[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 51 (Thursday, April 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3843-S3845]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for the duration 
of the vote Sandra Ortland, of my office, be permitted the privilege of 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Parliamentary inquiry. The first vote is on the Craig 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 20, nays 80, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 110 Ex.]

                                YEAS--20

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Burns
     Craig
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Specter
     Warner

                                NAYS--80

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 2316) was rejected.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think this has been a very good debate. 
There have been significant amendments offered and now voted upon. I 
see from the list we have before us as many as six or eight additional 
amendments still pending, several of which we have not been able to 
work out a time agreement on. I thank all Senators for being 
cooperative. We have had opponents and proponents who have been 
cooperative. I encourage that to continue.
  I believe maybe a Senator or two indicated that they didn't know we 
were going to try to finish this bill this week. I think I have said 
all along that we should have a focused, unobstructed debate, but the 
intent was to complete it Wednesday or Thursday. Here we are on 
Thursday at almost 4 o'clock. I talked to Senator Daschle, and we are 
agreed that we are going to finish NATO enlargement either at a 
reasonable hour this afternoon, or a late hour tonight, or tomorrow, or 
Saturday, but we are not going to leave this week until we finish NATO 
enlargement and the supplemental appropriations bill.
  Now, we can do both of those in a very responsible way with still 
some good debate remaining. We need cooperation and time agreements. We 
need cooperation on the supplemental appropriations. We agree that 
these two issues must be completed this week so that next week we can 
move to IRS reform, or the Workplace Development Partnership Act, and 
perhaps even crop insurance and agriculture insurance. So we don't have 
the luxury of rolling this over until next week.
  Our first vote will not occur until Tuesday at 5 o'clock. Please work 
with us, and we can complete this bill and have a vote by 6:30 or 7 
o'clock if everybody will agree to a reasonable time limit.
  I yield the floor.


                      Executive Amendment No. 2321

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided, on amendment No. 2321 offered by Mr. Moynihan of New York.
  The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, in the foreseeable future the central 
strategic object of the United States and the world will be that of 
controlling the spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in 
the Near East, in

[[Page S3844]]

South Asia, in East Asia, and the control of them in Russia itself.
  If we can have the cooperation, however tacit, of the Russian 
Government in these affairs, we have great hopes and possibilities. If 
we were to have their hostility, their opposition, it could be ruinous 
to the world. We are talking about nuclear war and biological and 
chemical war. That, in my view, is what is at issue in this decision we 
are about to make and the amendment I have offered.
  I thank the Chair for its courteous attention.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, there is absolutely no evidence today that 
expanding NATO to include Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary would 
do anything to exacerbate the problem we all are concerned about--the 
proliferation of nuclear capability.
  The truth is, notwithstanding the knowledge on the part of Russia 
that we are going to expand, they continue to destroy their nuclear 
weapons under the Nunn-Lugar agreement, they have endorsed and have 
ratified the CWC agreement, and they have committed to take up the 
START II agreement. Nothing we have done relative to expansion has any 
negative impact on the continued cooperation between the United States 
and Russia to deal with the threat of nuclear warfare.
  I respectfully suggest that to vote for this amendment turns over the 
future of what we think the defense architecture of Europe should be to 
an organization of which we are not a part, and that is the EU. It says 
that no one can join NATO unless they are first a member of the EU. Why 
would we turn our fate over to an organization of which we are not a 
member? I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 17, nays 83, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 111 Ex.]

                                YEAS--17

     Ashcroft
     Bumpers
     Craig
     Harkin
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Leahy
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Smith (NH)
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--83

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
  The amendment (No. 2321) was rejected.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                      Executive Amendment No. 2322

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes for debate evenly 
divided before the vote on amendment No. 2322 offered by the Senator 
from Virginia, Mr. Warner.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  I say to my colleagues, think of the American taxpayer. Think of the 
parents of the young men and women who will today, tomorrow and in the 
future wear the uniform of our country as a part of the NATO force. We 
do not have a firm estimate of the costs and therefore in all 
probability there will be an expense to the American taxpayer 
associated with including these three countries. Nothing in this 
amendment precludes the Senate acting on the three countries, the 
subject of this principal debate. It simply says let us wait a 
reasonable period, 3 years, to get an experience curve to make the 
subsequent decision if it is the judgment of the President at that time 
that we proceed with further Member negotiations, giving us firmer cost 
estimates, a clearer definition of the mission to be undertaken and the 
risk to be assumed by the men and women who wear the uniform of our 
country.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, several points. One, this is superfluous. 
In the actual resolution of ratification, we make it clear in paragraph 
7 it requires prior consultation by the President before the United 
States can support even the invitation of any new member, No. 1. No. 2, 
we have the advise-and-consent requirement. They have to come here and 
get our votes to begin with. No. 3, this has nothing to do with cost, 
nothing to do with cost. It doesn't mention cost at all. No. 4, to say 
now there is an artificial pause is going to put on hold all those 
actions taking place in other countries to meet the criteria from 
border disputes to ethnic disputes that exist within those countries 
that would be necessary to be solved before they could be invited. It 
is absolutely superfluous, and I would argue it is dangerous in that it 
will send a signal that there is an artificial pause that really means 
no one else will be considered.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against it. It is totally unnecessary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
adoption of the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 59, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 112 Ex.]

                                YEAS--41

     Ashcroft
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Craig
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--59

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Thomas
     Thompson
  The amendment (No. 2322) was rejected.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was rejected.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alaska allow me to 
address the Senate for a minute?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, I yield for that purpose, Mr. President.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to thank all Senators for very, 
very careful consideration of this amendment. It is a strong vote. It 
sends a very strong signal. I recognize the conflict that some had in 
casting their votes, but I think it is important that we take a stand, 
as we did, with this very significant vote against the strongest of 
opposition to make that statement on behalf of the American taxpayers 
and the parents of the young men and women who one day must assume 
additional missions and additional risks. I thank the Chair.

[[Page S3845]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, with the amount included in the emergency 
supplemental, the United States will have expended over $7.5 billion 
for operations in and around Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia by the 
end of this fiscal year 1998. It is estimated that the United States is 
paying over 50 percent of the cost of maintaining the peace in Bosnia, 
nearly $200 million a month in 1997 alone, and no end is in sight to 
the United States presence there, with the current wish of the 
President to extend our mission there.
  Defense overseas funding to NATO countries continues. The cost of 
maintaining our U.S. forces there averages $10 billion a year. Let me 
state that again. Defense overseas funding in NATO countries is such 
that the cost of maintaining our forces there averages nearly $10 
billion a year. Security assistance alone to NATO allies since 1950, 
and that includes military assistance and military education and 
training, now totals over $19 billion.
  No other member of NATO has the global defense role that the United 
States has, nor the forward-deployed presence in potential flash-point 
areas such as the Middle East and the Korean peninsula. It is for this 
reason, Mr. President, that I wish to discuss the two amendments that I 
proposed. I presented them last month.
  The amendments both deal with the challenges of defining and 
controlling NATO expansion costs. My original intent in proposing these 
amendments was to bring some greatly needed accountability to the 
critical issue of recognizing and clarifying all the costs to the 
United States to enlarge the NATO alliance.
  My first amendment is No. 2065, which requires all costs related to 
either the admission of new NATO members, or their participation in 
NATO be specifically authorized by law. It is my understanding that the 
managers of the bill have not accepted this amendment for inclusion in 
the resolution, and for that reason I will, in a moment, ask for the 
yeas and nays on that amendment. I will explain it further if anyone 
wishes me to do so, but I think it is very plain. It just says any 
further costs must be authorized by law.
  The second amendment has evolved since I originally offered it for 
the Senate's consideration. My original amendment would have restricted 
the use of funds for payment of NATO costs after September 30 of this 
year unless the Secretaries of Defense and State certified to the 
Congress that the total percentage of NATO common costs paid by the 
United States would not exceed 20 percent during the NATO fiscal year.
  After the administration expressed their concern that this would be 
too difficult to achieve in such a time period, I redrafted this 
amendment to reduce the total U.S. contribution by only 1 percent each 
year over a 5-year period. That would have been no more severe a 
reduction than the Department of Defense has experienced as a whole in 
real terms since 1995.
  However, during the extensive consultation that I have had with the 
Secretary of Defense, our former colleague, Secretary Cohen, and the 
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joe Ralston, they 
have requested further changes to this amendment.
  Subsequently, I have sent to the desk now a modification of the 
latest version which is what I will ask the Senate to vote on, and that 
is a sense of the Senate, that beginning in fiscal year 1999 and over 
the next 5 years, the President should require the U.S. representative 
to NATO to propose to NATO a 1-percent reduction in U.S. contributions 
to the common-funded budgets of NATO. Sixty days after the proposal has 
been made, the President is requested to submit to Congress a report 
outlining the action taken by NATO, if any, on this U.S. proposal.
  Additionally, this amendment directs the limitation on the total 
expenditures by the United States for payment to the common-funded 
budgets of NATO to the fiscal year 1998 levels unless an increase over 
that is specifically authorized by law.
  Mr. President, a soon-to-be-released report of the General Accounting 
Office that has been conducted confirms--and I have seen the draft--
confirms that NATO does not systematically review or renegotiate member 
cost shares for the common budgets. And it is well past time for this 
practice to be instituted. As I have stated before, this reassessment 
is long overdue in light of the United States' global defense 
responsibilities.
  No formal renegotiations have occurred in the military and civil 
budgets in NATO since 1955. Let me repeat that. There have been no 
formal renegotiations in the military and civil budgets of NATO since 
1955.
  When Spain joined NATO in 1982, there was a pro rata adjustment in 
the civil and military budget shares based upon Spain's contribution. 
The NSIP, or the NATO infrastructure budget, has been adjusted five 
times since 1960 because of changes in the way projects were approved 
or funded, but there was no attempt to reallocate the percentages.
  Mr. President, I think that is long overdue. I understand there will 
be no objection to my amendment, No. 2066. If that is the case, I would 
urge that it be adopted as soon as the managers have made their 
statements.


                      Executive Amendment No. 2065

(Purpose: To require a prior specific authorization of funds before any 
     United States funds may be used to pay NATO enlargement costs)

  Mr. STEVENS. In any event, Mr. President, if it is in order for me to 
do so at this time, I would like to place before the Senate amendment 
No. 2065 so I may ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself, Mr. 
     Byrd, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Warner and Mr. Roberts, 
     proposes executive amendment numbered 2065.

  Mr. STEVENS. 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 end of section 3(2) of the resolution, add the 
     following:
       (C) Requirement of payment out of funds specifically 
     authorized.--No cost incurred by the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization (NATO) in connection with the admission to 
     membership, or participation, in NATO of any country that was 
     not a member of NATO as of March 1, 1998, may be paid out of 
     funds available to any department, agency, or other entity of 
     the United States unless the funds are specifically 
     authorized by law for that purpose.

  Mr. STEVENS. This is the amendment that I believe the Senator from 
Delaware will discuss.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. To me, this is a matter of simple justice. As the 
surviving superpower of the world, we must take action to limit our 
international commitments at least to the extent that we have limited 
our own budgets within the United States for the Department of Defense. 
Both of my amendments do that. They merely say there is a restriction 
on the future obligation of funds of the United States to these NATO 
processes unless they are previously authorized by law.
  There is no barrier to going above the 1998 limit, and there is no 
compulsion to reduce down to 20 percent as far as the total overall 
commitment to the common budgets. But my amendment will bring about a 
process by which further expenditures will have to be authorized by law 
and will give Congress a specific control every year over the 
additional cost, if any, that may be incurred because of this NATO 
expansion.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Would the Senator yield for a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. STEVENS. I would be happy to yield, Mr. President.