)(2)''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``(22 U.S.C. 2394)'' before the period at 
     the end.
       (C) Section 204(c) of such Act is amended by striking ``any 
     other Partnership for Peace country designated under section 
     203(d)'' and inserting ``any country designated under section 
     203(d)(2)''.
       (c) Types of Assistance.--Section 203(c) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (4) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) (as redesignated) 
     the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(E) Assistance under chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to the Economic Support 
     Fund).
       ``(F) Funds appropriated under the `Non-proliferation and 
     Disarmament Fund' account''.
       ``(G) Assistance under chapter 6 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to peacekeeping operations 
     and other programs).
       ``(H) Authority for the Department of Defense to pay excess 
     defense articles costs for countries designated for both 
     grant lethal and nonlethal excess defense articles.
       ``(I) Authority to convert FMF loans to grants, and grants 
     to loans, for eligible countries.''.
       (3) by inserting ``(1)'' immediately after ``Type of 
     Assistance.--''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2) For fiscal years 1996 and 1997, in providing 
     assistance under chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 for the countries designated under 
     subsection (d), the President shall include as an important 
     component of such assistance the provision of sufficient 
     language training to enable military personnel to participate 
     further in programs for military training and in defense 
     exchange programs.
       ``(3) Of the amounts made available under chapter 5 of part 
     II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to 
     international military education and training),
      $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1966 and $5,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 1997 should support--
       ``(A) the attendance of additional military personnel of 
     countries designated under subsection (d)(1) or (d)(2), 
     particularly Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and 
     Slovakia, at professional military education institutions in 
     the United States in accordance with section 544 of such Act; 
     and
       ``(B) the placement and support of United States 
     instructors and experts at military educational centers 
     within the foreign countries designated under subsection (d) 
     that are receiving assistance under that chapter.''.

     SEC. 5. ASSISTANCE FOR NATO PARTICIPATION ACT DESIGNEES.

       The President is authorized to obligate and expend 
     $60,000,000 from funds made available under the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 in support of countries designated to 
     receive transition assistance under section 203(a) of the 
     NATO Participation Act, as follows:
       (1) Poland: $20,000,000.
       (2) Czech Republic: $10,000,000.
       (3) Hungary: $5,000,000.
       (4) Slovakia: $5,000,000.
       (5) Other European countries designated under subsection 
     (d)(1) or subsection (d)(2): $20,000,000.

     SEC. 6. TERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY.

       Section 203(f) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 (title 
     II of Public Law 103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(f) Termination of Eligibility.--(1) The eligibility of a 
     country designated under subsection (d) for the program 
     established in subsection (a) shall terminate 60 days after 
     the President makes a certification under paragraph (2) 
     unless, within the 60-day period, the Congress enacts a joint 
     resolution disapproving the termination of eligibility.
       ``(2) Whenever the President determines that the government 
     of a country designated under subsection (d)--
       ``(A) no longer meets the criteria set forth in subsection 
     (d)(2)(A);
       ``(B) is hostile to the NATO alliance; or
       ``(C) poses a national security threat to the Untied 
     States,

     then the President shall so certify to the appropriate 
     congressional committees.
       ``(3) Nothing in this Act shall affect the eligibility of 
     countries to participate under other provisions of law in 
     programs described in this Act.
       (b) Congressional Priority Procedures.--Section 203 of such 
     Act is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(g) Congressional Priority Procedures.--
       ``(1) Applicable procedures.--A joint resolution described 
     in paragraph (2) which is introduced in a House of Congress 
     after the date on which a certification made under subsection 
     (f)(2) is received by Congress shall be considered in 
     accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraphs (3) 
     through (7) of section 8066(c) of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1985 (as contained in Public Law 98-473 
     (98 Stat. 1936)), except that--
       ``(A) references to the `resolution described in paragraph 
     (1)' shall be deemed to be references to the joint 
     resolution; and
       ``(B) references to the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and to the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate shall be deemed to be references 
     to the Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate.
       ``(2) Text of joint resolution.--A joint resolution under 
     this paragraph is a joint resolution the matter after the 
     resolving clause of which is as follows: `That the Congress 
     disapproves the certification submitted by the President on 
     ________ pursuant to section 203(f) of the NATO Participation 
     Act of 1994.'.''.

     SEC. 7. REPORTS.

       (a) Annual Report.--Section 206 of the NATO Participation 
     Act of 1994 (title II of Public Law 103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 
     note), as redesignated by section 5(1) of this Act, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``ANNUAL'' in the section heading before 
     the first word;
       (2) by inserting ``annual'' after ``include in the'' in the 
     matter preceding paragraph (1);
       (3) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Partnership for Peace'' 
     and inserting ``European''; and
       (4) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting instead the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(2) In the event that the President determines that, 
     despite a period of transition assistance, a country 
     designated under section 203(d) has not, as of January 10, 
     1999, met criteria for NATO membership set forth by the North 
     Atlantic Council, the President shall transmit a report to 
     the designated congressional committees containing an 
     assessment
      of the progress made by that country in meeting those 
     standards.''.

     SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

       The NATO Participation Act of 1994 (title II of Public Law 
     103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note), as amended by this Act, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 207. DEFINITIONS.

       ``For purposes of this title:
       ``(1) NATO.--The term `NATO' means the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization.
       ``(2) Designated congressional committees.--The term 
     `designated congressional committees' means--
       ``(A) The Committee on International Relations, the 
     Committee on National Security, and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and
       ``(B) the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on 
     Armed Services, and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate.
       ``(3) European countries emerging from communist 
     domination.--The term `European countries emerging from 
     Communist domination' includes, but is not limited to, 
     Albania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, 
     Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and 
     Ukraine.''.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, let me say to the distinguished chairman, 
it is my intent to cooperate with him in every way possible. It is not 
my intent to add controversy to the bill. I believe the problems and 
concerns have been met and modified. I believe it is the kind of policy 
of which the Senator would be very strongly supportive.
  Let me simply outline quickly what has changed in the effect of this 
amendment.
  The original version, before the establishment of the program for 
NATO transition, the compromise that is before the body now simply 
authorizes that. The difference is, this is simply an authorization so 
the President can move ahead with it if he wishes.
  Second, the original version determined that Poland, Hungary, the 
Czech Republic, and the Slovak Republic were members of the program; 
that is, the transition program. The compromise version requires the 
President to evaluate those countries but does not require that they be 
named in the transition program. It also gives the President the option 
then to name those that he would like to have participate in the 
transition program.
  Third, the original amendment did not authorize funds in response to 
the administration and others. This does authorize funds for countries 
at the transition level that are included in the transition level, and 
it is basically comparable to what was included in the President's 
Warsaw initiative in terms of those powers.
  Last, Mr. President, this measure urges participation of the old 
version, which urged participation of the North Atlantic Council 
countries in NATO. That is deleted in the compromise version. I believe 
every concern that has been raised or expressed, that we are aware of, 
has been dealt with in the compromise version. It is clearly a step 
forward.
  Mr. President, let me last of all indicate this. This does clearly 
relate to NATO and military matters and the 

[[Page S 12150]]
matters before the body. While this does not divert the funding 
priority that the distinguished committee has put forward, it does 
carry a very significant symbolic message, and that message is this: 
That we believe that countries who believe in democracy and will stand 
up for freedom in Central Europe that were subject to the horrors of 
World War II and the horrors of Soviet domination in the cold war, if 
they want to join free men and women in standing up for freedom, that 
we ought to welcome them.
  This is not simply a technical issue; it is an issue that goes right 
to the heart of what free men and women want for their lives, for their 
children and for their future. These are people who want to join arms 
with us and want to stand up for freedom and want to pledge their 
security with our security. They want to join hands with us.
  Mr. President, at the end of World War II, this country turned to the 
countries in Europe and Japan, and we did a number of things. First, we 
not only extended a hand of friendship, but we extended a hand of 
assistance.
  Second, we opened up our trade markets to let them earn their way out 
of the tragedy that had befallen them.
  And third, and most significant of all, we extended an umbrella of 
protection for their mutual security.
  What happened at the end of the cold war to those countries that had 
been victimized by Soviet occupation was that the European Economic 
Community did not open their markets to them, although they are in 
negotiations to do so. That move to open their markets, which would 
have done more for the Central European countries than perhaps any 
single thing that can be done, is still being worked out, and, frankly, 
membership in NATO is viewed as a key way to accomplish that objective. 
If you look at the transition for Greece and others who joined the 
common market, it was exactly the door of NATO that helped bring them 
in.
  So opening markets was not done for Central Europe. And frankly, 
assistance was not done, although there have been some minor programs 
and they have not pushed hard for it, but the kind of assistance we 
gave with the Marshall Plan has not been offered and not really asked 
for.
  Last, and maybe most important, we have not done that which they ask 
for the most, and that is to join hands with them in pledging mutual 
protection for each other.
  Those three things that were so important for turning Japan and 
Europe around have not been done for Central Europe. This would move 
forward in terms of allowing those people to join hands with us in 
transitioning to NATO membership. The idea and the concept and the 
symbol are terribly important for the security of Central Europe.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Helms as a 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record letters supporting 
this amendment from former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and from 
President Carter's National Security Adviser, Mr. Brzezinski.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           Henry A. Kissinger,

                                                    July 27, 1995.
     Hon. Hank Brown,
     Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Brown: Thank you for bringing to my attention 
     the Brown-Simon ``NATO Participation Act Amendments of 
     1995''.
       In my view, continuing security in Europe hinges upon a 
     stable NATO alliance open to early membership by countries 
     like Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Ambiguous 
     Western security arrangements for the heart of Europe will 
     not serve the cause of peace there. Rather, they will 
     generate uncertainty and instability.
       As you know, I was solidly in favor of the 1994 NATO 
     Participation Act. It sent a strong indication of United 
     States support for the countries emerging from communist 
     domination in Central and Eastern Europe. Accordingly, I was 
     disappointed by President Clinton's decision not to act on 
     his authority. A valuable opportunity was missed to enhance 
     the security of Europe.
       The ``NATO Participation Act Amendments of 1995'' seek to 
     correct this mistake by requiring the Administration to 
     extend to these fledgling democracies some of the most 
     important security benefits U.S. law extends to existing NATO 
     members. This action will speed their transition into NATO. 
     Furthermore, this measure sends a clear signal in part from 
     its specific designation of Poland, Hungary, the Czech 
     Republic, and Slovakia as eligible countries.
       I strongly support the Brown-Simon amendment and urge your 
     colleagues of both parties to join in passing them at the 
     earliest opportunity.
           Sincerely,
     Henry A. Kissinger.
                                                                    ____

         Center for Strategic & International Studies,
                                    Washington, DC, July 31, 1995.
     Hon. Hank Brown,
      U.S. Senate,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Brown: Thank you for notifying me about the 
     Brown-Simon ``NATO Participation Act Amendments of 1995'' and 
     your intention to offer them as amendments.
       From my perspective, the United States and her allies have 
     arrived at a unique juncture in history. An excellent 
     opportunity now exists to contribute to the creation of a 
     stable and secure Europe. An important element to that 
     region's long-term peace is our continued commitment to a 
     strong NATO open to early membership to countries like 
     Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia.
       For this reason, I strongly support the ``NATO 
     Participation Act Amendments of 1995.'' These proposals would 
     strengthen the 1994 NATO Participation Act by requiring the 
     Clinton Administration to implement a transition program to 
     help eligible countries move closer toward the high standards 
     of NATO membership. This action surely will accelerate the 
     inclusion of these nations into this key security alliance.
       I urge your colleagues to join in support of the Brown-
     Simon amendments.
           Sincerely,
                                              Zbigniew Brzezinski.

  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I can only, once again, ask my friend 
from Colorado to cooperate by withdrawing the amendment and presenting 
it as it will be presented in the Foreign Operations Subcommittee bill. 
If this remains in our bill, when we get to conference with the House, 
we have to conference with two separate subcommittees. They will not 
conference with us on the foreign operations matters when we have the 
Defense Subcommittees meeting.
  This is going to delay getting us our bill. I happen to be one who is 
in the forefront in support of what the Senator from Colorado is doing. 
I believe in expansion of NATO. I believe we may have some trouble with 
regard to the extent of our capabilities to provide the assurance that 
we will come to the defense of any of these nations in the current 
circumstance over there, but I am more than willing to explore how we 
can do that, because I think it is right to do. But I believe it is 
going to open up this bill now to a very wide-ranging debate and that 
every Senator is going to want to talk about it and we are going to be 
here tomorrow morning.
  I urge the Senator to listen to the chairman of the Foreign Relations 
subcommittee, who has committed that it will be brought up at his 
subcommittee in the first week of September and be carried through from 
there. It does not belong on this bill. We are not capable of handling 
this in conference. I hate to take something to conference which means 
that when we are in conference, we have to step aside and let other 
subcommittee members from either side come in and handle an issue not 
within our competence. I do not believe it ought to be on this bill.
  I urge the Senator--he made his point, and I think there will be an 
overwhelming support for his proposition once everyone has expressed 
their point of view here today, probably. But it does not belong on 
this bill.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, let me respond to the very thoughtful 
concerns of the chairman. Let me assure him that if this becomes a 
burden for his bill or untimely delays it, I am going to be with him in 
trying to find another avenue for it. I hope the Senator does not feel 
compelled to oppose this effort if indeed we have addressed those 
concerns.
  Mr. President, I at this point ask that Senator Moseley-Braun from 
Illinois be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  I believe Senator Simon at this point would like the opportunity to 
address the measure. I will yield to him.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, that is the problem. Every Senator wants 
to 

[[Page S 12151]]
talk about this amendment that does not belong on my bill. We ought to 
find some way to test this. It is my intent to make a motion to table 
this amendment very soon, because I say we are going to go home, and 
the way we are going to get home is not standing here talking about 
something that belongs on another bill.
  The Foreign Relations subcommittee will report their bill the second 
week in September, and that is when it should be considered. The Senate 
is going to have a chance to make up its mind whether it is going to 
finish this day or not. I am not going to make the motion now. I want 
to confer with the Senator from Colorado. I believe we ought to be 
listened to. This is not something that belongs on this bill. We are 
not capable of handling the subject matter. We cannot conference with 
the Defense subcommittee on the other side.
  While I support the intent, it is not something we ought to be 
dealing with. It is legislation on an appropriations bill, and it 
should not be here. The way to answer that is to either make a point of 
order against it or move to table it. I will do one or the other before 
too long.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I will just take 2 minutes. I want to 
assure the Senator from Alaska that in terms of making a point of 
order, that precedent has been set and this is in order. There is no 
question about that.
  The question is, Is this significant enough that we ought to put this 
on this piece of legislation? And I think the answer is yes. It will 
add to stability in Central Europe. I think the answer is clearly yes. 
The language is so couched that I hope we can accept it very quickly.
  I want to get out of here as much as the Senator from Alaska wants to 
get out of here. A simple way of getting out of here is to accept this 
amendment and move forward. I think this is in everyone's best 
interest.
  Let me add one other point. There are those who say somehow this will 
offend Russia. The reality is that the time may come when Russia can 
become a part of NATO. Ultimately, the threat to Russia does not come 
from the West, it comes from China, in the long term.
  So I think this does make sense, and I am pleased to support the 
amendment of Senator Brown.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Colorado 
[Mr. Brown], has demonstrated his customary fine leadership in offering 
his amendment to bring a possible NATO membership one step closer for 
friends of the United States in Central Europe.
  Now, nations from Latvia to the Czech Republic have bitter memories 
of the period following World War II when they were left in a security 
vacuum. Some 50 years of Communist captivity ensued.
  I ask unanimous consent to be identified as a cosponsor on the Brown 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the amendment provides incentive for 
continued reform in countries of that region by offering closer 
integration with the West for countries that meet the fundamental 
criteria of democracy and economic reform.
  While some countries have taken more steps than others in fulfilling 
the criteria outlined in the Brown amendment, reform efforts are so 
fluid and governments evolve so often that I do not believe it is fair 
to prejudge any one country, or set of countries, for that matter, at 
this time.
 It would certainly not be honest to make the judgment that Slovakia, 
for example, has made more progress in fulfilling the criteria in this 
bill than have Estonia or Slovenia. While I support Slovakia's 
independence and the people of that country, the Government of that 
country has backed away, I am sorry to say, from privatization and has 
interpreted democracy to mean total control by the ruling political 
party of the country.

  The Brown amendment offers a real blueprint for forging closer 
relations with the free nations of Central Europe. We should not 
content ourselves with the Clinton administration's tepid approach to 
our victory in the cold war. To this day, the administration has failed 
to define the process by which Central European countries can become 
NATO members. The Brown amendment will right this unfocused approach by 
concentrating our assistance on those countries taking brave steps to 
reform their political, economic and military systems and tie their 
future to NATO.
  I firmly believe that NATO enlargement to countries which prove 
themselves capable of contributing to the NATO Alliance is in the U.S. 
national interest. Spreading NATO ideals to Central Europe at this time 
aligns these countries in a defense-oriented posture which must be more 
comforting to Russia than the current undefined security situation in 
Central Europe.
  I would encourage the President to take the bold step of making all 
the countries in this bill eligible for much of the NATO transition 
assistance provided in this amendment.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________