[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 98 (Friday, June 28, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7282-S7287]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRANSFER OF THE U.S. AIR FORCE HOUSING PROJECT KINGSLEY ANNEX
Mr. NUNN. I yield to Mr. Wyden.
Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator. I would just like to engage the
Senator in a colloquy about a provision in this bill giving the
Department of Defense the authority to transfer contaminated Federal
property before the complete remediation of all the environmental
problems at a property. While I believe that it is important that the
Department take responsibility for the environmental clean up of its
properties, I recognize that there are some properties which have been
abandoned and have not received sufficent remedial action. This appears
to be the case with an Air Force housing project called Kingsley Annex
in Klamath Falls, OR.
Kingsley Annex consists of 290 units of housing that are sitting
vacant in an area with a serious lack of housing, particularly, low
income housing. A local nonprofit, SoCO Development, Inc. is interested
in developing this property to be used for low-income housing; however,
the property has a lead-based paint problem. The property has remained
vacant because it is not high enough on the list of Air Force
priorities to receive money for a clean up.
At no cost to the Federal Government, SoCO is willing to remediate
the problem of lead-based paint and meet the HUD standards for
reduction of lead-based paint on federally owned residential property,
as well as remediate a number of other environmental hazards on the
site. However, they need possession of the property before they can
invest in a clean up.
In my view it is consistent with this provision for the Air Force to
work with groups like SoCO Development, Inc., to use the new authority
in this bill to turn over property for purposes such as low-income
housing with the
[[Page S7283]]
conditions that ensure that the environmental problems are remediated.
Mr. NUNN. I assure the Senator from Oregon that this is consistent
with the provisions in this language to encourage the Air Force to
resolve situations like the one at Kingsley Annex. I also assure the
Senator that I will work with him to help resolve the problem at
Kingsley Annex, and I encourage the Air Force to move ahead with this
project under this new authority.
abm multilateralization
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the
distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator
Thurmond. Today we are agreeing to a unanimous-consent agreement
concerning a number of items, including the substitution of sense of
the Senate language for the binding language in this bill relative to
the multilateralization of the ABM Treaty.
The issue of the treaty obligations of successor states to the former
Soviet Union is of particular importance to the Senate because it
concerns the Senate's unique constitutional responsibility to provide
advice and consent to the ratification of treaties.
The unanimous-consent agreement provides for hearings on this issue
because it raises the question of whether the many treaties with the
USSR, relative to arms control, trade and other matters, which are
acceded to by components of the former Soviet Union, now successor
states, need to be re-ratified by the United States Senate. This issue
has important ramifications for our relations with Russia and the other
successor states, and also for American security in many other
important ways.
While the bill, as amended by the unanimous-consent agreement, now
states what the current sense of the Senate is, the Committee hearings
provided for in the unanimous-consent agreement are important because
they will assure the Senate's ability to fully and deliberately
consider how we implement treaties with nations that split into
separate sovereign states.
Would the distinguished Chairman of the Committee agree with this
assessment?
Mr. THURMOND. The distinguished ranking Member of the Armed Services
Committee fairly characterizes the situation. However, the hearings on
this matter do not preclude, and should not be construed as a
substitute for, the Senate's constitutional role in advice and consent
to ratification of treaties and international agreements.
Mr. NUNN. I thank the Chairman.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of the
Senate Armed Services Committee's recommendations contained in the
fiscal year 1997 national defense authorization bill now pending before
the Senate.
Overall, I believe this is an excellent bill, and I congratulate
Chairman Thurmond for leading the committee through our markup of this
bill. Let me also offer my sincere thanks to Les Brownlee and the staff
of the committee for their professionalism and diligence in conducting
a well-organized and very efficient markup process.
For the second year in a row, the Republican Congress has
successfully increased the administration's inadequate defense budget
request, slowing the too-rapid decline in defense spending which
threatens to jeopardize the future readiness of our Armed Forces, The
committee-reported bill authorizes nearly $13 billion more than the
President's budget request for defense programs, with more than $7
billion allocated for procurement of additional weapons systems.
Although I am not completely satisfied with some of the committee's
recommendations, the majority of this added funding is authorized for
high-priority programs of the military services. The bill provides
much-needed funding for essential tactical aircraft and missiles,
improved communications systems, theater and national missile defense
systems, and other high technology equipment which the Clinton
administration failed to fund.
I am also pleased that the committee adopted most of the
recommendations of the Readiness Subcommittee, including:
A provision to dispose of unneeded stockpile items which will reduce
the deficit by $650 million;
A provision to terminate defense spending for a Justice Department-
run center to gather intelligence on illegal drug activities; and
A provision requiring organizers of civilian sporting events to agree
to reimburse the Department of Defense for the cost of providing
security and other support services, but only if the event makes a
profit; and
A provision requiring the military Service Chiefs to provide an
analysis of an alternative readiness management system, called tiered
readiness, which I proposed in a recent paper.
I appreciate very much the cooperation of my colleagues in
formulating a compromise proposal to resolve the difficult issue of
allocating workload between public and private maintenance depots. The
provisions adopted by the committee revise the current 60-40 public-
private workload allocation to a 50-50 formula, pending receipt of core
workload data from the Department of Defense. The committee also
adopted a requirement for competition at Kelly and McClellan Air Force
Bases in advance of implementing any privatization-in-place proposal.
The committee also adopted several other amendments dealing with
policy matters of particular importance.
First, the committee adopted an amendment to repeal provisions of the
fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization Act related to missing service
personnel. These provisions were identified by the military leadership
as burdensome and unnecessary. I appreciate the support of my committee
colleagues in repealing these unworkable provisions, and I look forward
to their support in our conference with the House of Representatives.
The committee also adopted an amendment to provide the Secretary of
Defense with the authority to waive counterproductive ``Buy America''
restrictions which were adopted in last year's defense authorization
bill. The new waiver may be exercised at the Secretary's discretion to
allow the Department of Defense to purchase items from a firm located
in a foreign country, if that country has a reciprocal defense
procurement memorandum of understanding with the United States. The new
waiver will once again allow free trade between the United States and
our allies for defense contracts.
The committee also adopted a proposal directing the Department of
Defense to follow a uniform policy with respect to military personnel
who have illnesses that prevent them from serving overseas. In my view,
it is unconscionable that military personnel infected with the AIDS
virus would be treated any differently than others who cannot deploy
for health reasons. This provision would ensure uniformity in the
Department's discharge policy for nondeployable personnel. I sincerely
hope we are able to maintain this fair and compassionate position in
our conference with the House.
Again, I offer my sincere thanks and congratulations to Chairman
Thurmond and Senator Nunn and the committee staff for their hard work
in successfully crafting a balanced defense bill. However, I am sorry
to note that the practice of pork-barrel spending is still evident in
the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Mr. President, in past years, defense bills have been filled with
pork-barrel projects which did little to enhance our military
capabilities. Last year, the Congress wasted nearly $4 billion on pork-
barrel projects like the Seawolf submarine, B-2 bomber, and other
wasteful projects. This year, I am pleased that the practice of adding
funds for Members' special interests seems to have declined
significantly. However, there are several programmatic recommendations
in this bill which, in my view, constitute pork-barrel spending.
First, and most egregious, the Committee added almost $600 million in
unrequested military construction projects. The close attention focused
on military construction pork in the past at least forced greater
scrutiny of the add-on list this year. All of these projects met the
established criteria for add-ons, and most of them were included on the
military Services' priority lists. However, I cannot accept the
apparent assumption that projects planned for construction in the next
century are as high a priority as projects planned for next year's
budget, and I had hoped that the Committee would focus on adding money
for projects planned for 1998 or 1999.
[[Page S7284]]
The military construction projects added by the Committee were not
included in my Subcommittee's mark, and I strongly objected to their
inclusion in the Committee bill. At the appropriate time, I will offer
an amendment to strike these projects.
Another perennial favorite is the addition of hundreds of millions of
dollars for unrequested equipment for the National Guard and Reserve.
This bill includes an additional $759.8 million in the National Guard
and Reserve Equipment account, plus as much as $242 million in
additional unrequested equipment earmarked for the Guard and Reserve in
the regular Service procurement accounts. Within this amount is $284
million for 6 unrequested C-130J aircraft for the Guard and Reserve--a
tactical airlift aircraft that the active Air Force has not yet been
able to afford.
The active Air Force did request funding to procure one C-130J
tactical airlift aircraft. However, the Committee decided not to
authorize this asset for the active Air Force. Instead, the Committee
recommended $204.5 million for an additional three C-130Js, including
funding to modify these aircraft to a weather reconnaissance role, and
then transferred all four aircraft to WC-130 weather reconnaissance
squadron in Mississippi. It is inexplicable to me why the Committee
would choose to divert these aircraft from the active Air Force, where
they would have replaced aging C-130E models, and instead use them to
replace newer C-130H models in a weather reconnaissance unit. Further,
the Air Force plans to eliminate nearly 90 aircraft from its current C-
130 fleet to conform with the Mobility Requirements Study, yet the
Committee recommended adding these 4 aircraft plus 6 more C-130s for
the Guard and Reserve.
The Committee's rationale for adding these aircraft, reflected in the
report language, appears to be that the weather reconnaissance mission
could benefit from near-term modernization. That argument, in my view,
could easily apply to the thousands of Service priorities which were
not included in this bill and which, in my view, would contribute much
more to our national defense than an upgraded weather reconnaissance
capability.
Mr. President, I am well aware of the argument that the active
military Services do not adequately provide for the needs of the Guard
and Reserve, but I do not believe the Congress, or the individual
Adjutants General, can properly prioritize their needs. The Senate
Armed Services Committee has repeatedly urged the Services to include
Guard and Reserve requirements in their budget requests. I think we
should enlist the obviously widespread support of our Senate colleagues
and the State Adjutants General to ensure that Guard and Reserve
priorities are included in the budget formulation process, rather than
continuing to impose on the Guard and Reserve our own politicized
judgments about specific weapons systems and projects.
Another questionable add-on in this bill is a $15 million increase
for the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, or HAARP. This
program has benefited from congressional add-ons since 1990, costing a
total of $76 million in just seven years, with another $115 million
required before the project can be completed in 2001. Yet it remains
unclear what military benefit might accrue from the construction of a
facility to study the aurora borealis.
Proponents of the program argue that it should be a part of the
counter-proliferation program of the Department of Defense because it
will be able to detect underground tunnels and structures. However, the
Air Force, which manages the program for the Department of Defense,
noted in April of last year that the research is not sufficiently
mature to warrant its inclusion in the nonproliferation and counter-
proliferation program.
Proponents also argue that the program will have application for
communications, navigation, and surveillance missions. Yet, the
Department of Defense did not include this $15 million in its budget
request for fiscal year 1997, and it was not included on their priority
lists for additional funds. That indicates to me that, in competition
with other militarily relevant programs, HAARP is not a high priority
for the military.
Mr. President, in my view, the Congress should stop compelling the
military Services to pursue research programs that do not meet their
requirements. Spending hundreds of millions of defense dollars to study
the energy of the aurora borealis is, in my view, and unconscionable
waste of taxpayer dollars. This program should be turned over to a
privately funded university, research institution, or other
organization where it could be pursued as a purely scientific endeavor.
The Committee also included a provision in the bill that establishes
a cumbersome and expensive new bureaucracy to coordinate the Navy's
oceanographic research activities. The addition of $99.4 million for
two new oceanographic ships does not trouble me, since these ships were
included in the Navy's shipbuilding plan. Nor does the addition of $6
million to replace worn equipment used by the Navy in its oceanographic
survey and research activities. In fact, I do not necessarily dispute
the assertion that Navy oceanographic research is underfunded. However,
I see no need to establish a multi-tiered organization to ensure that
the Navy has access to all Federal and civil research in oceanography.
The bill sets aside $13 million to fund a new bureaucracy which
would, in my view, only hinder the efficient and effective expenditure
of Federal funds for militarily relevant oceanographic research. In
addition, the criteria and processes for appointment to these various
new entities seem vague, as do the particular responsibilities and
authorities of these seemingly overlapping organizations. Finally, the
outyear funding requirements for this new bureaucracy are unknown, and
I question whether the Navy can afford this potential funding drain in
the future.
Mr. President, I believe the committee would have been better served
to increase the funding available to the Navy for its oceanography
program, together with specific legislative authority for the Navy to
explore private sector efforts which might be of utility to the Navy.
In this way, the Navy would be spared the burden of a new bureaucracy
and, at the same time, would be able to benefit from privately funded
research and other activities.
Finally, again this year, the committee included legislative language
and additional funding for the New Attack Submarine program which is
designed to ensure that the first two, and perhaps four, of these
submarines are allocated equally between the two competing shipyards.
The legislative language is essentially the same as that adopted last
year, which earmarks at least one submarine each for Newport News and
Electric Boat shipyards. The bill includes an additional $701 million
for advance procurement for the second new attack submarine to ensure
that Newport News receives its fair share of this program.
Mr. President, I did not support this approach last year because it
defeats any pretense at competition between the yards, earmarks multi-
billions of dollars for each of the yards, and is based on a faulty
assumption that the Nation requires two shipyards to ensure its nuclear
submarine industrial base. I still question why the Navy is retiring
SSN-688 submarines early in order to accommodate the Seawolf and new
attack submarines in a drastically reduced attack submarine fleet, and
I do not understand why we are buying New Attack Submarines, which are
less capable than Seawolf submarines, when they cost as much as Seawolf
submarines--about $2.5 billion each. I think the committee should
consider deferring this funding until it is necessary and allocate this
$701 million to other Navy priorities.
Mr. President, these pork-barrel projects add up to more than $2
billion. I am astonished that, once again, after fighting hard to
sustain a much-needed increase in the defense budget, the committee
chose to spend these funds on pork.
Last year, we wasted $4 billion, or more than half of the total
Defense budget increase, on pork-barrel projects. I suppose this year's
bill shows progress of a sort--we are only wasting $2 billion.
But, Mr. President, I will say again that the American people will
not stand for this type of wasteful spending of their tax dollars. If
we in Congress refuse to halt the pork-barrelling, it will be more and
more difficult to explain to the American people why we
[[Page S7285]]
need to maintain adequate defense spending.
Mr. President, recent polls indicate that national defense will
probably not be an issue in the Presidential campaign. Less than 5
percent of those polled indicated that defense is an issue of concern
to them in considering their vote. Instead, Americans are concerned
about balancing the budget, reducing taxes, and improving their quality
of life, among other things.
So how do we explain to the citizens of this country why we need to
spend $11 billion more for defense this year, when we waste $2 billion
on pork? How do we explain why we need to maintain a strong military to
ensure our Nation's future security? How do we credibly argue that this
added $11 billion is necessary for national defense, when $2 billion is
spent for projects that do little or nothing to contribute to our
security?
Mr. President, we have made progress in reducing the amount of
defense pork-barrelling. But we have a long way to go--$2 billion, to
be precise. For the sake of ensuring public support for adequate
defense spending in the future, we have to completely eliminate pork-
barrel spending now.
Mr. President, let me conclude by saying, again, that I believe this
is, overall, a very good defense bill, and I voted in favor of
reporting the bill to the Senate. However, with the budget resolution
conference completed, this bill will have to be reduced by about $1.7
billion to stay within the budget targets for defense. To meet this
target, I urge my committee colleagues to look carefully at these pork-
barrel add-ons. We must protect the high-priority military programs in
this bill which contribute to the future readiness of our Armed Forces.
We should cut out the pork first.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the clarion call of this Congress, and
the current administration, has been to balance the budget. To reduce
the Federal deficit and balance the budget. I believe that, with the
passage of this bill, the Senate takes a step away from that goal. The
fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense authorization bill authorizes a
total of approximately $265.7 billion for national defense programs,
which is more than $11.2 billion more than the administration
requested. I have to question the sincerity, and certainly the logic,
of those who ardently advocate for a balanced budget while refusing to
look realistically at defense spending.
When we speak of health care, education, and foreign aid, the self-
professed fiscal conservatives rave about how the public must be
prepared to sacrifice today to preserve the future. About how the
Federal Government must cut costs and eliminate waste. And about how
there is not one extra penny to spare for even the most essential
domestic programs. Yet, when we even broach the subject of
significantly reducing military spending, these same fiscal
conservatives take to the floor and raise the specter of national
security as justification for maintaining an unconscionable level of
funding.
Congress and the administration must share the blame for the failure
to significantly reduce defense spending. Over the next 6 years, both
the administration's and the Congress' budget plans call for $1.6
trillion in military spending. This would mean that during the decade
of the 1990's, the United States Government will have spent somewhere
in the neighborhood of $2.7 trillion on its military. This, when we
haven't even yet begun to pay off the tremendous debts incurred during
the massive military build-up of the 1980's.
For fiscal year 1997, the Senate has added $11.2 billion dollars to
the administration's request for the Department of Defense. Much has
been made of the fact that each of the Joint Chiefs came to Capitol
Hill earlier this year and presented a list of additional programs and
projects they needed beyond the initial request. These soon became
referred to as their wish lists. And, of course, Congress dutifully
added the funds for those items.
There has developed an attitude here that to question the funding
requests from the Pentagon is to undermine the Nation's security. To
spend a penny less than what is requested, it is suggested, will put
our security into jeopardy. I think we should recognize that the
posture and weapons systems requested by the Defense Department as
essential to security do not carry with them any mandate from heaven.
It is the estimation of dedicated people working in an enormously
complex bureaucracy and influenced heavily by the interests and biases
of that bureaucracy. Moreover, it must be remembered that the Defense
Department defines and regards ``national security'' in the most narrow
vein. Only the military factor is considered.
But when Congress evaluates the national security, it must recognize
that our true security is a combination of economic health, political
stability, and domestic tranquility, as well as our military resources.
Congress has the unique task of judging the relationship of all these
factors as it attempts to ensure our overall national security. We have
the responsibility of prioritizing our limited resources, and we must
keep in mind that the most important element of our defense policy is
the will of our people. The disillusionment and dissatisfaction caused
by the lack of adequate education, health services, and housing creates
as great a threat to our national security as anything we may face
outside our own borders.
President Eisenhower, one of America's most celebrated and dedicated
military leaders, used to say that military strength is only the sharp
edge of the sword. The strength of the blade, and therefore of the
sword, is based on the economic might and political freedom of the
American people. Today, the United States leads the world in military
power, yet we lag behind other developed nations in literacy, per
capita income, infant mortality, doctor-patient ratios, and other
important indicators of a society's strength.
We must realize that our national security is not solely dependant on
our military might. The prevailing consensus around here seems to be
that if it doesn't fly, shoot, float or explode, then it isn't relevant
to the security of our country. But unless we can enjoy a strong
economy, adequate housing, good nutrition, educational opportunity,
satisfying employment, and the liberties on which our Nation was
founded, we are not truly secure, no matter how many arms and men we
can muster against an enemy. This broader definition of ``national
security'' must be kept in mind when considering the allocation of our
financial resources in the federal budget. In my opinion, the Senate
has failed in its responsibility to do so today by authorizing over
$267 billion dollars for military spending at the expense of much
needed domestic programs.
We must examine our military requirements carefully, so that we don't
rob ourselves of the resources necessary to provide a high standard of
living for every American. This bill fails in that regard, and
therefore I cannot support it.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the DOD
authorization bill for fiscal year 1997. This is a responsible bill
that provides continued national security and properly funds
modernization and operating accounts.
As the front page of any newspaper in this country today reminds us,
we continue to live in a dangerous and uncertain world. Civil and
international conflicts can begin by the assassination of a national
leader, the blockade of shipping lanes, or ethnic strife. Our military
response to these conflicts can vary from peacekeeping, humanitarian,
and peace enforcement operations to full scale deployment. Because we
continue to ask our military to participate in more and more operations
other than war, we not only must plan and prepare to send our troops to
an international border to protect our allies or our citizens living
overseas, but to protect foreign civilians in peacekeeping and
humanitarian operations.
While the fiscal year 1997 DOD authorization bill is nearly $12
billion higher than the President's budget request, it keeps total
defense spending $5.6 billion below last year's inflation adjusted
level. Although some of my colleagues may think this a negligible
reduction, this is the 12th year in a row where the U.S. defense budget
is less than it was the year before; $7.6 billion of these additional
funds were allocated to modernization of our weapons systems to that
the men and women of our Armed Forces have access to the best
technology and safest equipment possible.
[[Page S7286]]
At a time when we are asking our soldiers to do more and more with
less, we must strive to provide them with reliable systems that are
capable of carrying out a variety of missions.
Concern over the funding levels for the new military equipment was
noted by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General
Shalikavili, is especially worrisome in the area of procurement and
research and development. During their testimony before the Senate
Armed Service Committee, General Shalikavili and the service chiefs
recommended that the procurement account be funded at $60 billion in
fiscal year 1997.
This bill also increases funding in the service's day-to-day
operating accounts. Reduced funding threatened to limit the ability of
the services and Guard and Reserve forces to carry out the airlift,
support, medical, and counterdrug tasks asked of them. For example, the
committee increase funding for the Air National Guard by $76 million to
ensure that it could carry out its aircraft and mission support
operations. The committee also rightly increased the level of funding
for the Defense Department's counterdrug activities. These missions,
especially those carried out by the National Guard, have had a
substantial impact on reducing the flow of drugs into this Nation. As a
Senator from California, where illegal drugs are an epidemic, I am very
pleased with this action.
This year's defense bill also recognizes the needs of our men and
women in uniform. I believe the committee wisely included additional
military construction projects, a 4-percent increase in the basic
allowance for quarters, and a 3-percent pay raise to better our
uniformed military's standard of living.
I do not, however, support all the extra funds that were added to
this bill. I felt it important to support Senator Dorgan's amendment to
cut $300 million from national missile defense funding. I believe that
a national missile defense is a laudable goal, and I certainly want to
see different Anti-Ballistic Missile [ABM] Treaty compliant national
missile defense systems studied. But, the cold war is over. There is no
immediate or even midterm threat to U.S. security that suggests the
need for an immediate development and deployment of a national missile
defense system. Only Russia and China have nuclear armed ICBM's that
can reach the United States--and China has no more than a dozen or so
of these weapons. There is consensus within the national intelligence
community that it is very unlikely that additional countries can or
will build ICBM's within the next two decades. In addition, the
Pentagon's Joint Requirements Oversight Council [JROC] believes that
with current and projected ballistic missile threats, the funding level
for developing a national missile defense system should be no more than
$500 million per year.
Funding at this level will allow the United States to continue to
field critical theater missile defenses and national missile defense
systems to meet projected threats, save money, and achieve an
affordable ballistic missile defense. Should threats to the United
States materialize, it will give us sufficient lead time to respond to
those threats, at that time and as necessary, with appropriately higher
funding and a more aggressive national missile defense program.
I also supported the Wellstone amendment to transfer $1.3 billion--
just 10 percent of the $13 billion increase in funding from the
President's request--from DOD to higher education and employment and
training programs. California is one of the most heavily impacted
States by the cuts. This amendment would have provided the needed extra
funding for education and job training programs.
Senator Wellstone's amendment would have transferred $806 million
from DOD's coffers for Pell grants, Perkins loans, and direct student
loans. Employment and training programs for dislocated workers, summer
youth jobs, school-to-work, and one-stop job training centers would
have received a total of $504 million. All of these programs are as
important to California as adequate defense spending and I am sorry
that the Wellstone amendment did not pass.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I would like to make special note of a
major victory for the women who serve in our armed forces. I am
speaking of the passage of the repeal of current law that prohibits
abortion at an overseas U.S. military facility even if the woman paid
for the procedure herself. Forcing a woman to fly to the United States
to obtain an abortion creates a double standard that is not only
unjust, but potentially dangerous to the health of our women in uniform
and military spouses. I am very pleased to see this amendment pass.
allied burdensharing
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was pleased to be the principal cosponsor
of an amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] to the
Defense authorization bill, amendment No. 4177. It was my intention to
join Senator Harkin on the floor to speak in favor of the amendment
that seeks to obtain a greater sharing of the financial and other
burdens of stationing American troops in foreign countries. However,
Senator Harkin successfully negotiated with the managers of the bill
and they agreed to accept the amendment. As a consequence, it was
hastily offered and approved by a voice vote last night while I was
away from the Senate floor and could not reach the floor before that
action was concluded.
Because of my strong support for this amendment, I would like to
insert in the Record the statement I intended to make when the
amendment was offered, and I ask unanimous consent that the statement
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Allied Burdensharing
Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator from
Iowa in offering this amendment. Unlike previous
burdensharing amendments that simply asked our allies to pay
more of the costs of stationing U.S. troops abroad, this
amendment incorporates a more comprehensive definition of the
price of international peace and security. Forward deployed
American troops represent only one element of a collective
security approach to maintaining international security and
fostering peace and democracy. An equitable distribution of
the costs of collective security must recognize and include
other components in the burdensharing calculations, and that
is what we have done in this amendment.
Our amendment, which mirrors the Shays/Frank amendment that
passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives,
instructs the President to focus on four areas in which to
seek greater contributions from countries that have U.S.
forces stationed on their soil. To satisfy the terms of the
amendment, the increases can be in one or more of these areas
at the President's discretion.
First is the traditional request that host nations pick up
more of the costs for forward deployed U.S. troops. The
amendment calls on the President to increase host nation
support over the next four years with a goal of reaching 75
percent of the non-personnel costs incurred by U.S. forces.
Japan already pays 79 percent of these costs and Korea pays
63 percent, but our European allies only contribute an
average of 24 percent. The CBO has calculated a potential
savings of $11.3 billion by 2002 if this provision is fully
implemented.
The second area of focus is overall defense spending by our
allies as a percentage of their respective GDPs. The U.S.
currently spends 4.7 percent of GDP on defense while many of
our allies, including Germany, Japan, Italy, and Canada spend
less than 3 percent. The amendment calls on the President to
encourage allied nations to increase their defense spending
as a percentage of GDP by 10 percent or to a level
commensurate with that of the U.S. But as with host nation
support, this category will be appropriate for some nations
and not others. For example, the President might choose to
encourage the Canadians to raise their defense budget from
its current level of 1.9 percent of GDP to 2.09 percent, but
Greece already spends 5.6 percent of GDP on defense, more
than the U.S.
The third category is foreign assistance. If the President
thought an ally should be doing more in this area he could
encourage that country to increase its foreign assistance by
10 percent or to a level commensurate with that of the U.S. I
personally believe that we have cut our own foreign aid too
deeply in recent years. But if, because of our budgetary
situation, the U.S. cannot continue to fund important
development programs that contribute to stability in many
nations, then countries that do not spend large amounts on
their military should be encouraged to pick up the slack. The
purpose of this amendment is to share the load, not to make
every allied nation contribute the same amount in every
category.
Finally the amendment instructs the President to push
allied nations to increase their military contributions to
U.N. and other multilateral peace-keeping operations. This
provision makes the clearest break with
[[Page S7287]]
Cold War thinking and recognizes how important
international and regional peacekeeping efforts have
become. From Cambodia to Liberia to Bosnia and dozens of
other trouble spots, peacekeepers work to keep tensions
from erupting into conflict and to contain the conflicts
that do break out. Often in these situations America
cannot send troops for fear that one side or the other
would seek to make them the target. Although Japan and
Germany are constrained from sending troops in many cases,
they could do more to provide equipment, logistical
services and financial support to peacekeeping efforts. So
could other nations.
If the President cannot convince our allies to improve
their contribution in any of these areas, the amendment lays
out a menu of options for him to use to prompt cooperation.
The options include: reducing troop levels stationed abroad;
imposing taxes or fees similar to those that other nations
impose on U.S. forces stationed abroad; reducing the amount
of U.S. contributes to the NATO budget or other bilateral
programs; or taking any other action within his power. In
reality the President already has the authority to take any
of these steps. This language simply urges him to use these
tools to encourage burden sharing. These options are
suggestions and are not mandatory.
During the Cold War, the United States maintained the
military industrial might to counter the threat posed by the
former Soviet Union. In doing so, we paid a very heavy price
and the American people made many sacrifices, most
importantly in the lives of American men and women who fought
and died in Korea, Vietnam, and elsewhere. But we also
sacrificed a great deal of our national wealth to build and
maintain a military superior to all others, capable of
defending not only the United States but also our allies in
Europe and the Pacific. In addition to providing the primary
defense for the free world, we aided the devastated economies
of Europe and Japan to recover after the war and then devoted
our efforts to development in the Third World. These
contributions were also important to maintaining stability
and security.
For much of the Cold War, we had the only economy capable
of sustaining such an effort. This is no longer the case. The
European Union has passed the U.S. as the largest integrated
economy in the world, and Japan's per capita output is very
close to ours. With the Cold War gone and the threat of
global war fading, it is time for the rest of the
industrialized nations to take on their fair share of world
responsibility. The United States will continue to lead the
way, but we can no longer do it all ourselves.
Both the Defense Department and the State Department are on
record in support of this amendment. According to the State
Department the amendment ``supports U.S. policy objectives in
achieving an equitable responsibility sharing of global
security interests with our allies.'' This amendment does not
tie the President's hands. He maintains the flexibility to
target different countries in different areas and to use the
tools he feels are most appropriate.
Not only is this approach supported by the Administration,
but because of the potential to save the American taxpayers
$11.3 billion by 2002, the amendment has garnered the
endorsement of The Concord Coalition Citizens' Council,
Taxpayers for Common Sense, and Citizens Against Government
Waste. This amendment makes sense both for budgetary reasons
and on grounds of fairness, and it supports Administration
policy. I urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Senator from
Massachusetts.
____________________