[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 136 (Tuesday, September 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12550-S12556]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                           Amendment No. 2157

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment 
offered this morning by the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend for a moment, 
technically the Senator will have to have someone yield him time at 
this point.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator may 
need.
  Mr. GLENN. I am opposing the amendment. I guess I am ranking on the 
bill, so I will yield myself time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, to reduce by 
$100 million the $1.2 billion cap on the costs of renovating the 
Pentagon.
  Mr. President, I do not plan to seek a rollcall vote on the 
amendment, but I do ask that when the vote on this amendment occurs, I 
be recorded as being opposed to this amendment.
  My principal objection to the amendment is its timing.
  Mr. President, I support every attempt to make prudent cuts to the 
cost of this enormous 15-year renovation project, but I believe that 
lowering the 

[[Page S 12551]]
cap right now is premature. I do not believe it is the intent of the 
Senator from New Mexico to put in question the need for renovation of 
the Pentagon. As anyone who has visited the Pentagon recently can 
attest, the building is in desperate need of renovation.
  The Pentagon is over 50 years old. It was built in 1943, and 
fundamental structural work is necessary. In fact, that portion of the 
Pentagon closest to the Potomac River has sunk close to 11 inches 
because the original pilings on which it was constructed were 
inadequate.
  In addition to being old, the Pentagon has received minimal 
maintenance over the years and its heating, ventilation, electrical, 
and plumbing systems are breaking down. I am told that the Pentagon 
averages 30 power outages a day due to the poor condition of the 
electrical systems.
  Moreover, the Pentagon simply was not constructed with the kind of 
electrical system needed to accommodate the sophisticated electronic 
and communication systems required today.
  Rather, when the Pentagon was built in 1943, at a cost of $83 
million, the Pentagon's office of automation systems today consisted of 
plain old manual typewriters and telephones. Today, however, the 
Pentagon relies on 11 major computer centers that form the network of 
communications, command centers, and administrative support systems on 
which the Pentagon must rely for day-to-day operations.
  As I have indicated, I do not believe there is much doubt that we 
need to renovate the Pentagon. The question at hand turns on just how 
much the renovation will cost and what is the best approach to keep 
those costs down.
  We are in the 5th year of renovation. Secretary Perry certified to 
the Defense Appropriations Committee last year that the remaining 10 
years of renovation will not exceed a congressionally imposed cap of 
$1.2 billion. That is the effective cap right now.
  Moreover, the senior leadership at the Pentagon recognizes that this 
huge and complex 15-year project needs to be examined to validate the 
basic requirements of a post-cold-war Pentagon which now houses a much 
smaller work force.
  Secretary Perry established a Pentagon renovation steering committee 
in March of this year to do exactly that. The steering committee is 
chaired by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology. Its other members include the comptroller, the Assistant 
Secretaries of Defense for Force Management Policy, Economic Security, 
and C ``cubed'' I, the Under Secretaries of the military services and 
representatives from the Joint Staff. An essential part of the steering 
committee's charter is to consider cost reduction options for the 
renovation project.
  Let there be no mistake about it. I support every effort to keep the 
costs of Pentagon renovation as low as possible. I understand that the 
amendment of the Senator from New Mexico is designed in part to force a 
serious and thorough examination of the costs involved in renovation.
  I simply disagree with the approach and believe it is premature to 
impose what is, with all due respect, an arbitrary cut of $100 million 
before we have the benefit of the steering committee's recommendations. 
I discussed this issue with the Deputy Secretary of Defense this 
morning. He indicated that DOD is opposed to the Bingaman amendment 
because the steering committee's work is still underway and there is no 
basis to support a $100 million cut at this time.
  So to the extent that the steering committee's recommendations do not 
result in at least $100 million in savings, the effect of the amendment 
of my colleague will be that necessary renovations will go uncompleted.
  Without sounding melodramatic, it is important to remember that the 
Pentagon is not your average office building. It is our central 
military command center. Forcing an arbitrary cut of close to 10 
percent of current cost estimates could have an unintended disruptive 
impact on the Pentagon's ability to carry out critical military 
functions.
  We need to ask ourselves some questions: Was the original estimate 
wrong? We do not know that it was. Was the original cap of $1.2 billion 
too high? No, we do not know that it was too high. If so, in what areas 
was it too high? What programs were overfunded? How much should be cut 
out? These are things the steering committee should determine. In other 
words, if this amendment is adopted, what is proposed to be cut in 
order to achieve $100 million savings? We have no basis right now on 
which to say that the $100 million savings is excess. In fact, I doubt 
whether this whole project can be completed for the remaining amount 
that the Secretary of Defense has pledged he will adhere to.
  So, Mr. President, I will not seek a rollcall vote on this amendment, 
but I do wish to be recorded in opposition to the amendment for the 
reasons I have just outlined.
  Mr. President, in December 1994, the Secretary certified to the 
Defense Appropriations Committee that the 10-year renovation will not 
exceed $1.218 billion. I know of no reason now to cut the $100 million 
to comply with that requirement of law if this amendment is passed. 
Therefore, I wish to be recorded in opposition to the Bingaman 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as I understand, the Senator does not 
want a vote?
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, what I said was I do not require a rollcall 
vote. If there is a voice vote on this, I wish to be recorded against 
the amendment.
  Mr. THURMOND. The Senator just wants to be recorded.
  Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? Is 
all time yielded back?
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we will yield back our time. I 
understand the other side is willing to yield back its time.
  Mr. LEVIN. We yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Ohio 
wished to be recorded on the amendment, and I believe the Senator from 
Ohio is not in favor of the amendment, if the Chair will put that 
question again.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Chair put the question 
again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. Without objection, the Chair will put the question again.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  So the amendment (No. 2157) was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                   national defense features program

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I rise to describe for my colleagues an 
important element of the bill that will help preserve our shipbuilding 
sector and the jobs of skilled mariners. At my urging, the committee 
authorized $50 million for the national defense features [NDF] program. 
I am gratified to report that the Appropriations Committee has since 
agreed to appropriate $50 million to jump-start this worthy program. 
Given its importance to our national security, I thought it would be 
helpful to expand on the committee's report.
  At my urging, the Secretary of Defense earlier this year provided to 
Congress a study of the costs and benefits of an active Ready Reserve 
Force [RRF] program employing privately owned commercial ships equipped 
with national defense features as an alternative to government-owned 
strategic sealift. Although submitted 14 months late, the report was 
welcomed by the committee because it confirmed that the program offered 
important benefits to the Nation. 

[[Page S 12552]]

  Unfortunately, the Pentagon's fiscal year 1996 budget request 
contained $70 million to purchase existing, foreign-built RO/RO ships 
for the RRF, but nothing to fund the NDF program. The committee 
believed the $70 million requested to purchase these foreign-built and 
-owned RO/RO ships is not in the national security interest, is not 
cost-effective, and would weaken our national defense shipbuilding 
industrial base. Accordingly, the Committee recommended authorizing $50 
million to procure and install national defense features on vessels 
built in, and documented under the laws of, the United States. This 
program will provide substantially superior ships, help preserve 
rapidly dwindling seafaring manpower and skills, save or create a 
significant number of jobs in the shipbuilding and supplier industrial 
base, and assist U.S. shipyards in reentering the commercial 
shipbuilding market.
  The DOD report demonstrates that an active RRF program, comprised of 
newly U.S.-built commercial vehicle carriers equipped with national 
defense features, would have important benefits. The report finds 
that procuring these vessels would be a cost-effective means of 
recapitalizing the aging, lower readiness RRF fleet at the end of the 
decade. The DOD report noted, however, that securing entry into the 
commercial market will be a critical element for the success of the 
program.

  As my colleagues may know, the principal car carrying trade is with 
Japan. Remarkably, only 3 of the 50 vessels operating in it today fly 
the American flag. In my view, the entry of new U.S.-built commercial 
car carriers equipped with national defense features in this trade 
would be in the national interest. Under one proposal now on the 
drawing board, for example, a fleet of ten refrigerated car carriers 
would be constructed in the United States to carry vehicles from Japan 
to the United States and produce and other refrigerated products to 
Japan at commercially competitive rates. Equipped with hoistable 
strengthened decks, these vessels would be well-adapted for carrying 
both heavy equipment and ammunition. Designed to move at speeds and 
with loading and unloading capabilities that far exceed those of used, 
foreign-built vessels, a fleet of this size would appear to be large 
enough to ensure vessels would be available for loading at designated 
ports of embarkation within the time demands contemplated in an 
emergency.
  I am particularly interested in this type of proposal because it 
would lead to the construction of new ships in U.S. shipyards. As my 
colleagues no doubt appreciate, we must do something to help our 
shipyards supplement their military work with commercial orders. the 
President of the American Shipbuilding Association, for example, 
recently pointed out in a letter to members of Congress that 
``[c]onstruction of military sealift ships is critical to the Nation's 
defense, to sustaining the Navy's shipbuilding base, and to our 
industry's efforts to supplement declining orders with commercial 
work.'' By encouraging the entry of new U.S.-built vessels equipped 
with national defense features in this trade, Congress and the 
Administration can advance the national interest.
  I, therefore, would again urge the Department of Defense and our 
trade negotiators to emphasize to the Government of Japan the 
importance of augmenting American participation in this trade as a 
means of advancing the mutual defense and security interests of our two 
nations. And I would urge my colleagues not only to support this 
provision of the bill, but also to support the provision of the fiscal 
year 1996 appropriations measure that would allocate $50 million to get 
this program underway.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is S. 1026, the pending 
bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is it open to amendment at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can call up an amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 2451

 (Purpose: To encourage swift ratification of the START II Treaty and 
                      Chemical Weapons Convention)

  Mr. LEVIN. I now send to the desk an amendment which is listed and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2451.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION 
                   AND START II TREATY RATIFICATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Proliferation of chemical or nuclear weapons materials 
     poses a danger to United States national security, and the 
     threat or use of such materials by terrorists would directly 
     threaten U.S. citizens at home and abroad.
       (2) The Chemical Weapons Convention negotiated and signed 
     by President Bush would make it more difficult for would-be 
     proliferators, including terrorists, to acquire or use 
     chemical weapons.
       (3) The START II Treaty negotiated and signed by President 
     Bush would help reduce the danger of potential proliferators, 
     including terrorists, acquiring nuclear warheads and 
     materials, and would contribute to U.S.-Russian bilateral 
     efforts to secure and dismantle nuclear warheads.
       (4) It is in the national security interest of the United 
     States to take effective steps to make it harder for 
     proliferators or would-be terrorists to obtain chemical or 
     nuclear materials for use in weapons.
       (5) The President has urged prompt Senate action on, and 
     advice and consent to ratification of, the START II Treaty 
     and the Chemical Weapons Convention.
       (6) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has testified 
     to Congress that ratification of both treaties is in the U.S. 
     national interest, and has strongly urged prompt Senate 
     advice and consent to their ratification.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Senate should promptly consider giving its advice 
     and consent to ratification of the START II Treaty and the 
     Chemical Weapons Convention.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator has 15 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair, and I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. President, the amendment is a simple and straightforward sense-
of-the-Senate amendment. The operative language in the sense of the 
Senate is that it should promptly consider giving its advice and 
consent to the ratification of the START II treaty and the Chemical 
Weapons Convention.
  Now, these treaties have been before us for some time. There have 
been lengthy hearings on these treaties, and it is important that they 
come to the Senate for our consideration.
  These treaties are, just very simply, in our national security 
interest. It will make Americans safer and the world a less dangerous 
place. They are going to help reduce the threat, not just of attack 
from another country on the United States and our citizens, but of 
terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction.
  First, the START II treaty, the second strategic arms reduction 
treaty known as START II, was signed by President Bush and Russian 
President Yeltsin in January 1993. This treaty is a follow on to the 
START I agreement, which has already been ratified and is being 
implemented. The START I agreement has led to significant reductions in 
the number of nuclear warheads that Russia has deployed, warheads that 
were targeted on the United States but which are now moving to storage 
and dismantlement as the START I agreement forces retirement of the 
delivery systems that they were on.
  By ratifying START II, we would continue that process and achieve 
further reductions in the thousands of remaining Russian nuclear 
warheads. We would further reduce the threat of nuclear war and advance 
the nonproliferation interest of the United States. By ratifying START 
II promptly, we could help encourage the Russian federation to also 
complete ratification.
  If START II is ratified, it can be fully implemented, as originally 
scheduled, by the year 2003, after which the United States will still 
maintain a robust deterrent of about 3,500 nuclear warheads and the 
Russians will have about 3,000 nuclear warheads.
  START II builds on the progress of START I by restructuring nuclear 
arsenals away from instability. START II eliminates all land-based 
missiles with MIRV's, multiple independently targeted reentry vehicles, 
as well as the last of the land-based heavy ICBM's, the Russian SS-18. 

[[Page S 12553]]

  As General Shalikashvili testified for the Joint Chiefs of Staff--and 
here I am quoting the Chairman:

       Eliminating these systems makes both of our nuclear forces 
     more stable deterrents . . . . This, beyond even the 
     considerable reductions to our nuclear forces, is the 
     beneficial hallmark of this treaty--a security gain that is 
     as positive for the Russians as it is for the Americans. The 
     other members of the joint chiefs of staff and I have no 
     reservations towards this treaty, about the strategic force 
     reductions it entails, or about our ability to properly 
     verify that the Russians are complying with its provisions. I 
     thus encourage you [General Shalikashvili said] to promptly 
     give your advice and consent to the ratification of the START 
     II Treaty.

  Now, that is the advice of our highest military adviser. Promptly 
ratify the START II Treaty. Mr. President, because START II will get 
more Russian warheads off of missiles and off of submarines and move 
them into secure storage and eventual dismantlement, it will greatly 
consolidate, control and improve the security of those warheads and 
reduce opportunities for unauthorized access or theft. That is clearly 
in the national security interest of the United States to have 
thousands more Russian missiles and warheads retired and dismantled.
  Getting that significant reduction in the nuclear forces of both 
countries will also produce real cost savings for our military over 
time. The military's enthusiastic support for the START II treaty in 
testimony before the Congress was underscored by Secretary of Defense 
Perry, who noted that:

       . . . it's very important to lock in the gains that have 
     been made since the ending of the Cold War with formal 
     arrangements, of which START II is a primary example.

  Now, relative to chemical weapons, Mr. President, the convention on 
the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of 
chemical weapons and on their destruction known as the Chemical Weapons 
Convention, or the CWC, was signed in January 1993 by President Bush 
and President Yeltsin after years of negotiations. And there is also 
strong bipartisan congressional support for this agreement as well.
  The Chemical Weapons Convention would establish a comprehensive ban 
on chemical weapons, prohibiting their development, production, 
possession, acquisition, retention, and transfer. It would require 
participating states to destroy their chemical arsenals and production 
facilities under international supervision, an important step toward 
actual disarmament of chemical weapons stockpiles in those states which 
possess them. States that refuse to join the convention will be 
automatically penalized, prohibited from gaining access to dual-use 
chemicals.
  The CWC will make it possible to monitor illegal diversions of 
materials used to make chemical weapons.
  While 159 countries have signed the CWC, 65 must ratify the agreement 
for it to enter into force, but only 27 have done so. Most countries 
are waiting to see what the United States is going to do. Russia has 
signed the convention but has not yet ratified it, and there have been 
some reports of continued Russian testing and production of chemical 
weapons, which is permitted until it is ratified.
  If the CWC were in place, it would impose a legally binding 
obligation on Russia, and other nations that possess chemical weapons, 
to seize offensive chemical weapons activities and to destroy their 
chemical weapons stockpiles and production facilities.
  Over a year ago, in August 1994, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, 
General Shalikashvili, testified as follows:

       From a military perspective, the chemical weapons 
     convention is clearly in our national interest. The 
     nonproliferation aspects of the convention will retard the 
     spread of chemical weapons and, in so doing, reduce the 
     probability that U.S. forces may encounter chemical weapons 
     in a regional conflict. Finally--

  General Shalikashvili said:

     while forgoing the ability to retaliate in kind, the U.S. 
     military retains the wherewithal to deter and defend against 
     a chemical weapons attack.

  And he concluded:

       I strongly support this convention and respectfully request 
     your consent to ratification.

  That is our top-level military official over a year ago urging us to 
consent to the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
  The U.S. intelligence agencies have testified that the Chemical 
Weapons Convention will provide new and important sources of 
information to assess the status of chemical weapons stockpiles and 
production in countries of concern through regular data exchanges in 
both routine and challenged inspections. The CWC requires declaration 
by a state of existing chemical weapons, production facilities, 
development laboratories, test sites and other related facilities, as 
well as declaration of transfers of chemical weapons and production 
equipment to others. The CWC is going to improve the ability of the 
United States to know the nature of the chemical weapons threat so that 
we can defend against it.
  The CWC has a historic verification protocol, and it was, in fact, 
crafted with the direct help of the chemical industry of the United 
States, which views the protocol as effective and which testified in 
support of the convention's ratification.
  Mr. President, the Foreign Relations and the Armed Services 
Committees have both done thorough work on these two treaties since 
they were submitted a couple of years ago for ratification. Between the 
committees, there have been no fewer than 18 hearings over the past 2 
years, with officials of the State Department, Defense Department, 
Joint Chiefs, CIA, and other intelligence agencies, Arms Control and 
Disarmament Agency, chemical manufacturers and outside experts. So the 
issues----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Michigan 
his 10 minutes have expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair and yield myself 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. The issues, Mr. President, have been fully explored by our 
committees, and it is time now for the full Senate to consider these 
treaties and to debate a resolution of ratification. We should not be 
seen as being the ones to drag our feet, especially if we want Russia 
and other nations to ratify and begin implementing these important 
security measures.
  We talked a great deal about the threats of proliferation and 
terrorism which are growing as the cold war thaws and we build a 
productive, cooperative relationship with our former superpower 
adversary. But now we have an opportunity through these two treaties to 
do something to stem proliferation of nuclear and chemical materials, 
not just to talk about it but to do something to make it harder for 
terrorists to get their hands on these weapons of mass destruction or 
the means of their production. And that is why in May of this year 
General Shalikashvili said that START II would contribute to our 
counterterrorism efforts and that the chemicals convention would make 
it more difficult for nonsignatories or terrorists to obtain or create 
chemical weapons.
  I hope that this sense-of-the-Senate resolution will be adopted by 
voice vote, or otherwise. It simply urges as a sense of the Senate 
prompt consideration by the Senate of these two agreements.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2451, As Modified

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is 
so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2451), as modified, is as follows:

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

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION 
                   AND START II TREATY RATIFICATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Proliferation of chemical nuclear weapons materials 
     poses a danger to United 

[[Page S 12554]]
     States national security, and the threat or use of such materials by 
     terrorists would directly threaten U.S. citizens at home and 
     abroad.
       (2) The Chemical Weapons Convention negotiated and signed 
     by President Bush would make it more difficult for would-be 
     proliferators, including terrorists, to acquire or use 
     chemical weapons, if ratified and fully implemented as 
     signed, by all signatories.
       (3) The START II Treaty negotiated and signed by President 
     Bush would help reduce the danger of potential proliferators, 
     including terrorists, acquiring nuclear warheads and 
     materials, and would contribute to U.S.-Russian bilateral 
     efforts to secure and dismantle nuclear warheads, if ratified 
     and fully implemented as signed by both parties.
       (4) It is in the national security interest of the United 
     States to take effective steps to make it harder for 
     proliferators or would-be terrorists to obtain chemical or 
     nuclear materials for use in weapons.
       (5) The President has urged prompt Senate action on, and 
     advice and consent to ratification of, the STATE II Treaty 
     and the Chemical Weapons Convention.
       (6) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has testified 
     to Congress that ratification and full implementation of both 
     treaties by all parties is in the U.S. national interest, and 
     has strongly urged prompt Senate advice and consent to their 
     ratification.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the United States and all other parties to the START II 
     and Chemical Weapons Convention should promptly ratify and 
     fully implement, as negotiated, both treaties.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we accept the amendment as modified, and 
urge the Senate to adopt this amendment.
  I state for the Record that this amendment offered by the Senator 
from Michigan has been modified, and in accepting the amendment as 
modified, it is not the intention of the committee to predetermine the 
outcome of the Senate debate that will take place on advice and consent 
to ratification of these two treaties. The committee is merely stating 
that overall, if the treaties were to be ratified by all parties and 
fully implemented by all parties, it would be in the national security 
interests of all the signatories.
  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has not yet reported either 
the START II nor the Chemical Weapons Convention to the Senate. As a 
result, a full debate and examination of the treaties on the floor has 
not taken place. A number of concerns need to be fully aired with 
regard to ratification and implementation of these treaties when the 
Senate determines that it is time to provide its advice and consent to 
ratification.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his support of 
this amendment. It is important that the Senate promptly take up these 
treaties. The world is waiting for us to act, and that is the thrust of 
this amendment. I am glad it has been accepted by the majority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  Mr. LEVIN. Yes, we yield our time.
  Mr. THURMOND. Yes, we also yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2451), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2440

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I have submitted an amendment No. 2440 to 
the DOD authorization bill which has been accepted as part of the 
managers' package. I want to thank the managers, and in particular, my 
distinguished senior colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, for his 
effort in clearing that on his side of the aisle.
  I will take just a moment, if I may, during the time that no other 
amendments are pending or about to be offered, to describe the 
amendment.
  I believe that this amendment can play an important role in reshaping 
and improving the efficiency of our military infrastructure.
  We all agree that Congress must continue to maintain the highest 
degree of military readiness in order to fulfill the constitutional 
direction to provide for our national security.
  But, Mr. President, we need to be much smarter in the way in which we 
fund the establishment that supports our national defense.
  This year's Defense authorization process has shown us, once again, 
that the forces and weapons we require are rapidly becoming 
unaffordable.
  We have to seek new and innovative ways to conduct our defense 
business.
  We must give visionary and far-reaching tools to the military and 
civilian leaders in DOD to let them continue to transform and remake a 
military for the next century.
  The recently completed BRAC Commission, the White Commission and 
numerous GAO and other studies have consistently shown that our 
military infrastructure is simply too large.
  We have completed three exhausting BRAC rounds and have accomplished 
much--but our work is not yet complete.
  Both the 1995 BRAC Report to the President and the recently completed 
White Commission on Roles and Missions in the Military concluded that 
further efforts in privatization can achieve significant savings and 
should be aggressively pursued.
  Mr. President, I strongly agree with these conclusions and am firmly 
convinced that a key element in reshaping our military establishment 
must be the active exploration of further privatization opportunities 
for appropriate defense functions.
  In the near future, I intend to introduce legislation which will 
provide the Department of Defense with the tools it will require to 
implement the proposals made by the White Commission.
  In the meantime, my amendment will give us an opportunity to move 
forward in exploring privatization opportunities now.
  Mr. President, it seems to me that a detailed examination of the 
operation of our various, non-combat military air fleets offers the 
quickest and most efficient way to begin the exploration of using 
private sources to reduce unnecessary infrastructure and associated 
costs.
  We maintain a variety of military aircraft for diverse functions, 
including: VIP airlift, transport, logistics, aerial refueling, target 
services, and scientific research.
  Several recent studies have reported that, in many cases, these air 
capabilities exist well above and beyond that required to meet 
realistic ``wartime needs.''
  In the gulf war, for example, the existing size of the operational 
support aircraft fleet was 10 times the amount actually used.
  My amendment directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 
comprehensive and detailed study to examine ``privatizing options'' 
with respect to the specialized, non-combat military air fleets.
  I want the DOD to focus on the feasibility of using private sources 
to replace many of the administrative or support functions now being 
performed, mostly within the continental United States, by military 
versions of commercial aircraft models.
  The distinguished Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, has 
highlighted the tremendous potential for the foolish and unnecessary 
use of OSA aircraft for purposes which could and should have been 
accomplished, at a much lower cost, using commercial means.
  I support his efforts to reduce unneeded capability in this area of 
military aircraft.
  Mr. President, the OSA fleet represents only part of the many 
functions now being performed by ``military'' aircraft.
  I believe many of these functions can be done cheaper, through 
private means, while at the same time increasing overall military 
efficiency.
  Paying for air services on a ``per flight hour'' basis (only when 
requirements exist that cannot be met by commercial airlines) gives us 
an opportunity to capture tremendous savings by cutting the personnel, 
maintenance, and infrastructure required to support these specialized 
fleets.
  Additionally, I believe that the privatization of these functions, 
(especially with respect to VIP aircraft) will dramatically reduce 
instances of abuse of the system.
  Naturally, we must ensure that we do not inadvertently cut a 
capability which could adversely affect our ability to conduct wartime 
or other emergent operations.
  We must also maintain the ability to retain training opportunities 
for the 

[[Page S 12555]]
aircrews who will be required to provide support in ``combat 
operations.''
  On the other hand, we will never know exactly how much we can cut 
until we conduct an in-depth study of the ``non combat air operations'' 
presently conducted by the military.
  My amendment will require examination of the realistic wartime 
requirements economic assumptions in conducting a cost benefit 
analysis, and the impact on force structure and personnel which 
``privatization'' would produce.
  Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, I intend to introduce 
legislation which would form a Privatization and Cross-Servicing 
Commission which will look at options for using private sources in 
several areas of existing military operations.
  This legislation will also examine improving efficiencies by 
combining like functions within the individual services.
  By aggressively pursuing the recommendations made in recent studies, 
we can save billions in defense dollars without the massive 
unemployment that creates economic hardship for loyal Federal employees 
and service personnel.
  My amendment can give us many of the answers we in Congress need to 
craft the tools to further improve efficiency in the military services.
  Mr. President, I again thank the managers of this particular bill for 
accepting this amendment on both sides. I look forward to working with 
them on this and other amendments as we continue to try to provide ways 
to meet our defense needs and defense obligations in ways that respect 
the limited resources of the taxpayers.
  With that, Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, prior to the recess I agreed with the 
distinguished chairman of the committee on an amendment relative to 
residual value. This is not listed in the unanimous consent because it 
was an amendment that was cleared on both sides. I will send the 
amendment to the desk in a moment.
  This requires that the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, submit to the 
congressional defense committees status reports on the results of 
residual value negotiations between the United States and Germany.
  This is a very important issue. It is an important issue for our 
budget because we are turning over to Germany properties that have 
great value. There are values that are attributed to these properties 
on our books. We should get at least that value when we turn over 
properties that we have approved to Germany.
  What this amendment provides is that the reports that it refers to 
will include the following information:

       (1) The estimated residual value of U.S. capital value and 
     improvements to facilities in Germany that the U.S. has 
     turned over to Germany;
       (2) The actual value obtained by the U.S. for each facility 
     or installation turned over to the government of Germany;
       (3) The reason(s) for any difference between the estimated 
     and actual value obtained.

  A number of us on the committee on both sides of the aisle have been 
very actively engaged in the residual value issue because of the amount 
of money that has been invested in these properties in Germany, and 
this amendment will help us track very carefully what we are agreeing 
to when we turn over those properties to the Government of Germany.


                           Amendment No. 2216

     (Purpose: To require the Defense Department to report to the 
congressional defense committees on residual value negotiations between 
                     the United States and Germany)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared 
on the other side and I therefore call up amendment No. 2216.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2216.

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

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

     SEC.   . RESIDUAL VALUE REPORT.

       The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director 
     of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), shall submit to 
     the Congressional defense committees status reports on the 
     results of residual value negotiations between the United 
     States and Germany, within 30 days of the receipt of such 
     reports to the OMB.
       The reports shall include the following information:
       (1) The estimated residual value of U.S. capital value and 
     improvements to facilities in Germany that the U.S. has 
     turned over to Germany.
       (2) The actual value obtained by the U.S. for each facility 
     or installation turned over to the government of Germany.
       (3) The reason(s) for any difference between the estimated 
     and actual value obtained.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Congress in recent years has attempted to 
exercise responsible oversight over negotiations between the U.S. 
military and foreign governments, primarily Germany, on how much 
compensation our government will receive for the residual value of 
improvements we made to military bases we are closing and returning to 
those governments. In some cases, there are very valuable facilities we 
built on those bases, paid for by U.S. taxpayers, that still have some 
reuse value to the governments to which they are being returned.
  For each facility, the Defense Department has determined the 
remaining value of those improvements, and negotiations ensue with the 
host government over how much compensation we will actually receive. 
The vast majority of these facilities are in Germany, which was the 
front line of efforts to deter Soviet expansion during the cold war.
  To show the Germans that we were serious about being fairly 
compensated for the improvements we made at military facilities on 
their soil, and to give our own negotiators maximum leverage, Congress 
has passed a series of measures over the last few years. One of these 
was section 1432 of Public Law 103-160, which prevented the United 
States from spending funds to move our embassy from Bonn to Berlin, a 
high priority for the German Government, until we had recovered at 
least 50 percent of the remaining residual value from these 
negotiations. According to State and Defense Department officials, that 
provision has helped to provide some leverage for our negotiators, 
although talks have not yet been completed on most of the facilities.
  But now that the United States has negotiated a favorable land deal 
for an embassy in Berlin, the administration argues that section 1432 
presents a potential liability that would delay construction of that 
new embassy and force us to incur costs from that delay. So the 
administration has requested repeal of section 1432 and the committee 
has concurred with the repeal provision in this bill.
  Mr. President, we need to keep the pressure on the governments we are 
negotiating with, especially Germany, and also on our own negotiators 
to recover as much value as possible. Congress needs to continue to 
oversee that process if we are to maximize the amount we recover.
  My amendment continues that oversight by requiring reports from the 
Secretary of Defense and Office of Management and Budget, explaining 
the reason for any difference between the estimated residual value of 
U.S. capital improvements to facilities, and the actual value being 
obtained in negotiations. If a settlement is providing the United 
States with less than the full value we invested, we need to know why.
  We need at least that level of congressional scrutiny. Our 
negotiators and the German negotiators should know going into a 
negotiation that a settlement will be seen and reviewed by Congress.
  Mr. President, of course the greatest payoff for our investment in 
improvements to installations abroad, especially in Europe, has been 
the peace they helped keep during years of high 

[[Page S 12556]]
East-West tension. But where those improvements that still have value 
are being returned to the host government, we are entitled to 
compensation in the form of direct payments or in-kind payments. This 
amendment should help improve the chances of success in that effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we have no objections to this amendment. 
We believe the American people should have a full accounting of the 
property that our Armed Forces turn over to Germany and should receive 
a fair return on 50 years of improvements made to these properties. I 
congratulate Senator Levin on his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  Mr. THURMOND. We yield our time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2216) was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Lautenberg of New Jersey be added as an original cosponsor to the 
residual value amendment which we just agreed to, No. 2216.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      disposal of bonaire housing

  Mr. COHEN. I would like to bring to the manager's attention a problem 
with the disposal of surplus property in Presque Isle, ME, from the 
former Loring Air Force Base. The designated local reuse authority is 
having difficulty with the Department of Interior in the disposal of 
the Federal property known as the BonAire Housing Complex. I understand 
that it is the intention of the chairman to assist the Maine delegation 
in resolving this matter.
  Mr. THURMOND. The Senator from Maine is correct. I will be pleased to 
work to address this issue in an appropriate manner.
  Mr. COHEN. I thank the distinguished Chairman for his assistance on 
this matter.
  Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the call the roll.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, per the arrangement that I have made with 
the manager of the bill, Senator Strom Thurmond, I would like to ask 
unanimous consent at this time that the Senator from Rhode Island be 
allowed to continue as if in morning business for as much time as he 
may need, and that following the conclusion of his remarks we return to 
the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague very much.

                          ____________________