[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 51 (Thursday, April 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3844-S3845]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
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.