[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.
____________________