[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 134 (Thursday, August 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12151-S12166]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            NATO ENLARGEMENT

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today as one who has been a long-
standing supporter of NATO. For this reason, I am a cosponsor of the 
Brown amendment, the NATO Participation Act Amendments of 1995.
  Mr. President, no other issue is more crucial to European security 
than NATO's relationship with Central and Eastern Europe. Today, we are 
in the midst of an historical era, an era of transition, the so-called 
post-cold-war era. It is a phase in which the strategic landscape of 
Europe is particularly malleable. It is a phase that will not last 
forever and which will end sooner rather than later.
  How the alliance manages its relationship with the nations of this 
region during this period will determine whether or not Europe will 
ultimately benefit from an enduring and stable peace.
  Careful, gradual, but undeterred enlargement of NATO should be the 
geopolitical priority of America's Europe policy. The alliance is 
uniquely qualified to provide the institutional foundation for regional 
security and peace. No other institution, including the European Union 
and the Organization for Security and Cooperation, combine the two 
necessary requisites to serve in this role: a transatlantic dimension 
and proven operational capability.
  The Brown amendment explicitly endorses and facilitates a process of 
NATO expansion. If passed, this amendment would authorize the President 
to establish programs to facilitate the integration of Poland, the 
Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary as well as other Central and 
Eastern European nations into the alliance.
  Passage of this amendment would be an important step toward 
establishing a system of European security consisting of two pillars: 
an enlarged NATO and a strategic partnership between the alliance and 
Russia.
  With the end of the Cold War, Central and Eastern Europe once again 
find themselves outside of any viable security structure. The region 
is, in essence, a security vacuum between NATO's eastern frontier and 
Russia. Both recent- and long-term history show us that the region's 
strategic vulnerability has been a source of instability on the 
continent--with calamitous consequences that drew the United States 
into two World Wars.
  Extending the alliance's membership to the nations of Central and 
Eastern Europe, beginning with the nations of Poland, Czechia, 
Slovakia, and Hungary, will help transform this region from a source of 
instability into a cornerstone of peace.
  NATO enlargement would help facilitate the economic and political 
integration of this region into the West. The absence of a stable 
security environment only exacerbates fears and insecurities that 
jeopardize the political and economic reform necessary for integration 
to occur.
  NATO enlargement would project greater stability into Eastern and 
Central Europe and thereby enable the 

[[Page S 12152]]
region's nations to more confidently focus on their internal 
challenges. Mr. President, security is not an alternative to reform, 
but it is essential for reform to occur.
  I must add, Mr. President, that the adoption of this amendment would 
send a much-needed signal of American support to the nations of Central 
and Eastern Europe and the reform efforts within them. It has been over 
5 years since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and nearly 5 years since 
the implosion of the Soviet Union. Many in Central and Eastern Europe 
have been disillusioned with the West and the United States for our 
failure to more aggressively embrace these nations into the 
transatlantic community.
  Mr. President, passage of this amendment would demonstrate the 
America's commitment to consolidating an enlarged Europe, and it would 
give more incentive to all the nations of Central and Eastern Europe to 
continue their reforms.
  Second, two great European powers, Germany and Russia, are now 
undergoing very complex and sensitive transformations. Their outcomes 
will be significantly shaped by the future of Central and Eastern 
Europe. The extension of NATO membership to Central and Eastern Europe, 
beginning with Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, and Hungary, would positively 
influence the evolution of these two great powers.
  Germany, as a consequence of the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and 
German reunification, has become more concerned about developments 
beyond its new eastern frontiers. And today, Germany is more capable of 
independently addressing her relations with Central and Eastern Europe.
  Failure to adequately realize the integration of this region into the 
West is likely to foster a more nationalist security policy in Germany. 
In fact, this is a fear that Bonn's politicians and experts openly 
articulate. NATO enlargement would further lock German interests into a 
transatlantic security structure and consolidate the positive role Bonn 
plays in European affairs.
  NATO enlargement would also assist Russia's democratic evolution. It 
would do so by enhancing Russia's own security and by bringing Europe 
closer to Russia.
  Of all of Europe's reborn nations, Russia is experiencing the most 
revolutionary and difficult transformation. Following the collapse of 
the Soviet Union, Russia is adjusting to the unraveling of an empire 
and the return to frontiers dating back to the 16th century.
  By enhancing and reinforcing stability in Eastern Europe, NATO 
enlargement would make unrealistic the calls by Moscow's extremists for 
Russia's westward expansion. Greater stability along Russia's frontiers 
will enable Moscow to direct more of its energy toward the internal 
challenges of political and economic reform.
  There are two other geopolitical dangers consequent to the 
perpetuation of isolation and insecurity in Central and Eastern Europe:
  Isolation not only fosters the nationalization of the foreign and 
security policies of Germany and Russia, but also of the nations within 
the region.
  Additionally, Eastern Europe's institutional separation from Europe 
and the West certainly sustains Russia's sense of isolation and thereby 
risks revitalizing its historic sense of alienation from European 
affairs. These dynamics could well present unfortunate opportunities, 
if not incentives, for great power revanchism.
  Mr. President, allow me to address some of the key arguments being 
made against NATO enlargement:
  Moscow's sensitivities are frequently highlighted as arguments 
against NATO enlargement. Proponents of this view claim that because 
Russia perceives NATO enlargement as part of an effort to isolate her 
from the rest of Europe, we risk prompting a more aggressive and 
dangerous Russian foreign policy.
  It is absolutely essential that Russia not be given the false 
impression that NATO enlargement is designed to isolate Moscow from 
Europe. That is why I support the establishment of a strategic 
partnership between the alliance and Russia. This intent is reiterated 
clearly and forthrightly in the Brown amendment.
  At the same time we must not overreact to outdated Russian 
sensitivities at the expense of strategic realities and objectives 
central to the interests of the alliance, as well as the United States.
  The fact is that Russia is far from being an isolated nation. Today, 
Moscow benefits from special bilateral relationships with the nations 
of the transatlantic community, especially the United States and 
Germany. It is a member of the U.N. Security Council, an active 
participant of the OSCE, and has recently become a member of NATO's 
Partnership for Peace program. Russia is a chief recipient of foreign 
assistance from the United States and the European Union, not to 
mention the IMF and World Bank.
  In many ways, Russia enjoys far greater engagement with the West than 
is now enjoyed by any of our Central and East European neighbors.
  Let me emphasize that it will not be NATO enlargement that will shape 
Russia's relationship with the alliance, but Moscow's reaction to 
enlargement. If Moscow resists the process through intimidation or 
aggression, NATO enlargement will more likely be directed against 
Russia.
  On the other hand, if Russia respects the rights of other nations to 
determine their own geopolitical destinies, if Russia recognizes the 
objective benefits of NATO enlargement, and ultimately works with the 
alliance in this process, NATO enlargement will contribute to a broad 
process of engagement and integration that will bring Europe and Russia 
closer together.
  A second argument against NATO enlargement is that it risks creating 
new and destabilizing lines within Central and Eastern Europe.
  The fact is that our legislation works to eliminate lines from a 
bygone era by replacing them with a process of inclusion reaching out 
to all the nations of Central and Eastern Europe. Those nations that 
would not be in the first group of states admitted to NATO would 
benefit in two ways:
  These nations would end up less isolated from the Alliance. They 
would no longer be left on the distant fringes of a gray zone in 
European security. Geographically, they would be closer to NATO, if not 
bordering the alliance. Most importantly, they would be part of a 
region being actively integrated into the West.
  A third argument one hears against our legislation is that it smacks 
of American unilateralism in Europe and would undermine NATO cohesion.
  Mr. President, this legislation endorses a vision of European 
security. It does not impose it upon our allies. It in no way 
undermines the Washington Treaty and its chapters governing the 
accession of new members. It does require the President to undertake 
programs that will help the nations of Central and Eastern Europe 
prepare themselves for the responsibilities of NATO membership.
  I can think of no European Ally that would oppose any of these 
programs. By enabling the nations of Central and Eastern Europe to more 
effectively cooperate with the Allies, we are assisting the interests 
of all our Allies.
  Mr. President, let me close by emphasizing that NATO enlargement is 
not a unique historical step. It has already occurred on three separate 
occasions since 1949 with nations whose levels of democratic 
development at that time are clearly matched by that found today among 
the nations of Central and Eastern Europe.
  Enlargement is a process for which the alliance has always been 
geared. Indeed, article 10 of the Washington Treaty provides for the 
enlargement of the alliance to any European state ``in a position to 
further the principals of this Treaty and to contribute to the security 
of the North Atlantic area.''
  Mr. President, current policy is overly concerned with Russia's 
psychological well-being and insufficiently focused on central 
objectives. America's policies toward Europe must be structured to 
shape a strategic landscape that enhances economic, political, and 
military stability in all parts of Europe. That should be our national 
interest--and that is the intent of the NATO Participation Act 
Amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Brown 
amendment be set aside temporarily so we may proceed with another 
Bingaman amendment. 

[[Page S 12153]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2392

  (Purpose: To strike out section 8082, relating to progress payments)

  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 bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2392.
       On page 81, strike out lines 16 through 20.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment which I 
do not think anyone should have any difficulty understanding. It 
relates to the earlier amendment I offered only in one respect, in that 
I did propose to amend this same section there as well. But this does 
not relate, I would point out to my colleagues who are here on the 
floor, to the LHD-7. It does not relate to ongoing operations. It does 
not relate to any specific funding program or any specific project in 
the defense bill.
  What it does is it says this provision which was included in the bill 
to require the Department of Defense to make 85-percent progress 
payments, rather than 75-percent progress payments as does the rest of 
the Federal Government, should be stricken from the bill.
  This is a particularly bad provision. This is section 8082 on page 81 
of the bill. It says:

       None of the funds available to the Department of Defense 
     shall be made available to make progress payments based on 
     costs to large business concerns at rates lower than 85 
     percent on contract solicitation issued after enactment of 
     this act.

  This provision, which I am proposing we eliminate from the bill, is 
particularly objectionable because it is limited to large business 
concerns. Why do we want to make 85-percent payments to large business 
concerns and retain the 75-percent progress payment to any other 
business concern, as is presently the case? Why do we want to have one 
set of rules which are more advantageous for defense contractors than 
the set of rules we have for all other contractors?
  I have great difficulty understanding the rationale for this. I am 
not just raising this as a philosophical issue. According to the 
figures we have been given, these five lines in the defense bill cost 
the American taxpayer $488 million. This is $488 million that the 
Department of Defense is going to have to spend in the 1996 fiscal year 
more than otherwise would be the case because of these five lines.
  All I am saying is we have some other needs in this country besides 
speeding up the rate at which we pay defense contractors. We need to 
pay these defense contractors. They need to be profitable. We do not 
want to fall behind on our payments. I agree with all of that. But I do 
not see why it is in the best interests of the people I represent in 
New Mexico, or the general public in this country, for us to spend $488 
million in this way in the next fiscal year.
  So I think clearly the merits are on changing this to just 
eliminating this provision, allow us to continue the present 
arrangement where we pay defense contractors just as we pay others, 
particularly these large business concerns which are talked about in 
this language.
  Mr. President, in discussing the earlier amendment I also went over 
this issue to some extent and pointed out that these so-called large 
business concerns--I assume that term, although that is a fairly new 
term, at least in any bill I have seen--I assume that within that 
definition of a large business concern you would include the 20 top 
defense contractors that do business with the Federal Government. Just 
as in the previous debate I asked then to have printed in the Record a 
copy of the financial performance of the top 20 Department of Defense 
contractors during the first quarter of 1995, I again ask unanimous 
consent we print that as part of this debate.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                        FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF TOP 20 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTORS                       
                                               [1st quarter 1995]                                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Return on  Return on
                        Company                           Profits      Sales      Assets      assets     sales  
                                                        (millions)  (millions)  (millions)  (percent)  (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McDonnell Douglas.....................................     $159.0      $3,333     $12,026        5.3        4.8 
Lockheed-Martin.......................................      137.0       5,644       8,961        6.1        2.4 
Martin Marietta (See Lockheed-Martin)                                                                           
General Motors........................................    2,154.0      43,285     188,201        4.6        5.0 
Raytheon..............................................     173.90       2,387       7,258        9.6        7.3 
United Technologies...................................      135.0       5,344      15,618        3.5        2.5 
Northrop..............................................       54.0       1,617       2,919        7.4        3.3 
General Dynamics......................................       60.0         753       2,635        9.1        8.0 
Loral.................................................       94.8       1,459       3,228       11.7        6.5 
Grumman (See Northrup-Grumman)                                                                                  
Boeing................................................      181.0       5,037      20,450        3.5        3.6 
General Electric......................................    1,372.0      15,126     251,506        2.2        9.1 
Westinghouse Electric.................................       15.0       2,024      10,553        0.6        0.7 
Litton Industries.....................................       28.6         694       3,834        3.0        4.1 
National Steel & Shipbuilding.........................       44.7         753       2,304        7.8        5.9 
Rockwell International................................      191.4       3,361       9,885        7.7        5.7 
TRW...................................................      114.7       2,596       5,336        8.6        4.4 
Texas Instruments.....................................      230.0       2,862       5,993       15.4        8.0 
Textron...............................................      109.0       2,387      19,658        2.2        4.6 
Tenneco...............................................      153.0       2,163      15,373        4.0        7.1 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Business Week Corporate Data.                                                                           

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, when you go down this list it is a list 
of some of our best corporations. They do a superb job in supplying 
products and services for the Department of Defense: McDonnell Douglas, 
Lockheed-Martin, Martin Marietta, General Motors, Raytheon, United 
Technologies, Northrop, General Dynamics, Loral, Grumman, Boeing, 
General Electric, Westinghouse Electric, Litton Industries, National 
Steel & Shipbuilding, Rockwell International, TRW, Texas Instruments, 
Textron, Tenneco.
  Mr. President, I do not believe that these companies should get any 
worse treatment than any other company that does business with the 
Government. I think they should be treated well. The Government should 
pay its bills on time. The Government should pay its bills promptly.
  I think it is appropriate we make the customary progress payments as 
they complete work on a contract. The customary progress payments are 
75 percent--you get paid for 75 percent of the work completed--then 
there is some portion held back to ensure that the entire job is done 
well and you can pay the rest at the end of the contract. That is the 
customary way in which contracting is done.
  I do not think it is worth $488 million to the American people to 
change that, just for this next fiscal year, and begin paying them an 
extra 10 percent as part of these progress payments. It just makes no 
sense to me.
  I argued long and hard yesterday to try to get support from my 
colleagues for $26 million in funding for Indian education. This was 
not new money. This was to try to keep the 1995 level of funding again 
in 1996. We were turned down. People said there is not enough money, we 
cannot do it.
  In light of that, if those are the circumstances we face, if we do 
not have enough money, if we are trying to balance the budget, and 
clearly there is a legitimate desire to get to a balanced budget by 
many Members of this body, then clearly people should support this 
effort to cut out this $488 million from the bill. So I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment. I think it speaks for itself. I do 
not believe we will need additional time.
  Mr. President, I address a question to the manager of the bill, the 
Senator from Alaska. If the Senator from Alaska could respond to a 
question, if he would like to have the same kind of arrangement of 2 
minutes for and 2 minutes against prior to a vote on this, I would have 
no objection to that course of action.
  Mr. STEVENS. I join in asking unanimous consent that when I make the 
motion to table there be an understanding that before that vote there 
will be 2 minutes on each side--2 minutes for the Senator from New 
Mexico and 2 minutes for someone to oppose this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my hope we will have another 
amendment to present soon here. So we can hopefully stack the votes and 
have a vote sometime around 4:30, hopefully, on all four of these 
amendments.
  We are looking for one other. We know there is one other that will 
take about half hour on each side.
  Let me say on this one that I understand the Senator from New Mexico. 
It is a very technical issue that he has raised. Actually, the current 
progress payment level that the Department is using now is 75 percent.
  This is a regulation that is trying to force the Department of 
Defense to keep their progress payments at a specific level that deals 
with outlays. That is why I say it is very technical. 

[[Page S 12154]]
We have outlays when we authorize funds. We authorize $1 million for 
one project. They actually might spend half of that the first year. 
That would be an outlay of 50 percent. If we have another project and 
they only spend 25 percent the first year, it would be an outlay of 25 
percent for the first year.
  This is dealing with the outlays, and progress payments are related 
to those outlays in the current year. We have raised it to 85 percent 
because we have a surplus of outlays for 1996 as compared to 
authorization. Therefore, that will force the Department to keep its 
payments up to make sure that we are not carrying over until the next 
year payments that should be made this year. If they were not made this 
year and carried over to the next year, it would mean we might not be 
able to use the authorizations that we have for the next year in order 
to bring about outlays in 1997.
  Under the circumstances, I oppose the Senator's amendment, because 
the fair way to keep the contractors coming to the Department of 
Defense to do work is to see that they are assured that they will not 
get less than a specific amount on their progress payments per a time 
period of the year. If they do not get the progress payments, they have 
to go out and borrow money to continue their operation, and it 
increases the cost in the next year because, by definition, that 
becomes a cost to the contract. And we are much better off when we have 
the outlays available to force the Department to make their payments on 
time and, therefore, reduce the amount of money that contractors borrow 
and later charge us the interest on the borrowing.
  When interest rates are low, we are not that compelled to do this. 
But when they get higher, there is an absolute compulsion to do it. 
That is why I say we are dealing with a current regulation of 75 
percent. We put this in. This is a provision of our bill that goes up 
to 85 percent. It will keep the contractors, particularly the smaller 
contractors, as the Senator from New Mexico mentioned--I disagree with 
him on his conclusion--this means smaller contractors will be more 
attracted to doing business with the Department of Defense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes has expired.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is a misunderstanding, Mr. President. The 2 minutes 
applies to the time after I have made the motion to table. We want the 
opportunity for the Senator from New Mexico to explain his amendment 
just before the vote.
  There will be a series of votes. Under this, there will be the third 
vote that we will have stacked. The Senator will have 2 minutes, and I 
or someone here will have 2 minutes to respond. I apologize to the 
Chair for the misunderstanding.
  But, again I say to the Senator, what we are doing is not only 
assisting the smaller contractors who want to work on defense business 
this time. The normal payment, everyone realizes, would be 100 percent. 
If you have a progress payment concept in your contract, you get 100 
percent of your progress payments.
  The Department of Defense was not keeping up with those payments. So 
we said, ``You have to pay at least 75 percent. You can never fall 
behind more than 25 percent in any progress payment period.'' Now we 
have told them, ``You have to go to 85 percent,'' because that forces 
them to assure contractors that they will get 85 percent of the 
progress payments they are entitled to under the contract in 1996.
  Again, I say to my friend, it is very technical. It is related to the 
Senator's first amendment because his first amendment would be subject 
to a point of order if it was not possible to have outlays available, 
and this amendment makes those outlays available. If the first 
amendment were to carry, the second amendment would have to carry, too. 
At least that is my understanding of the intertwining of them.
  He also has a principle involved. I appreciate the principle. There 
is a disagreement between the two of us over what is accomplished by a 
progress payment mandate.
  I would be happy to let the Senator proceed. I do not know of anyone 
else on this side who wants to have time. He understands that I will 
make a motion to table when he has finished with his remarks.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator 
from Alaska. I will make just a few more remarks to clarify.
  First of all, this amendment strikes a provision that sets up a 
different procedure for progress payments to large business concerns. 
That is what the statute says. It does not say small business. It says 
large business concerns. We set up a requirement for 85 percent 
progress payments for large business concerns. The 75 percent which is 
customary in the industry remains the procedure for all others.
  So this is not a way to help small businesses; this is a way to help 
large defense contractors.
  To my knowledge, Mr. President, I do not believe anybody could come 
to the floor and critique or disagree with me on this.
  Mr. STEVENS. I would like to disagree. This is the second time the 
Senator made the point. The Senator realizes that under our provision, 
progress payments for small business will rise to 90 percent and 
progress payments for small disadvantaged businesses will rise to 95 
percent because we have not changed the formula under existing law 
which forces the Department to pay small businesses higher than the 
larger concerns. So if we set the larger concerns at 85, under existing 
procedures the small business automatically is at 90, and the small 
disadvantaged at 95.
  So the Senator has implied that this does not apply to small 
business. To the contrary, it applies to a greater extent to small 
business.
  Does he understand that?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate that clarification. The 
language I am trying to strike out is limited to large business 
concerns, and there may be some provision elsewhere that applies to 
smaller businesses and their progress payments.
  But let me again make the point that I was making initially. That is, 
we do not have a problem with the profitability of our large defense 
contractors. They are all profitable today. They are all reporting 
record profits today. Their stocks reflect that. In all respects they 
are doing extremely well. And I wish them well. I have no problem with 
that.
  I think the suggestion that the Senator from Alaska made that the 
normal practice is to make 100 percent progress payments is just not in 
my recollection of how business is done. I have been in Government a 
while. But I can remember before I got in the Government hiring 
contractors to do some simple things like building an office building 
for me. I had a contract where I made progress payments as that office 
building was completed. There was no suggestion by any contractor that 
I should make 100 percent progress payments as we went forward. The 
understanding was we would keep back some of the money until the 
project was completed, and that was an incentive to the contractor to 
complete the project on time and to my specifications.
  So I can remember building an office project or an office building in 
Santa Fe, NM, and the progress payments there were 75 percent. I cannot 
believe that these various defense contractors whose names I read off 
before, which are some of the largest, most successful, most profitable 
corporations in the country, are not used to doing business on the same 
basis.
  So the argument that we have to raise these progress payments this 
year in order to look out for the financial well-being of these large 
defense contractors is somewhat hard for me to believe. I strongly 
believe that we have here $488 million that we could save in this bill.
  I think the simple truth is, this bill as it came out of the 
committee has in it nearly $1.3 billion of outlays; that the budget 
resolution, as I understand it, has about $1.3 billion of outlays that 
are not needed, and, therefore, we have provisions like this in the 
bill to try to soak up some of those outlays.
  Mr. President, I do not believe it is reasonable to tell the American 
people we are going to charge them $488 million next year in order that 
we can advance these progress payments or increase them to 85 percent 
for major defense contractors. We have other needs in this country for 
some of this money. Clearly, if we have an extra $488 million, we ought 
to spend it on some of those other needs and not be spending it on this 
kind of provision.
 
[[Page S 12155]]

  So I do hope that my colleagues will support the effort to strike the 
provision when it comes to a vote later.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, that again shows our disagreement. The 
Senator is correct. We have an allocation to our subcommittee of more 
outlays than we can use with the budget authority that was given us 
because a lot of the budget authority was taken away and used in areas 
where they do not have the outlays that we might have had.
  We looked at this and we saw that there was a group of contracts out 
there and if they increased the rate of compliance with existing 
contract provisions now, they would use those outlays this year. If 
they do not comply with the contract provisions, it shifts the money 
into next year, where we might then have to use money under these 
contracts and not be able to pay for the costs of whatever it might 
be--the DDG-51's, the pay raise that is coming, whatever it might be. 
We are asked now not to use this money because the rate of payment of 
bills is too slow. We are saying you must get at least an 85 percent 
level of compliance with your own contracts now in making payments for 
defense contractors.
  And again, when we say that it is based on the cost of large 
businesses, that automatically means that for small businesses it is 5 
percent higher, and for disadvantaged small businesses it is 5 percent 
higher than that. So what we are saying is use this money now. We do 
not want you to stretch these contracts out because in doing so you 
cause the contractors to borrow money which goes on the next year's 
bill.
  In addition to that, what it means is we are denied the ability to 
meet the schedule for bringing on-line these other items that are being 
authorized by the authorization committee. We will have to tell the 
authorization committee, if we do not do this, next year we will have 
to tell them we are sorry, we did not use the outlays last year; we 
have shifted them to next year, and although you have been authorized 
this money we cannot allow you to spend it because we do not have the 
outlays to allocate to you.
  This is an accounting principle, and the Senator is very astute in 
finding it because most people would not find it. But we have done that 
for the purpose of assuring that we do not fail to keep up with the 
rate of payment.
  Incidentally, I am just a country lawyer. As far as I am concerned, 
if I submit a bill, they ought to pay 100 percent of it, right? And we 
find they are not even paying 75 percent. This says you must pay at 
least 85 percent of the progress payments that are presented to you 
that are due and payable within the year 1996.
  So based upon the understanding that we have, I do move to table the 
Senator's amendment with the understanding that we will have 2 minutes 
on each side prior to the time that it will come to a vote, and we 
expect that vote to come sometime, I would say, around 4:20, 4:30, 
because we are going to have another couple of amendments brought up 
here.
  I do make that motion to table with that understanding. Is that 
agreeable?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has allowed 2 minutes to a side.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.


                        Striking of Section 8078

  Now, Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Vermont has a 
statement. But I also understand the Senator from Oklahoma has worked 
out an amendment with the Senator from Hawaii. If he wants to offer 
that at this time, may we get this out of the way, I ask the Senator?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes. I am going to offer an amendment and withdraw it.
  Mr. STEVENS. This will just take a minute.
  Mr. INHOFE. This will just take a minute.
  Let me compliment both the Senator from Hawaii and the Senator from 
Alaska for being understanding and looking at an amendment with which I 
have a problem. I believe the section, which is 8078, clearly violates 
the current statutory 60-40 relationship between contract and private 
maintenance, inhouse depot maintenance.
  I also believe that this section would violate the intent of the 
whole BRAC process.
  I appreciate very much the willingness of the Senator from Hawaii to 
pull out section 8078, and I inquire of the chairman of the committee, 
is it necessary to propose it as an amendment?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that section 8078 
be deleted from the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INOUYE. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this section would have allowed the Air 
Force to compete core workload. The Pentagon and the Congress have 
indicated that core workload is so critical to America's readiness to 
go to war that this work must be done by the Pentagon in its depots.
  In addition to this, the GAO has a draft report on this very issue 
that indicates that competing the workload addressed in this section 
does not make sense based on the excess capacity in the Air Force 
Depots.
  By striking this section of the bill, core workload is retained in 
the Pentagon's depot system as outlined in Pentagon policy and title 10 
of the U.S. Code. It also follows the recommendations of the GAO 
report.
  The effort to get this section stricken from the bill was truly a 
team effort on the part of myself and my State colleague, Mr. Inhofe.
  I want to thank my friend Mr. Inhofe for his efforts. I also want to 
thank the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee staff, as well as 
Senators Stevens and Inouye who have managed this bill in their 
customary fair and open manner.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand there is some 
misunderstanding. I did move to table the first Bingaman amendment. If 
there is any misunderstanding, for the Record, I again move to table 
the Bingaman amendment with the understanding that there are 8 minutes 
on a side for debate on that amendment when it first comes up.


                           Amendment No. 2393

          (Purpose: To provide funding for certain impact aid)

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
existing pending amendment be set aside temporarily for the purpose of 
offering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. The amendment is at the desk, I believe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2393.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. 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 82, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 8087. FUNDING FOR CERTAIN IMPACT AID.

       (a) In General.--Of the funds appropriated by the 
     provisions of this Act, $400,000,000 shall be available for 
     carrying out programs of financial assistance to local 
     educational agencies authorized by title VIII of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, of which--
       (1) $340,000,000 shall be for payments under section 
     8003(b) of that Act;
       (2) $20,000,000 shall be for payments under section 8003(d) 
     of that Act; and
       (3) $40,000,000 shall be for payments under section 8003(f) 
     of that Act, which amount shall remain available until 
     expended.
       (b) Limitations on Availability of Funds.--(1) Funds 
     available under subsection (a) shall be used only for 
     payments on behalf of children described in subparagraph 
     (A)(ii), (B), and (D) of section 8003(a)(1) of that Act.
       (2) Such funds may not be used for payments under section 
     8003(e) of that Act.
       (3) Such funds shall be governed by the provisions of title 
     VIII of that Act.
       (c) Payment Amounts.--(1) Payment amounts for local 
     educational agencies shall be calculated by the Secretary of 
     Education under the provisions of title VIII of that Act 
     based on the total amounts provided to the Department of 
     Education and the Department of Defense for Impact Aid.
       (2) The Secretary of Defense shall distribute funds to 
     local educational agencies based on calculations under 
     paragraph (1).
       (d) Offset.--The amount made available by subsection (a) 
     shall be derived from a reduction in the amounts appropriated 
     by this Act. In achieving the reduction, a reduction of an 
     equal percentage shall be made from each account (other than 
     the amount from 

[[Page S 12156]]
     which the funds under subsection (a) are made available) for which 
     funds are appropriated by this Act.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Let us step back for a moment and think about the big 
picture here. Our job is to set the priorities for the Nation, and in 
doing so, restore the economic health of our Nation by putting the 
budget on the path towards balance. If we fail to make spending cuts, 
our children will pay a terrible price. And if we make those cuts 
inappropriately, or by some strict formula without regard to merit, 
they will pay an equally harsh price. Our job is to prioritize, to 
carefully scrutinize the relative value of the various functions of 
Government and to decide how a shrinking resource base should best be 
divided.
  To do this exercise properly requires the ability to examine each 
area of the budget on its own merit and to move funds appropriately. 
Personally, I believe that the construction of firewalls hinders that 
ability. Firewalls separate off certain areas of the budget and remove 
them from consideration, forcing us to make tradeoffs within certain 
limited areas of the budget. However, I am aware that the Senate went 
on record again last week in support of retaining the firewalls between 
defense and domestic spending. And while I disagree with this decision, 
since it has prevailed, we must look carefully at the full implications 
of that policy.
  The premise of firewalls is that the Department of Defense should not 
have to pick up the tab for nondefense spending. And should not the 
reverse also then apply--that other departments should not be picking 
up the tab for costs incurred by the Department of Defense? I believe 
so, and I think the majority of my colleagues will agree with me.
  One area where the Department of Defense has traditionally enjoyed a 
reprieve from carrying its full weight is that of impact aid. Current 
law recognizes that local communities surrounding military 
installations incur costs in the education of military dependents that 
are not collectable in the traditional manner of local governments 
because the installations do not pay taxes to the towns. Impact aid was 
designed to offset these costs and ensure that military children are 
not relegated to a second-rate education.
  But, Mr. President, the funding for impact aid currently comes 
entirely out of the Department of Education. Yet, this is clearly a 
cost incurred by the Department of Defense. DOD has accepted the 
responsibility of bearing the full costs of educating military 
dependents overseas--why should it be allowed to shirk its 
responsibility for offsetting the costs that it incurs at home?
  The amendment that I am offering on behalf of myself and Senators 
Harkin and Simon does not increase Federal spending by one dime. Nor 
does it effect in any way the formula devised for distributing aid to 
impacted communities. All it does is to ensure that DOD pick up the 
costs it incurs instead of continuing to pass those costs off to the 
Department of Education. If we are to have firewalls, Mr. President, 
then it is only fair that they be respected in each direction.
  It is important that my colleagues recognize the backdrop against 
which we are operating. While defense spending has declined in the past 
decade, it has done so only moderately, particularly in the context of 
a greatly reduced threat to the security of the United States. The 
disappearance of our chief adversary entitles the American people to 
reap some of the fruits of this hard won victory. And this must 
translate into being able to direct some of our national investment 
away from armaments and into the real bulwarks of national defense--a 
sound economy, a vibrant technological base and a topnotch educational 
system.
  But this is not what we see happening here. Federal spending for 
education has been cut. Since 1983, education's share of total Federal 
expenditures decreased by more than 25 percent, falling at a time when 
poverty is on the rise. More than one-quarter of all our future front-
line workers are now growing up in poverty, a statistic unparalleled 
among advanced industrialized nations.
  And compared to these competitors, our students are failing. 
Thirteen-year-olds in the United States are at the bottom in math and 
science performance, subjects which are key to our future economic 
viability, scoring lower than 15 competitor nations. We have already 
begun to see the consequences as our students fall farther behind. Over 
the past 20 years, real income in the United States has grown at a rate 
5 times slower than in Canada, 6 times slower than in Germany, 7 times 
slower than in Italy, France, and Japan, and 8 times slower than the 
United Kingdom.
  More than half a trillion dollars in GDP is lost each year because we 
fail to educate our people. We spend $208 billion in welfare 
expenditures and $200 billion for employment training. In addition, the 
fact that 50 percent of adults in this country are functionally 
illiterate costs the marketplace $225 billion in lost wages each year.
  Thus, this amendment goes beyond the Washington rhetoric of arcane 
budgetary terms such as fire walls. This goes to the heart of the 
defense of our country--our education.
  Mr. President, I offer this amendment because I think it is an 
incredibly important issue of concern to a great number of Members. 
However, let me inform my colleagues that it is my intention to 
withdraw the amendment and to propose it on the authorization bill when 
it comes up later. I am confident that there will be general support 
for this issue when it is fully understood.
  As I have said previously, my first concern is with education. I am 
not going to speak at length, as I have to my colleagues in the past, 
about the serious problems this Nation faces with respect to its 
educational programs. I only point out that our deficiencies seriously 
threaten our economic capacity and our ability to have the best trained 
people engaged in the defense of this Nation. Instead, I would like to 
talk about the children of military personnel and about the history of 
what this Nation did to make sure the communities in which they reside 
and are educated are not punished by a loss of property tax revenue.
  Some 40 years ago or more, I believe back as far as 1949, impact aid 
was designed to assist local communities educate the children of our 
military personnel.
  Impact aid makes payments to local education agencies to make up for 
the shortfall of funds to the communities in which they reside. The 
purpose, therefore, was to help military kids. After the creation of 
the Department of Education, funding for impact aid was transferred to 
the Department. However, the payments still are made to the local 
educational agencies.
  So I believe the history is clear that these costs are incurred by 
Department of Defense personnel, and the fact that it is now funded out 
of the Department of Education does not change that. I believe upon 
further study of this issue my colleagues will agree with my conclusion 
that this is not a firewalls issue.
  The House has made roughly a 10-percent cut in impact aid. Those of 
us who represent not only military children but all of the children of 
this country are going to look at areas where we can, under the force 
of the budget, shift the funding responsibilities for those programs 
which rightfully belong in other departments. There is no question that 
history establishes the obligation for impact aid with the Department 
of Defense.
  At this particular time in our history, to quote a very fine 
editorial from David Broder, it is ``just plain dumb'' to be cutting 
educational funds, whether those funds are used for establishing the 
necessary standards to make sure we are competitive worldwide or 
whether they are used for the general education and the general health 
of the Nation. It is just plain dumb to be cutting our investments in 
human capital--which would otherwise increase our revenues and decrease 
our social costs--while attempting to eradicate the deficit.
  So, Mr. President, I would like to say that it is an obligation of 
the Department of Defense to take care of its own children. They do 
that now in the DOD schools. They send direct payments to the DOD 
schools. The DOD also sends direct payments to local educational 
agencies, but those funds are being cut back. They are not, however, 
cutting back the funding for DOD schools. 

[[Page S 12157]]

Hence, my goal is to ensure equal provisions for the education for the 
children of our military personnel. It is a perfectly legitimate issue 
to raise. Please note, though, that we are not discussing or 
considering other impact aid provisions which should rightfully be the 
responsibility of the Department of Education.
  Mr. President, I do not intend to speak much longer, but I want to 
reiterate that I do not believe this is a question of firewalls or 
anything else. This is a question of making sure that the Department of 
Defense lives up to its obligation, created in 1949, to pay for the 
cost and the impact of military children on local districts.
  I hope that we will consider this issue at the appropriate time and 
vote to ensure that DOD takes its money to help the children of its 
military personnel. That is my intent. At the appropriate time I will 
offer the amendment again.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Vermont raised 
a very complex and meaningful issue. It involves not only the subject 
he raised, but also involves the complexity of payment in lieu of taxes 
that are paid to communities because of nontaxable Federal property 
within their jurisdiction.
  It does seem to me that we have to particularly now as we enter into, 
I hope, a long peacetime era where there are going to be fewer of these 
installations and less impact, really, on schools, that we try to find 
a more fair way to deal with those situations where the children of 
military dependents do have an adverse impact on school districts. The 
impact aid concept was created for that purpose.
  Now, we actually have communities competing for these bases. It is 
difficult, on the one hand, to have people competing for bases, and 
then when they get them, for us to be in the position where the 
taxpayers should provide the assistance for programs such as impact 
aid.
  I think the Senator--my feeling is we should have really some 
dialogue between the committee on which he serves and the authorization 
committee, chaired by the Senator from South Carolina, and the Senator 
from Hawaii and myself, to see how we can find a way to transition this 
money to the Department of Defense.
  We do not want to get to the position where once it is not coming out 
of your budget, that your committee feels that you can raise this 
standard higher and higher because it is coming out of the Department 
of Defense funds. On the other hand, we do agree, when we are living 
under a cap, that the Defense impact should be met from Defense funds.
  I am prepared to make a commitment to the Senator that we will work 
with him and with the Armed Services Committee to try to fashion a 
program that will give us the advice of those who do have the oversight 
on education assistance from the Federal Government, while at the same 
time striking the proper balance between authorization and those of us 
who must find the money to pay the bill.
  I appreciate the willingness of the Senator to withdraw the amendment 
and congratulate him for bringing the issue forward, because it can be 
very meaningful to generations of children whose parents are serving in 
the armed services.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator for his remarks. I know we are both 
concerned about this issue and want to make sure that all the young 
people of this country, including the children of military personnel, 
receive the best education possible. And that can only be done if we 
all work together and share costs in an equitable fashion. I look 
forward to working with the Senator on this issue.
  As I said, I also intend to offer this amendment before the 
authorizing committee at the appropriate time to stimulate a similar 
discussion and perhaps pursue it further.
  Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 2393) was withdrawn.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. THURMOND. I want to commend the able Senator from Vermont for 
bringing up this question. In some cases school districts are put at a 
great disadvantage where they have large numbers of schoolchildren and 
do not get impact aid. I think it is a matter we have got to consider 
in some way, somewhere, by somebody. I want to commend the Senator for 
bringing this question forward and commend him for withdrawing it so it 
can receive careful consideration by all the people considered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator and yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 2394

 (Purpose: To strike out section 8083 relating to payment of invoices)

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, if it is appropriate at this time, I 
will send another amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2394.

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

       On page 81, strike out lines 21 through 23.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is in some ways a companion 
amendment to the one that I just offered a few minutes ago. The lines 
21 through 23 on page 81, which I am proposing to strike, read as 
follows:

       Section 8083. 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, to the uninitiated that seems like a very apple pie 
kind of a proposal. Who could argue with that? The problem with that 
proposal, Mr. President, is that it will cost the American taxpayers, 
in fiscal year 1996, $750 million to advance payment by 6 days from 
what has been the custom in government and in industry throughout the 
Western World. So, Mr. President, this is a concern.
  Let me go to the bottom line here. We are requiring the Department of 
Defense to spend an extra $750 million next year by paying its bills in 
24 days rather than in 30 days. We are saying by the language that I am 
trying to strike out of the bill here--if the language stays in there, 
we are saying that paying our bills 6 days earlier is a higher priority 
than providing funds for education, even funds for education of 
military personnel, such as the Senator from Vermont was talking about 
just a few minutes ago. We are saying that paying these bills a few 
days early is a higher priority than funding health care. We are saying 
that this is a better use of funds than anything else we have been able 
to come up with.
  Mr. President, the simple fact is, the provision in the bill that I 
am trying to strike out, it is not a serious provision to try to speed 
up payment of Government bills. If the Appropriations Committee wanted 
to speed up payment of Government bills by the Department of Defense 
and require the Department of Defense to pay its bills more quickly 
than any other agency of Government, then clearly what they would do is 
provide additional funds, additional staffing to our various 
contracting centers so they could gear up to do this.
  If this became law, this would put a significant burden on those 
contracting centers which no other agency of the Federal Government has 
to deal with and, in fact, which no private firm has to deal with. I do 
not believe there is a private firm in this country that has a policy 
of paying its bills in 24 days rather than 30 days.
  Let me explain to my colleagues what, with this requirement of paying 
bills within 24 days rather than 30 days, really is going on here.
  Earlier this year, much of the discussion about our defense spending 
was that the problem we had in our defense spending was inadequate 
funds for readiness. We had hearings in the Armed Services Committee, 
and we had speeches given saying that we had neglected readiness; the 
Clinton administration had neglected readiness. So the Budget Committee 
added both budget authority and outlays for the defense accounts, 
assuming that some of that 

[[Page S 12158]]

would go to operations and maintenance, which is what we use to fund 
our readiness accounts.
  Instead, all of the additional funds that we are adding to this bill, 
this $7 billion, in fact, and in the authorization bill, all goes to 
procurement and R&D instead of to readiness. So they have $1.238 
billion in outlays left over.
  These two provisions, the one that my previous amendment addressed 
and the one that this amendment is addressing, are provisions that are 
simply put in this bill to soak up those outlays and to preserve those 
until they get to conference, so that they can go to conference and 
have those available to be spent by the conferees on other activities.
  Obviously, they are not going to keep this provision in law. There is 
no intention to do so. I believe this is not good policy. It would be 
much better to strike these out and admit that the budget resolution 
made a mistake. If we are not going to put the money into readiness, as 
we originally thought we would at the time the budget resolution was 
written, if the problem now is weapons modernization, what we see 
reflected in the defense bill, the defense appropriations bill as well, 
then let us shift these outlays to the domestic subcommittees.
  We can use these funds in the Labor-HHS Subcommittee, we can use them 
in the VA-HUD Subcommittee, we can use them in the Interior 
Subcommittee, which we had a very difficult time with yesterday when we 
were considering it on the floor because of the drastic cuts which were 
required to be made in the accounts that are under the jurisdiction of 
those subcommittees.
  So, Mr. President, that is what is really going on here. There is no 
legitimate effort to try to speed up the payment of bills by the 
Department of Defense. What we are doing is we have some provisions in 
here--this one that I am trying to deal with in this amendment will 
cost the Department of Defense $750 million. So if it is dropped in 
conference, then there will be $750 million of outlays available for 
use somewhere else by the committee conferees.
  I think we are much better off, the American people are much better 
off, if we recognize we do not need these outlays, given our change in 
the situation as we see it. We do not need these outlays in the 
Department of Defense for these purposes and, accordingly, they should 
be spent elsewhere, or they should be applied to the deficit.
  There are a lot of people out there in the country who figure if you 
do not need to be spending that $750 million, you should not spend it. 
That is a hard thing for me to argue with, Mr. President. I do think 
the better part of valor would be for us to adopt this amendment and 
that way not have to explain to people in our home States why it was 
worth $750 million to them for the Department of Defense to pay its 
bills 6 days early.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I know others wish to debate the 
amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, again, it is a difference of agreement 
here, but this is money that is owed to private entities, individuals, 
by the Department of Defense. President Bush ordered that all such 
payments must be made within 23 days once they are declared to be due 
and payable. That was moved back to 30 days because of the need for 
outlays in a bill in 1994. It was not done by this committee; I think 
it was done by the authorization committee. Someone did it.
  The impact of it is that, to the contrary of what the Senator from 
Mexico says, the further they push out, the sooner the interest is due 
and payable. This is not a situation where this will save the 
Government any money by delaying them. To the contrary. It is a budget 
calculation that you save the money for a particular period, but it 
becomes due later and, as a matter of fact, it pyramids. So that in the 
next year, you owe more money and you have to have greater outlays 
available to make the payments.
  If the DOD pays valid invoices in a timely manner, it reduces the 
cost to the taxpayers and it is a simple thing. When you get a bill 
from a credit card--how many have credit cards? What does it say? Pay 
it in 30 days or you pay interest. Now, that is exactly what our law 
says: Pay it in 30 days or you pay interest. But beyond that, if you 
pay it sooner, you do not have to have the problem of carrying over, in 
some instances, into the next year. This amendment has the effect of 
$750 million, that if you take it out and put it back in the 30 days, 
it means theoretically you do not have to spend $750 million in fiscal 
year 1996. But guess what? You have to pay that same $750 million out 
in the next year and you have to have a greater amount of outlays 
allocated to you to accomplish that and pay other bills that are also 
due in 1997.
  We are moving back toward a concept of simply saying, ``The 
Department of Defense, pay your contractors within the 30-day period.'' 
As a matter of fact, we are calculating that they should pay them 
within 24 days, and if we do that, this provision will help small 
businesses, again, because they will be able to survive with the DOD as 
a customer since they know their bills will be paid promptly.
  If they are paid promptly, then they do not have to go down, again, 
and borrow money to carry over until the Defense Department pays their 
bills. When that happens, on the next bid, the small businessman or 
person has to increase the cost to the Government to pay for the cost 
of carrying their business because they were not paid on time. It is 
$150 million a day that theoretically you do not have to have outlays 
for, but guess what? It is not something that goes into a savings 
account, because it does have to be paid. We are saying pay these 
invoices on time, pay them in a timely manner, reduce the cost of doing 
business with the United States and you will get a better price as we 
go on, and that has been proven.
  I do hope the Senate will support us with the concept that is 
involved here. Again, I have to confess, and I congratulate the Senator 
from New Mexico on his work and his staff's work, we would not be able 
to do this if we did not end up with a year that we had outlays that 
cannot be used because we do not have the budget authority. But since 
we do that, if we move them now to 24 days, we do not have to do 
anything next year. There is no savings or loss by keeping that 
schedule. You have a savings or loss where you change it for the 
purpose of increasing the outlays or decreasing outlays. We have the 
outlays available to get this back on time.
  I say it is a good place to allocate those outlays. They are going to 
spend money by paying bills that are due promptly. That cannot hurt the 
economy.
  As a matter of fact, I was raised to pay them when they come in the 
door and not wait the 30 days. The assumption is they are going to wait 
at least 24 days before they make the payment on a bill that is 
presented for payment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me just respond very briefly. I am not arguing we 
should not pay our bills promptly. I pay my bills promptly. I am sure 
the Senator from Alaska pays his bills promptly. All of the commercial 
practice that I am aware of calls for people to pay their bills within 
30 days. That is the practice in the Department of Defense; that is the 
practice in the Department of Commerce; that is the practice in the 
Senate; that is the practice of VISA, Mastercard, and anyplace else you 
look. I think there is no problem with that. I am not trying to disturb 
that.
  All I am saying is that we can save $750 million in outlay for use 
somewhere else in the budget by not having this provision in here that 
artificially says let us speed up the payments in the Department of 
Defense. There is not a serious effort to speed up payments in the 
Department of Defense. If there was a serious effort, if it was really 
a priority for the Congress to get these bills paid in the Department 
of Defense in 24 days rather than 30, like everybody else in the 
Western World--and maybe the Eastern World, too--I would say put some 
money into these contracting centers; give them additional people. Let 
us tell them to get these things out the door. I have heard no 
complaints in my office about them not paying their bills on time. I am 
just saying, here is $750 million in outlays that can be better used 
somewhere 

[[Page S 12159]]

else in the Federal budget. We cannot get the smallest amounts of 
funding added to for these activities.
  The Senator from Vermont was here talking about the importance of 
education. I have heard so many speeches about the importance of 
education. You ask your colleagues to support adding $20 million to 
education and you would think you asked for Fort Knox. Here we have 
$750 million of budget authority--$750 million that is in this bill 
simply to speed up the payment of our bills out of the Department of 
Defense. It is not a priority, Mr. President. It is something we ought 
to strike out of here. I hope my colleagues will support the efforts to 
do so.
  As I understand it from the earlier statements of the Senator from 
Alaska, he intends to move to table this amendment. We will have 2 
minutes of debate on each side prior to the final vote, is that 
correct?
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I must oppose this amendment. Much has 
been said, but there are two items. One, it is the policy of this 
Nation--and we have an act that says we shall promptly pay our debts; 
that is the law of the land and the policy of the land, to make prompt 
payments.
  Second, among the many reasons we used to justify this change was a 
very simple one. We have gone through a very painful period in the 
history of our Defense Department, a period of BRAC. As a result, many 
fine companies, many manufacturing plants have had to close their doors 
or to send yellow slips to their employees. And we felt that by 
speeding up the payment process, we would save them money and provide 
them the resources to recoup.
  Mr. President, it is true that when we went from 30 days to 24 days, 
we knew it would cost the Government about $700 million. We could have 
amended the Prompt Payment Act and gone from 30 to 36 days, and we 
would have saved--if that is the argument--$750 million. But we felt 
that the time had come that with this pain that we are inflicting upon 
the people of the United States, we should do whatever we can to 
provide some relief. Keep in mind that for each large procurement--take 
the B-2--it is not the big companies that are involved; there are 200 
small subcontractors. They are the ones who want prompt payment; they 
are the ones who will suffer, and they are the ones who send out the 
pink slips.
  So, Mr. President, I must oppose this amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, some of the centers have a policy to pay 
in 10 days. But the overall rate is somewhere around 29, 30 days. We 
are moving it back because of the reasons stated by the Senator from 
Hawaii. For 2 years, by the way, a study showed that they actually paid 
in an average of 23 days. It was faster than we are requiring now, but 
it was slipped because of the pressure of trying to obtain outlays.
  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have a period of 2 
minutes for Senator Bingaman to explain his position, and 2 minutes on 
our side to explain the opposition to Senator Bingaman's amendment.
  I make a motion to table his amendment based upon that unanimous-
consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Did the Senator from Alaska ask for 2 minutes 
and 1 minute?
  Mr. STEVENS. No, 2 minutes on each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Does the Senator move to table the Bingaman amendment?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  I now ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from North 
Carolina wishes to comment. And the Senator from Arkansas is here to 
offer another amendment. When he finishes his amendment, we will try to 
have a vote on all five of the amendments that will be available for us 
to vote on at that time. I have not been able to determine from the 
Senator from Arkansas how long he will take. We will do that soon and 
announce to the Senate when we expect to vote on the five amendments 
that will be stacked.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have been in three successive meetings 
all afternoon long, each dealing with a different aspect of foreign 
policy. I have lost track of what is going on the floor. Am I to 
understand that you have four amendments in line now? I make that 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five amendments have been set aside for votes.
  Mr. HELMS. Is the amendment of the distinguished Senator from 
Colorado [Mr. Brown] one of the five?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
  Mr. STEVENS. It is one of those set aside but not set for a vote as 
yet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No time has been set for any vote, but the 
Brown amendment, as I understand, has been called up and set aside.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will try to clarify the situation as I 
understand it. We have the Dorgan amendment, three Bingaman amendments, 
and the Bumpers amendment to come.
  Mr. INOUYE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished majority 
leader, Mr. Dole, Senators Lieberman, and McCain, and myself, I shall 
momentarily send a bill to the desk to be read for the first time and 
appropriately referred.
  I will pause here just a moment, Mr. President, to ask a 
parliamentary inquiry. Inasmuch as what I am to discuss--and Senator 
Dole will be here momentarily to make his comments. We are introducing 
a bill to be properly referred. Is it necessary that we ask unanimous 
consent to lay aside any amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The introduction of a bill is in order only 
during morning business, so the Senator should request unanimous 
consent to proceed as in morning business.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader and 
myself, I ask unanimous consent in that regard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I will defer to the majority leader because 
he has another appointment that he needs to make.
  Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, 
will the Senator allow me to make a unanimous-consent request on what 
will happen after?
  Mr. HELMS. Certainly.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent, on an amendment offered by 
Senator Bumpers, there be a 1-hour time limit, 45 minutes for the 
Senator from Arkansas, and 15 minutes for the opponents.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. That will follow the introduction of the bill by the 
distinguished leader, and the Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dole and Mr. Helms pertaining to the introduction 
of S. 1157 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the 
Bumpers amendment I be able to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  
[[Page S 12160]]



                           Amendment No. 2395

  (Purpose: To reduce the amount of total contingent liability of the 
           United States for defense export loan guarantees)

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

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2395.

  Mr. BUMPERS. 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 69, strike line 3 and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following: ``section may not exceed $5,000,000: Provided 
     further, That the exposure fees charged and collected by the 
     Secretary for each guarantee, shall be paid by the country 
     involved and shall not be financed as part of the loan 
     guaranteed by the United States,''.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I do not know what the people were 
thinking last fall when they swept the Democrats out of Congress and 
turned it over to the Republicans. But I can tell you one thing that I 
do not think they were thinking. I do not think they intended for us to 
design yet one more way to sell arms in the international market. We 
have four methods on the books right now; four--count them. We have 
four ways that the arms merchants of this country can finance arms 
sales to other nations. You would think that would be enough. Obviously 
it is not. We have a fifth one in this bill.
  No. 1, most people do not know it but the President can guarantee any 
loan from any company to any country. That is a powerful thing for the 
President. He does not often exercise the power. But he has it. Then 
every year when we pass our foreign operations bill--the bill that the 
ordinary man on the street in this country thinks is going right down a 
rat hole--a good big portion of that is for weapons, $1.5 billion for 
Egypt, $1.5 billion for Israel. If anybody wants some weapons, stand in 
line. We will give them to you. If you cannot afford them, we will 
finance them for you. That is called the Foreign Military Financing 
Program; No. 2.
  No. 3, securities assistance: The Securities Assistance Program I 
think is also in the foreign operations program. I am not sure. But 
that is where we finance a country-to-country sale. I assume we take 
weapons out of our stock, out of our inventory, to sell to somebody 
else, and we finance it; No. 3.
  No. 4, 3 years ago I fought like a saber-toothed tiger to keep the 
Eximbank out of the arms financing business, and succeeded marginally. 
We kept the Export-Import Bank from selling tanks, howitzers, 
airplanes, and lethal weapons. But they now are permitted to finance 
nonlethal military equipment. I guess that means tents and blankets and 
anything that will not explode.
  Now here is the fifth one in the DOD authorization bill.
  I get too loud when I am on the floor of the Senate. But I feel so 
strongly about these things I guess it is irresistable to express my 
contempt for the United States to be the leading arms merchant of the 
world, and now we are setting up yet another program to make it easier 
for countries to buy all the weapons they want. Do you know who most of 
these countries are? They are people that are starving their own people 
to buy weapons. That is the moral dimension to arms sales.
  But here is the financial dimension. This bill that we have before us 
right now provides for 15 billion dollars' worth of credits to sell 
arms to foreign countries. I am going to tell you this is a real enigma 
to me. I do not understand it nor has anybody been able to explain it 
to me. They say it will work just like the Export-Import Bank works. 
You pay a fee. You bear in mind that this is not set up yet. The 
authorization bill directs the Department of Defense to set this 
program up and to guarantee loans from arms manufacturers in this 
country to about 37 different nations. Turkey, for example, who cannot 
afford a turkey sandwich will be eligible. I do not mean to demean 
Turkey. They have been a reliable ally of ours. But they are a poor 
nation. They cannot afford it. But here is $15 billion in this bill.
  Just so you will know. I did not drag that figure out of thin air. On 
page 68 of the bill, section 8067, ``To the extent authorized in law, 
the Secretary of Defense shall issue loan guarantees in support of U.S. 
defense exports not otherwise provided for, provided, that the total 
contingent liability of the United States for guarantees issued under 
the authority of this section may not exceed $15 billion.''
  My colleagues, all you tight-fisted budget balancers who ran last 
year and promised the American people how you were going to balance the 
budget, go home and tell them that there is $15 billion in this bill 
that is not even scored, and does not count for anything.
  When I sit down I want the managers of this bill to tell us how we 
can assume $15 billion in contingent liabilities and it not cost us one 
penny. In my 21 years in the Senate I have never heard--my staff tells 
me there are a couple of examples like that--but I have never 
personally heard of us assuming a $15 billion liability and it does not 
cost us anything. It sounds like the good old days of the S&L's in the 
late 1980's to me.
  So how does this work? An arms manufacturer comes to the Defense 
Department and says, ``We have country A and they want to buy 500 
million dollars' worth of weapons from us, and we sure would like to 
sell them because we have 3,000 people working in plants that will 
produce this 500 million dollars' worth of weapons.''
  The DOD which wants to set this program up will say, ``Well, you have 
to pay a fee.''
  ``How much?''
  ``One percent.'' What is 1 percent of $500 million? The authorization 
bill says this will be paid either by the country that is buying the 
weapons or by the company that is selling them.
  I strike company in my amendment. Do you know why? Everybody here 
knows that a company will say, ``Look. This is really $500 million.'' 
But you do not have $5 million to pay the fee. ``We will pay it for 
you.'' And the sale price will be $505 million. So instead of charging 
them $500 million, they charge $505 million. And they get their $505 
million, and they turn around and put $5 million of it in the DOD 
treasury as the guarantee.
  I say if we are going to do it--you all know we debated this the 
other night. I tried to strike this in the authorization bill. I think 
I got 40 votes, and when you have 100 Senators and you only get 40 
votes, you lose. I lost.
  But I am saying that if you are going to go forward with this 
program, which I deplore, at least make the purchasing country put up 
the fee. If they do not have enough to pay a 1- or 2-percent fee, 
whatever it happens to be, they certainly have no business obligating 
themselves for such massive amounts--98 percent and 99 percent--more 
than they can come up with even for the guarantee.
  Mr. President, right after Desert Storm we had a field day. In 1993, 
1994, and 1995, we sold 54.5 billion dollars' worth of weapons. 
Incidentally, some of these countries we sell these weapons to American 
men often get the opportunity to face those weapons because those 
weapons last longer than our friendships. I was in Iran in 1976 when 
the Shah was trying to buy every single weapon we would sell him.
  I went to an airport in Tehran. It was loaded with F-16's. And he 
could hardly wait for us to produce the F-18. He wanted that one, too. 
And the Shah wanted weapons and a strong military not because of an 
exterior threat but because that was the way he solidified his power. 
Now, unhappily, he was replaced with a government that was just as bad, 
but all these dictators want weapons to make sure nobody challenges 
their authority. And he was no exception.
  So now one of the people we classify as one of the most likely 
adversaries of the United States is Iran. Iran has a big arsenal of 
weapons that we sold them, and they are considered one of the four most 
likely adversaries we will ever have to face.
  Vietnam, what an arsenal we left when we left there. The Vietnamese 
were rich with American weapons, and they sold them to the contras. 
They sold them to Cuba. I never liked the idea of selling the Afghans 
Stinger missiles. One Stinger missile can hold any international 
airport in the world hostage. A terrorist can simply say: We 

[[Page S 12161]]
have a Stinger missile. Any airliner coming into this country and into 
this airport is going to get it at some point. The whole city and the 
whole country is terrified as a result.
  I am not sure how many Stingers we sold to Afghanistan. I voted no, 
no, no, and yes. It came up constantly because we felt the Afghans 
could make the Soviets losses so great they would pull out. And let us 
face it; it pretty much worked. But there is a problem. We do not know 
what happened to all the Stingers. Iran --I mention Iran again--got 35 
of them, so I am told.
  So Iran, which is considered a terrorist nation, is in a position to 
hold 35 international airports hostage thanks to Uncle Sugar.
  That is all just a way of coming back from whence I started. This 
program has not even been set up. My amendment says it is not likely to 
be set up and very many sales made before we argue these points again 
next year. My amendment says, therefore, let us cut this $15 billion 
authority to $5 billion. We are only planning on selling 10 billion 
dollars' worth of weapons in foreign sales this year which, 
incidentally, will probably be about 52 percent of all arms sales in 
the world except France made a couple of big airplane deals so they 
have quite a few weapons to sell this year. They will be a player. But 
today we sell 52 to 53 percent of all the weapons sold in international 
commerce, and by the turn of the century we will be up to 59 percent.
  Let me ask my colleagues, for a brand new program, never been tried, 
we do not know how it is going to work, do you think it makes more 
sense to start with a $5 billion authority or a $15 billion authority 
when we are only likely to sell a total of $10 billion from all sources 
in the coming year? And that will include foreign military, the foreign 
military sales program that is in the foreign aid bill, the securities 
assistance programs, the Export-Import Bank program, any arms weapons 
that the President guarantees the price of. Do you not think $5 billion 
is going to be enough?
  But here is the real clinker in this whole thing. How do we guarantee 
$5 billion or $15 billion with no liability? As I say, that beats the 
S&L crisis. We are going to take a fee from these people to sell 
weapons and if they default, as Egypt did in 1990 to the tune of $7.1 
billion, DOD has to pay it. Where do they get it? Congress gives it to 
them. Where does Congress get it? Right out of the pocket of the old 
taxpayer.
  I have been through this defense bill for 20 years. This is one of 
the most bizarre things I have ever seen. They put $15 billion in there 
as though it is chump change and say sell 15 billion dollars' worth of 
weapons and, Congress, do not worry; do not score it; it does not count 
on the deficit. If all these people default, you have to cough up $15 
billion, but we will worry about that later.
  It is the height of irresponsibility to pass something like this. But 
I have already tried to kill the program without success. So now I am 
saying for God sakes, do not put $15 billion in a brand new program 
that nobody has a clue as to how it is going to work. I feel like the 
most magnanimous person in the world by saying $5 billion is enough.
  When the managers of this bill take issue with this amendment, I do 
not want them to overlook telling my colleagues in the Senate how you 
put $15 billion in authority here to finance 50 billion dollars' worth 
of weapons, a good portion of which we will wind up paying for because 
these countries will default on. Only the least creditworthy countries 
are going to opt for this. I want you to tell my colleagues where the 
money is coming from.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I send a modification of my amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       On page 69, strike line 3 and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following: ``section may not exceed $5,000,000,000: Provided 
     further, That the exposure fees charged and collected by the 
     Secretary for each guarantee, shall be paid by the country or 
     company involved and shall not be financed as part of the 
     loan guaranteed by the United States;''.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, if the Senator from Hawaii will yield, 
just for edification we inadvertently put in $5 million instead $5 
billion.
  Mr. INOUYE. I have been advised the Senator from Connecticut wished 
to be recognized to speak against the amendment.
  Does the Senator from Connecticut wish to be recognized?
  Mr. President, may I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes are yielded to the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment offered 
by my friend and colleague from Arkansas.
  Mr. President, there is a sense of deja vu about this because we did, 
as the Senator from Arkansas has indicated, argue this out in an 
amendment he submitted to the Department of Defense authorization bill 
on the subject, which was an attempt to actually do away with the 
program entirely. Here in this amendment he aims to diminish the 
guarantee authority from $15 billion down to $5 billion.
  I was pleased to initiate this proposal with my colleague from 
Connecticut, Senator Dodd, and with my colleague from Idaho, Senator 
Kempthorne. I believe Senator Kempthorne is on his way to the floor to 
speak against the amendment that has been offered.
  There is a basic point here to which I do want to go back, which is 
that we are talking here about a way to make sure that the American 
defense industry can compete on a level playing field with the defense 
industries of other countries that are competing in the area of arms 
sales around the world.
  Mr. President, part of why we feel this is necessary and why it is a 
decent investment--in fact, a cost-free investment--is because all the 
fees are paid by those who are beneficiaries of the program. We 
obviously are in a time where the resources we are devoting to defense 
are shrinking. There have been some arguments here about whether we are 
spending too much in the defense authorization bill or in the 
appropriations bill for defense purposes before us now as others have 
said before me. We are spending for defense at a percentage of GDP that 
is historically low. And the world, with the cold war over, remains a 
troubled world.
  But let us leave that macroeconomic data aside. The fact is that each 
of us knows--and I can speak to this with painful intimacy coming from 
the State of Connecticut--our defense industries are cutting back. 
Thousands of people are being laid off who had good jobs and are having 
trouble providing for their families. That, of course, is just the 
worst experience for them.
  But what is at risk is the capacity of our country to maintain an 
industrial base for defense purposes so that we are capable of at least 
turning out a reasonable, if not minimum, number of weapons systems and 
equipment that we can use to defend our national security, but also to 
preserve these defense factories, to keep them alive, even if at a 
drastically reduced level, so that in case of some future conflict or 
crisis we will have the ability to surge, to build more; we will not 
have to recreate these industries.
  One way to do it, frankly, is for American defense companies to be 
involved in arms sales throughout the world. This is not a case of 
America sort of pushing arms on people who do not want them. This is a 
case of a demand for arms that will be satisfied either by American 
companies making weapons, made by American workers, or that demand for 
arms will be satisfied by foreign defense companies employing foreign 
defense workers. And what our companies find increasingly is that they 
are losing contracts to other defense companies from other countries 
because their governments have defense loan guarantee systems.
  This is the basic principle of the Eximbank which has been so 
important to American exporters generally, which, generally speaking, 
the American defense industry is prohibited from employing that we are 
now attempting, through the creation of this program, to extend in a 
limited way 

[[Page S 12162]]
without risk here, limiting the number of countries that can be 
supplied with weapons. And when we went through this before, my friend 
from Arkansas cited many countries. But let us be very clear about it. 
The only countries that can participate are NATO allies, our major non-
NATO allies, or qualified Central European and APEC non-Communist 
countries in Asia. That is a total of 37 countries. The program 
mechanics that are set up are structured so that defaults are highly 
unlikely and a country that has any record of risk will have to pay 
very high administrative fees.
  Mr. President, this is a 2-year program. Reports are required on the 
cost, benefits and recommendation for modification. The $15 billion 
limit which is in the defense appropriations bill that is before us now 
perhaps will not be reached, although the truth is that in this area $1 
billion is a sale number that recurs over and over again. So we have to 
see what develops.
  The authorizing language in the Department of Defense bill requires 
that a fee be paid incrementally in proportion to the amount of the 
guarantee issued. And I think that is in its way a response to the 
second part of the amendment offered for my friend from Arkansas.
  I saw an article in the paper the other day. I say, finally, Mr. 
President, unfortunately I did not cut it out, and I do not have it 
with me. But it said in one category, in a large category of arms 
sales, that last year the French actually replaced the United States in 
sales. French sales doubled. American sales were cut in half. And that 
is a significant development which has implications for the jobs of 
thousands of workers here in our country and in defense plants and has 
implications, as I indicated, for our industrial base.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and look forward to returning as the 
debate continues.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment as they did defeat a 
similar amendment on the DOD authorization bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Senator Bumpers' amendment will limit the 
ability of the Government to guarantee loans for defense exports to $5 
billion.
  Now, that seems reasonable at first blush. But this is the situation. 
I am told that we are in a period of reduced spending for domestic 
requirements for defense systems and defense equipment. At this time 
defense exports make a significant contribution not only to the 
preservation of U.S. jobs and industrial base, but to the extent they 
are successful, actually lower the unit cost of the defense production 
that we must acquire if there is a wider market throughout the world 
for the produce that comes out of our major defense industries.
  Now, we have found that in the international defense export market, 
it is a very competitive market and one that is very difficult for a 
U.S. defense company to deal with, unless it can offer the same kind of 
proposal that its competitors can offer.
  Particularly this is so because the market financing is one of the 
main factors, a decisive factor, in what is the cost of the loans. 
These guarantees give our U.S. industrial base the opportunity to be on 
a level playing field with industries from governments that do not just 
guarantee loans, they actually loan their industry money.
  Now, the Department of Defense has indicated to me that it strongly 
supports this program because it gives the U.S. industrial base the 
opportunity to compete in the world market and will reduce the cost of 
our acquisition of systems in the future.
  This amendment was proposed to the Senate Armed Services Committee 
last week. That was defeated by a substantial amount. I do believe that 
the Senate should be reminded we voted against this amendment just last 
week by a vote of 41 to 58. Now, it is our intention to oppose the 
amendment and to make a motion to table when all time has expired.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes 7 seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. I see the Senator----
  How much time? Five minutes?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Five minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the Senator 5 minutes.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Thank you. And I want to thank the floor manager.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from 
Arkansas. The Bumpers amendment proposes to limit the amount available 
for the self-financing--I stress the self-financing--export loan 
guarantee program at the Department of Defense.
  As the Senator from Alaska pointed out, last week we dealt with this 
very issue. The amendment was defeated 41-58. The program provides 
financing for defense sales to a very selected list of countries that 
meet all the existing export controls and nonproliferation policies of 
this administration. It grants the administration the authority, but it 
is not a requirement that they must utilize this program.
  It is also important to note that the authority is not limited 
strictly to arms. In many cases American companies lose bids to 
maintain or upgrade previously sold military equipment because they 
cannot offer financing.
  The program in the defense authorization bill will allow U.S. 
companies and American workers to compete on a level playing field with 
our international competitors. Today almost every major arms exporter 
provides financing to support the export of their domestic products and 
services.
  Indeed, some purchasers now make financing a requirement before a 
company can bid on a proposed purchase.
  The program is financed by fees paid by the buyer or the seller. 
Based upon the exposure fees charged by the Export-Import Bank, the fee 
is determined by the creditworthiness of the buyer. Therefore, a high-
risk buyer is excluded by the high-exposure fee which makes the loan 
too expensive for them to even enter into.
  The list of eligible countries is limited to our NATO allies, 
nonmajor allies, Central European countries moving toward democracy, 
and selected members of the Asian Pacific economic cooperation group.
  Of the 185 members of the United Nations, only 37 countries would be 
eligible for this program.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of those 37 
countries be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                     The List of Eligible Countries

       1. Albania.
       2. Australia.
       3. Belgium.
       4. Brunei.
       5. Bulgaria.
       6. Canada.
       7. Czech.
       8. Denmark.
       9. Egypt.
       10. France.
       11. Germany.
       12. Greece.
       13. Hong Kong.
       14. Hungary.
       15. Iceland.
       16. Indonesia.
       17. Israel.
       18. Italy.
       19. Japan.
       20. Luxembourg.
       21. Malaysia.
       22. Netherlands.
       23. New Zealand.
       24. Norway.
       25. Philippines.
       26. Poland.
       27. Portugal.
       28. Romania.
       29. Singapore.
       30. Slovakia.
       31. Slovenia.
       32. South Korea.
       33. Spain.
       34. Taiwan.
       35. Thailand.
       36. Turkey.
       37. U.K.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, as a result of our defense downsizing, 
American companies continue to lay off thousands of U.S. defense 
workers every month. This program will help us avoid paying 
unemployment for the defense workers of America and help us preserve 
the United States defense industrial base.
  It makes sense to sell U.S. defense systems and services to our 
friends and our allies, assuming those countries 

[[Page S 12163]]
qualify for the equipment under our existing export controls.
  The House-passed defense authorization bill includes similar 
language, and in a strong bipartisan vote, the House voted 276 to 152 
to keep this language in the bill.
  Mr. President, in conclusion, I stress again this certainly is far 
more advantageous than us paying unemployment benefits to American 
workers who are unemployed. It allows us to keep our defense base in 
production. It allows us to have capacity, should we need it, to again 
provide for the needs for this country. This program goes through the 
existing safeguards that are in place for nonproliferation, and it is 
an authority. It is not requiring the administration to do so. It is a 
tool that can help our allies, that can help our friends, but it also 
is significantly going to help the American worker.
  With that, I yield my time back to the floor manager and yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-seven minutes and eighteen seconds.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I yield such time as the Senator from Illinois may 
require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arkansas, and I 
thank him for this amendment.
  There is only one flaw with this amendment, and that is it still has 
$5 billion in it. It should not have anything.
  Do you know what the total amount owed by all countries through the 
years, the accumulated amount right now is? The total amount owed by 
other countries right now is $16 billion. This will, for all practical 
purposes, double.
  We do from time to time forgive loans to other countries, and I have 
voted for them. I am not critical of this. But when we make these loans 
for weapons--Egypt, for example, we forgave $7 billion. I voted for it. 
Poland, I forget what the amount was we forgave. That did not happen to 
have any weapons in it. Jordan we forgave.
  I note the presence on the floor of Senator Lieberman from 
Connecticut who was mentioned, that this came as a suggestion from 
Senator Lieberman and Senator Dodd. They are two of the finest Members 
of this body. But even a fine Member can be wrong, and the State of 
Connecticut which has a lot of defense industry happens to have the 
highest per capita income of any State in the Nation. We should not 
shed too many tears for people in Connecticut, and certainly should not 
burden the taxpayers of the United States of America with $15 billion 
worth of debt.
  We are already far in excess of where we ought to be in this defense 
appropriation. We are spending more than the next eight countries 
combined. If you look back to 1973, I say to my colleague from 
Arkansas, put the inflation factor on and we are spending more today 
than we were in 1973 on defense. Then we were in Vietnam, we had twice 
as many troops in Europe, we had a cold war, we had a totally different 
situation. And here, through the back door--and that is really what is 
going to happen--through the back door, the Defense Department and the 
U.S. taxpayers are going to guarantee $15 billion worth of weapons to 
any country that defaults. Guess who automatically, not through a vote 
here--at least in the case of Egypt, the case of Poland, the case of 
Jordan, we had to have a vote on the floor of the United States Senate. 
Now it will just be automatic for any country that defaults.
  I think it is not sound policy. We talk about deficits, and we let 
something like this get out and we will pick up a huge, huge burden.
  Let me ask my colleague from Arkansas a question. If Ford wants to 
sell some Fords to some other country, do the U.S. taxpayers guarantee 
those sales?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the answer to that is ``yes,'' under 
certain conditions, the Export-Import Bank would finance it.
  Mr. SIMON. The Export-Import Bank would finance it only to the extent 
that there may be a risk to that government.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Absolutely.
  Mr. SIMON. It is not this kind of a guarantee.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I might also say that is not a 100-percent guarantee 
either.
  Mr. SIMON. Right. In fact, we will say to the defense industry, ``You 
are going to get preferential treatment over Ford, Chrysler, and 
General Motors. You are going to get preferential treatment over 
farmers who want to sell grain.'' Any nonmilitary exporter, you are in 
the second tier. The preferential treatment goes to the defense 
industry. That does not make sense.
  As I said in my opening remarks, there is only one thing wrong with 
this amendment. He leaves $5 billion in there. I wish we did not have 
the $5 billion in, but I know the Senator from Arkansas is trying to be 
practical.
  What we are doing, if we approve this--there is no question for those 
who say this will be great for the defense industry, they are right. 
This will not be great for the taxpayers of America. I commend my 
colleague from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I thank my very distinguished colleague 
and good friend from Illinois for his comments. When he leaves the 
Senate, there is going to be a great big void. He has been the 
conscience of this place on so many occasions.
  I cannot say that particularly about myself, but I do not know who 
has fought many more laudable but losing causes than I have, unless it 
is the Senator from Illinois.
  I say to my colleague, it is tough to shape this place up, is it not?
  Let me just close with a few remarks. First of all, my good friend 
from Alaska, the chairman of the committee, said the administration 
supported this. Here is what, 10 days ago, the White House said in its 
Statement of Administration Policy:

       The bill would require the Secretary of Defense to 
     establish a program to issue loan guarantees ensuring against 
     losses arising from the financing of Defense exports to 
     certain countries. The administration opposes this program 
     because the administration has not found it necessary given 
     the availability of existing authority for transactions of 
     this type and the substantial American presence in 
     international markets for military equipment.

  So we are not alone. The administration also opposes this.
  No. 2, let me just remind my colleagues--because our memories grow 
dim around here in about 2 days--George Santayana said, ``Those who do 
not understand history are doomed to repeat it.'' Voltaire, a long time 
before that, said, ``History does not repeat itself; men do.''
  We never seem to learn around here. We just keep making the same 
mistakes and paying heavy prices. But I agree with Bill Perry: We do 
not need this program. Let me ask you this. Who here wants the United 
States to guarantee arms loans to Albania? Who here wants to guarantee 
arms sales to Bulgaria? Who here wants to guarantee loans to the 
Philippines? Then there are Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania. 
They are fine countries. But are they good credit risks? How many of 
you want to stand up and say, I think this is a jim-dandy idea to 
finance weapons to those countries? People are staring in the streets 
in some of them. It is almost obscene to encourage them to buy weapons.
  Do you remember the big agricultural loan program to Iraq? We really 
did not want Iraq or Iran, either one, to win the war, and it looked 
for a time as though Iran might have a little of the upper hand, so we 
started financing agricultural sales to Iraq. It went the same way as 
when our weapons are turned against us. Look where Iraq is now--a 
mortal enemy, and we are paying off $2 billion in agricultural loans 
that we guaranteed to Iraq. But that has been 10 years ago, and the 
Senate just cannot remember that far back.
  The Senator from Illinois, a moment ago, said that we are spending 
more money than our eight most likely adversaries. I hesitate to 
correct my good friend, but the truth is that we spend twice as much as 
our eight most likely adversaries, including Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, 
North Korea, the whole schmear--twice as much as all of them combined.
  What has been the record on the four programs we have in existence 
right now in arms sales? I am not absolutely sure of this, but I think 
Norway and Israel are the only two nations that have been totally 
reliable in paying their 

[[Page S 12164]]
debts to us. Already this year, we have forgiven Jordan $300 million 
they owe us for arms, and I was for it because they have been 
instrumental in the Middle Eastern peace process. But $300 million 
where I come from ``ain't bean bag.'' I also voted to forgive Egypt the 
$7.1 billion in 1990, because they are an important ally. But you are 
going to be voting for a lot more of those if you pass this thing.
  The worst argument I know of for arms exports is jobs. Let me say to 
the Senator from Connecticut right now, you vote against this program 
and I will vote for whatever you want up to a billion dollars to 
attract industry to Connecticut.
  Did you see where Virginia just got a new deal for a chip 
manufacturing company? It did cost Virginia some money, $165 million. 
But compared to financing $500 million worth of weapons and 
guaranteeing them to a poor country that can't afford them, that is the 
best deal Virginia will ever pull off, and it is the best deal for the 
United States Government.
  So, when it comes to jobs, I promise you, with what we are going to 
wind up paying out of this program, we could create three times as many 
jobs as the arms industry is going to get out of this program.
  Another argument is: ``If we do not do it, somebody else will.'' The 
one thing my father told me when I was a kid is, ``I do not want you to 
be like others. I do not want you to do things just because everybody 
else is doing it.'' I suspect I am not the only Member of the Senate 
whose parents ever admonished him on that point. He expected more of 
me. But, above all, he wanted me to think for myself and do what I 
thought was right, not just because somebody else was doing it. And we 
are going to sell these weapons because if we do not, somebody else 
will. Let them. Why should we be immoral just because somebody else is 
immoral?
  Finally, Mr. President, I know, after my 21 years in the Senate, what 
this is; this is a foot in the door. You get this program firmly in 
place, and next year it will not be 37 countries eligible, it will be 
50. And the year after that, it will be 60. I have never, in 21 years, 
seen that prediction fail. It is the nose under the tent.
  So, Mr. President, I have done my best to talk sense on this issue--I 
am sure to no avail. The Senator from Alaska will move to table. Some 
Members will walk in that door not having a clue as to what was said in 
this debate, and they will vote however he tells them to vote. Serious 
indictment, but true. And they will go home to the Chamber of Commerce, 
and if there is an industry in that town that has an overseas sale, 
they will take credit for it. And if the taxpayers wind up having to 
pay that loan off, you will never hear that mentioned in the same 
Chamber of Commerce banquet.
  Let me tell you a little anecdote that has nothing to do with this 
debate. But I have chided the Senator from Idaho about the amendment he 
offered the other night on the hard rock mine law reform that said 
mining companies will be required to pay the fair-market value for the 
land. I squealed like a pig under a gate, and you could have heard me 
in Charleston, AR, about what a sham that was. The truth of the matter 
is that the land has no value; $10 per acre will cover most of it. It 
was the billions of dollars worth of gold under that ground I was 
talking about.
  Anybody that voted for that, who does not come from a mining State, 
can go home, and if somebody asks him a question in a town-hall 
meeting, ``How come you voted to give away $15.5 billion worth of gold 
the other night to the richest mining companies in America,'' he can 
say, ``I also voted to make them pay fair-market value.'' They will not 
tell you it was just for the surface and not the minerals. Who in that 
room is going to know the difference?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I point out to my good friend from 
Arkansas that section 8067 says, ``To the extent authorized in law, the 
Secretary of Defense shall issue loan guarantees in support of U.S. 
defense exports not otherwise provided for.''
  We go on to say that total contingent liable, ``the total guarantees 
under this authority may not exceed $15 billion.'' We are putting a 
limitation on existing law. The law, by the way, is contained in the 
authorization bill that has not passed yet. We are really putting in 
this section a limitation on a law that may be enacted in September.
  It is a total outstanding guarantee and cannot exceed $15 billion. In 
view of the amount that we do, in fact, procure ourselves, that is 
really not an extensive amount in the worldwide scene to try to make 
sure that our allies and those who are aligned with the United States 
are able to provide the defense that we rely upon them to provide.
  Does the Senator from Connecticut desire to speak?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask for the Senator to yield the remaining time.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Two points. The Senator from Alaska made the point, I 
think convincingly, about why the $15 billion was chosen.
  Second, the Senator from Arkansas keeps talking about leading some 
programs to conclude that we are granting money, these billions of 
dollars to foreign nations.
  These are loan guarantees. Every other loan guarantee program, and 
the fees, are paid by those who use the program, and they have default 
rates that are extremely low. The State of California has operated a 
program like this for 10 years. The default rate is just under 1 
percent.
  Finally, to my friend from Illinois, it is true we have the highest 
average income in Connecticut, but believe me, it is not based on those 
who work in the defense industry. They are losing their jobs. This bill 
will save thousands of those jobs and keep those workers and their 
families at a decent level.
  A final example, in the State of Connecticut the Norden defense 
industry operation was forced to move some of its production to Canada 
in order to qualify for the Canadian export defense loan guarantee 
program to allow Norden, a Connecticut company, to sell to a foreign 
buyer. Mr. President, 72 jobs leave Connecticut.
  This bill will turn that around.
  Mr. BUMPERS. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven minutes are remaining.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I will take just a minute, Mr. President, to remind my 
colleagues of one thing: The bill allows the company selling the 
weapons to pay the guarantee fee.
  Think about that. They can either add it to the price of weapons and 
then finance the entire thing, thereby financing effectively the fee 
that they have paid, or they can have such a cushy profit in whatever 
they are selling they will say we will sell them for $16 million apiece 
and we will pay the fee. If the fee is 1 percent and their cost is $12 
million for that product, they still have a bonanza.
  I want Members to think about this: Here is a loan program that is 
going to make every other program pale because the company--if you do 
not vote for this amendment--the company can pay the fee and finance it 
as part of the loan that is guaranteed by the taxpayers.
  So everybody that wants weapons and do not have the money to pay for 
the weapons, and do not even have the money to pay a fee of 1 percent 
or 2 percent, the company will pay it. And Uncle Sugar is going to be 
held for the principle of the loan.
  I still do not understand how we can obligate ourselves for $15 
billion in this bill and not have a dime scored against the deficit or 
against this bill. It is in the bill--$15 billion. The Senator from 
Alaska says we have not authorized that yet; that is only because we 
have not passed the Defense Authorization Bill yet. Passing that is as 
certain as the Sun coming up in the morning.
  I am not even trying to kill the program. I have tried that already 
and got 41 votes. I am trying to reduce our liability from $15 billion 
to $5 billion just for 1 year. They do not need $15 billion. They have 
not even got the program in place yet.
  Colleagues, for God's sake, do your duty. I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that we proceed with the amendments 
that have been set aside, calling up first the Dorgan amendment for 
final consideration, with time for an explanation.
  This amendment would cut national defense spending by $300 million. 
The arguments have taken place. The spending here in this bill is 
consistent with the levels in the Senate Armed Services authorization 
bill. 

[[Page S 12165]]

  The same amendment was defeated by a vote of 51 to 48 last week.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendments will 
be considered in the order they were offered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield for just a second? 
I failed to yield back the balance of my time and I am prepared to do 
that.


                           Amendment No. 2377

  Mr. STEVENS. I yield 3 minutes on the Dorgan amendment to the Senator 
from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Alaska for yielding this time.
  At the risk of sounding redundant, I do not feel badly about that 
because the Senator from North Dakota has been redundant in his 
discussion of this effort to take the money out of our national defense 
system.
  I think what we need to do is be sure we understand that we have 
voted on this amendment before. This amendment has failed before. This 
is the same amendment. It is not changed at all. It is taking $300 
million out of what we feel is necessary to put ourselves in a position 
to have a national missile defense system of some sort by the time the 
threat is here by the year 2000.
  The assumption from the Senator from North Dakota is that there is no 
threat out there, that the cold war is over and the threat is no longer 
there. Yet at the same time, the former security adviser to the 
President of the United States, Jim Woolsey, has said we know between 
20 and 25 countries that have developed or are developing weapons of 
mass destruction either nuclear or chemical or biological, and they are 
developing the missile means of delivering those weapons. Five of those 
countries are North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Syria.
  We learned in the Persian Gulf war that the technology of the short-
range missiles is there. It is a reality. It works. The Scud missiles 
were aimed at Israel and Saudi Arabia and our United States troops. In 
fact, 28 of our troops, the largest single casualty in one incident, 
was the result of a Scud attack.
  The CIA has now said the Taepo-Dong I intercontinental missile should 
be ready by the year 2000, and it is ironic that the two managers this 
afternoon are from Hawaii and Alaska. The Taepo-Dong I intercontinental 
missile would have the capability of reaching both of those States by 
the year 2000.
  It is something that is here. It is upon us now. Even though the CIA 
came out and said a long-range missile is not likely, not likely by the 
year 2005, not likely is not enough security for me to ignore the fact 
that we have a $38 billion investment in a system that could be ready 
for deployment in the year 2000.
  We have talked about this before, but the threat is very real. The 
intelligence community agrees that the threat is real.
  As I asked the Senator from North Dakota when we debated this 
earlier, what if you are wrong? What if it is the year 2000 instead of 
the year 2005? We have an opportunity right now. This is not Star Wars. 
This is not a fantasy. This is a technology that is here today, with a 
combination of land-based missiles, Aegis missiles, the 22 ships we 
have that are ready for the upgrades.
  This is a system that can be improved upon now. We can come up with 
at least a modest method of defending ourselves by the year 2000.
  For those who may have seen on television from my home State of 
Oklahoma the devastation that took place with the Murrah Federal 
Building, standing outside as I was, on April 19, 20, and 21, not 
knowing how many people were alive and dead in that building, and you 
multiply that disaster by 1,000, that is what we are potentially faced 
with.
  All we are trying to do is keep the $671 million to keep the 
development going so we can be ready by the year 2000 in the event the 
threat is there at that time. It is very reasonable.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against it as they did before on the 
Dorgan amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of time on our side 
on the Dorgan amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dorgan, I yield the 
remainder of his time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the Dorgan 
amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, may I make a statement before we start? 
It is our intention, following this amendment, to have a dialog 
concerning further amendments after this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent the votes to follow this amendment, there are 
four others that will come immediately thereafter, will be limited to 
10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object, I understood from the 
Senator from Alaska there would be a 4-minute hiatus between each vote 
to be equally divided between the proponents and opponents of each 
amendment, 2 minutes each.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. That may be extended in some 
instances. But the request I have just made limits the time within 
which to take the rollcall. It limits the time of the rollcall, not the 
time preceding the rollcall. I renew my request.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator consider making that a part of the 
request, for 4 minutes in between each vote?
  Mr. STEVENS. I say to the Senator from Arkansas, there are at least 2 
minutes on each side before each vote. I have been informed there may 
be a request for additional time before one or two of the votes, and we 
are prepared to yield that if it is necessary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 2377

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the 
Dorgan amendment No. 2377.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 384 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--54

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bradley
       
  So the amendment (No. 2377) was rejected.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I call attention to the fact that this next vote will be 
a 10-minute vote, and under the agreement we will have now a series of 
votes. Just before the votes we have 2 minutes on each side to explain 
the amendment.
  Senator Bingaman has 2 minutes.
  It can be yielded back.


                           Amendment No. 2390

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair. 

[[Page S 12166]]

  Mr. President, this amendment is sponsored by myself, Senator 
Lautenberg, Senator Exon, and Senator Kerrey from Nebraska.
  The purpose of this amendment is to provide in this bill funds for 
the highest priority that the Secretary of Defense has identified if we 
are in a position to provide any additional funds in this defense bill.
  As everybody here knows, the administration asked for a certain level 
of funding, and this body is adding $7 billion to that pursuant to the 
budget resolution. The Secretary told us in the Armed Services 
Committee that if we had any additional money--not if we had $7 
billion, but if we had anything extra--we should fund what he 
considered ongoing operations. Those are the two operations going on in 
Iraq--one in northern Iraq and one in southern Iraq--we should fund the 
refugee support at Guantanamo, which is ongoing, and we should fund the 
humanitarian support and the deny-flight activities in Bosnia. He said 
at a very minimum next year he is going to have to spend a total of 
$1.188 billion on those activities.
  We did not in this bill fund that, and what I am proposing in this 
amendment is that we go ahead and fund that as he requested. In 
addition, we reduce the outlays in the total bill by $111 million.
  Now, the offset is to cancel, at least for this year, or put off, I 
should say, the funding of an amphibious assault ship, the LHD-7. This 
is a ship which the Department of Defense said they would like to come 
to Congress and request funds for 6 years from now, in the year 2001--
not 1996, the year 2001.
  The appropriators have taken the request for the 6th year and moved 
it forward into this next year. We do not need this ship next year. 
This would be the 12th LHD amphibious assault ship that we are buying. 
There are two under construction now. We just christened one in 
February of this year.
  Mr. President, it is not a priority for the Pentagon. It was not 
requested by the Pentagon in this year's budget, and it was added by 
the appropriators. We should delete the funding for that and spend it 
on the top priority of the Department of Defense. That is what the 
amendment does. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this does subtract $1.3 billion for the 
LHD-7. It is the top priority for the Marine Corps and the Navy. The 
Secretary of Navy has reaffirmed support of the LHD-7. It is authorized 
in the authorization bill.
  I have moved to table. I yield back the remainder of my time. I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a suffered second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the 
Bingaman amendment No. 2390. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. This is a 10-minute rollcall.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair reminds the Senate this is a 10-
minute rollcall.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 385 Leg.]

                                YEAS--73

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--26

     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Graham
     Harkin
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bradley
       
  The motion to table the amendment (No. 2390) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________