[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.

                          ____________________