[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 61 (Thursday, May 14, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4877-S4882]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 2405

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the Indian 
                             Nuclear Tests)

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), for herself, 
     and Mr. Brownback, Mr. Glenn, and Mr. Bryan, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2405.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert: Findings:
       The Government of India conducted an underground nuclear 
     explosion on May 18, 1974;
       Since the 1974 nuclear test by the Government of India, the 
     United States and its allies have worked extensively to 
     prevent the further proliferation of nuclear weapons in South 
     Asia;
       On May 11, 1998, the Government of India conducted 
     underground tests of three separate nuclear explosive 
     devices, including a fission device, a low-yield device, and 
     a thermo-nuclear device;
       On May 13, 1998 the Government of India conducted two 
     additional underground tests of nuclear explosive devices;
       This decision by the Government of India has needlessly 
     raised tension in the South Asia region and threatens to 
     exacerbate the nuclear arms race in that region;
       The five declared nuclear weapons states and 144 other 
     nations have signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 
     hopes of putting a permanent end to nuclear testing;
       The Government of India has refused to sign the 
     Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;
       The Government of India has refused to sign the Nuclear 
     Non-Proliferation Treaty;
       India has refused to enter into a safeguards agreement with 
     the International Atomic Energy Agency covering any of its 
     nuclear research facilities;
       The Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 requires 
     the President to impose a variety of aid and trade sanctions 
     against any non-nuclear weapons state that detonates a 
     nuclear explosive device;
       It is the sense of Senate that the Senate
       (1) Condemns in the strongest possible terms the decision 
     of the Government of India to conduct three nuclear tests on 
     May 11, 1998 and two nuclear tests on May 13, 1998;
       (2) Supports the President's decision to carry out the 
     provisions of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 
     1994 with respect to India and invoke all sanctions therein;
       (3) Calls upon the Government of India to take immediate 
     steps to reduce tensions that this unilateral and unnecessary 
     step has caused;
       (4) Expresses its regret that this decision by the 
     Government of India will, of necessity set back relations 
     between the United States and India;
       (5) Urges the Government of Pakistan, the Government of the 
     People's Republic of China, and all governments to exercise 
     restraint in response to the Indian nuclear tests, in order 
     to avoid further exacerbating the nuclear arms race in South 
     Asia;
       (6) Calls upon all governments in the region to take steps 
     to prevent further proliferation of nuclear weapons and 
     ballistic missiles;
       (7) Urges the Government of India to enter into a 
     safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy 
     Agency which would cover all Indian nuclear research 
     facilities at the earliest possible time.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
the Department of Defense authorization bill to express the concern of 
this body and condemnation of the recent Indian nuclear tests.
  Mr. President, this is a sense of the Senate. Before I go into the 
provisions of it, let me state what I understand the facts to be.
  In the last 2 days, there have been five underground nuclear tests in 
India about 70 miles from the border of Pakistan. According to Prime 
Minister Vajpayee of India, there was a fission device, a low-yield 
device, and a thermonuclear device.
  According to the Carnegie Foundation, India is estimated to have 
approximately 400 kilograms of weapons-usable plutonium. Given that it 
takes about 6 kilograms of plutonium to construct a basic plutonium 
bomb, this amount would be sufficient for 65 bombs. With a more 
sophisticated design, it is possible that this estimate could go as 
high as 90 bombs.
  India also possesses several different aircraft capable of nuclear 
delivery, including the Jaguar, the Mirage 2,000, the MiG-27, and the 
MiG-29. India has 2 missile systems potentially capable of delivering a 
nuclear weapon: The Prithvi, which can carry a 1,000-kilogram payload 
to approximately 150 kilometers or a 500-kilometer payload to 250 
kilometers; and the Agni, a two-stage, medium-range missile which can 
conceivably carry a 1,000-kilogram payload as far as 1,500 to 2,000 
kilometers.
  India, according to a report, has possibly deployed, or at the very 
least is storing, conventionally armed Prithvi missiles in Punjab very 
near the Pakistani border.
  Mr. President, it is no secret that there are intense feelings 
between these two nations. Pakistan and India, up to late, have been 
very difficult adversaries. More recently--this makes these detonations 
even more concerning--I think there has been a kind of 
rapprochement. And we hopefully were seeing some improvement in the 
relations between these two countries.

  Mr. President, I can hardly think of a more important issue to the 
interests of the United States than preventing the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction. As the Secretary of State said the other 
day, this Nation has no other agenda than peace and stability 
throughout the world. And that, indeed, is an agenda to which I believe 
this body can wholeheartedly subscribe. So each State that acquires 
nuclear weapons creates additional complications in maintaining 
international security.
  In south Asia today it appears to be too late to talk about 
preventing the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Both countries, India 
and Pakistan, now clearly have nuclear capability. And ultimately India 
must determine for itself whether its interests are best served by 
ridding South Asia of weapons of mass destruction or by turning the 
region into a potential nuclear battleground. That, I think, is no less 
the decision that has to be made.
  We all hope that India will choose the course of deescalation, of 
standing down, of beginning to reduce its nuclear arsenal and at the 
very least showing a willingness, now that these underground tests have 
been carried out, to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
  And, all of us saying to the Pakistani Government, please, we urge 
you not to respond in kind but to show that, indeed, Pakistan 
understands that greatness is not indigenous to nuclear production, I 
believe, in the long run, will bring inordinate credibility to the 
Government and the people of Pakistan, and the favorable response of 
this body as well.
  Mr. President, the amendment I submit today on behalf of Senators 
Brownback, Glenn, Bryan and myself essentially reports what has 
happened in the last 2 days. It then goes on to say that it is the 
sense of the Senate that we condemn in the strongest possible terms the 
decision of the Government of India to conduct three nuclear tests on 
May 11 and two on May 13 and that we support the President's decision 
to carry out the provisions of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act 
of 1994 with respect to India and to invoke all sanctions therein.
  I might add that the author of that act is a distinguished Member of 
this body, none other than Senator John Glenn of the great State of 
Ohio. And that is a rather comprehensive statement of sanctions that in 
fact can be placed on India. It will effectively terminate assistance 
to that country under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 except for 
humanitarian assistance or food or other agricultural commodities.

[[Page S4878]]

  It will terminate sales to that country of any defense articles, 
defense services or design and construction services, and licenses for 
the export to that country of any item on the U.S. munitions list.
  It will terminate all foreign military financing for that country, 
and it will deny to that country credit, credit guarantees or other 
financial assistance by any department, agency or instrumentality of 
the U.S. Government, except that it will not apply to any transaction 
subject to the reporting requirement of title V or to humanitarian 
assistance.
  And it will oppose, in accordance with the International Financial 
Institutions Act, the extension of any loan or financial or technical 
assistance to that country by any international financial institution 
and prohibit any U.S. bank from making any loan or providing any credit 
to the Government of that country except for loans or credits for the 
purpose of purchasing food or other agricultural commodities.
  Finally, it will prohibit exports to that country of specific goods 
and technology.
  My point in reading this, Mr. President, is that these, indeed, are 
strong sanctions. I believe all Members of this body are in support of 
the President's decision and this amendment gives us an opportunity to 
say so.
  The sense of the Senate also calls upon the Government of India to 
take immediate steps to reduce tensions that this unilateral and 
unnecessary step has caused. We express our regret that this decision 
by the Government of India will by necessity set back relations between 
the United States and India, and we urge the Government of Pakistan, 
the Government of the People's Republic of China and all governments to 
exercise restraint in response to Indian nuclear tests in order to 
avoid further exacerbating the nuclear arms race in south Asia.
  We call upon all governments in the region to take steps to prevent 
further proliferation of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, and we 
urge the Government of India to enter into a safeguards agreement with 
the International Atomic Energy Agency which would cover all Indian 
nuclear research facilities at the earliest possible time.
  Mr. President, this is the text and sum of this sense-of-the Senate 
amendment before this body. I might say, for someone who has taken an 
interest in India, who has spent time with prior Ambassadors, both of 
India and Pakistan, attempting to reconcile differences between the two 
countries, that these tests come to me personally as a very low blow.
  I did not think we would see the day when the detonation of these 
nuclear devices would take place. However, that is now past. We have 
seen that day. We hope we learn from that, and we hope, most 
importantly, that the governments concerned--India, Pakistan, and 
China--also will recognize the fact that we in this body wish to do 
everything we possibly can to find consensus rather than animus, to put 
an end to the adversarial relationships, and to have sanity and 
soundness prevail when it comes to nuclear weapons.
  I thank the Chair. Perhaps I might ask for the yeas and nays on this 
amendment.
  Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to be heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I now see my distinguished colleague. I did not see 
Senator Brownback. Perhaps he would like to comment as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. BROWNBACK. I wish to address this body on this very important 
issue. Before I get started, I ask unanimous consent that Terry 
Williams of my staff be allowed in the Chamber.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the Feinstein 
amendment. Senator Feinstein and I spoke yesterday about this issue and 
the need to speak and to act quickly by the United States in a 
statement of condemnation towards India, of support towards Pakistan, 
to encourage the Pakistanis to stand strong as a nation and not to 
ignite and set forth a nuclear weapon and escalate this chain reaction. 
We put forward this resolution of which I am a cosponsor. I believe it 
is the right and appropriate step for us. She has offered it, and she 
has been a peacemaker and a peacekeeper for these countries, had their 
representatives in her home to try to get the Ambassadors of these two 
nations to speak together and to not further proliferate but, rather, 
to seek peace. And all of that to no avail as far as the action that 
the Indian Government has taken this week.
  We had, yesterday, a hearing in my subcommittee that Senator 
Feinstein attended where we heard of the great problems we are facing 
on this entire subcontinent. Indeed, this is probably the most 
difficult area of the world today and the most problematic, and the 
most probable flash point that the world is facing today with the use 
of nuclear weapons.

  With the Indians taking this action, five being set off, and then the 
response in India, not being one of ``My goodness, what have we 
unleashed, these first devices being set off since 1974 by a 
nonnuclear-weapons state; my gosh, what have we released?'' the 
reaction in the street has been jubilation, which is greater cause for 
concern, for concern of what is going to happen in Pakistan, which is 
most likely the next place for there to be a response, whether they 
would step forward and set off a nuclear weapon themselves, and where 
do we escalate from there? These two nations have gone to war three 
times in the last half century. This, to me, is a grave situation we 
are facing today.
  The world was duly horrified this week when the Government of India 
detonated these three nuclear devices. I think India has behaved 
irresponsibly and has relegated itself to the category of an outcast. 
It is a terrible shame for a great nation. Rather than a celebration in 
the streets, the people of India should be demonstrating against their 
government for plunging their nation into this international crisis. 
That is why I support this resolution.
  South Asia is facing a moment of truth. India has already acted. We 
know Pakistan is poised to retaliate. I believe we have to have a 
chance--and I want to note this, just a chance--to stop Pakistan, or 
encourage Pakistan from taking a foolish and dangerous step. We must, 
as President Clinton has recognized, do all we can to persuade the 
Government of Pakistan to show restraint, moderation, and intelligence. 
Deputy Secretary of State Talbott, Assistant Secretary Inderfurth and 
General Zinni are in Pakistan right now. I support their efforts and 
wish them every success in their discussions with Prime Minister 
Sharif.
  But I think we, too, must act in the U.S. Senate. With this 
resolution, I think we must demonstrate, also, our support for Prime 
Minister Sharif in the face of incredible pressure that he is going to 
have from his country to respond to India's nuclear tests. That is why 
I believe the Senate should do this, and I also think the Senate should 
go further. I think we need to take further and even more aggressive 
and bold action to try to encourage the Pakistanis: Don't respond in 
kind.
  With that, I think we need to act today to repeal the Pressler 
amendment as an action we can take, as an overt carrot to hold out to 
the Pakistanis, saying, ``We believe in your cause. Please, show 
restraint. Don't go on forward. Don't ignite a nuclear weapon. Don't 
continue this chain reaction. And if you don't, we are prepared to move 
forward with removing something that has been a thorn in your side for 
some time, the Pressler amendment itself.''
  This is not about rewarding Pakistan or punishing India. This is a 
signal to Pakistan at a crucial moment. Repealing the Pressler 
amendment will have little impact on the ground. Pakistan is already 
subject to Glenn-Symington sanctions dating back more than a decade. 
Those sanctions already preclude providing Pakistan any assistance 
under the Foreign Assistance Act.
  So, in this regard I would like to send an amendment to the desk 
regarding the Pressler amendment and ask for its

[[Page S4879]]

immediate consideration. This will be in the form of an amendment to 
the amendment.


                Amendment No. 2407 to Amendment No. 2405

     (Purpose: To repeal a restriction on the provision of certain 
              assistance and other transfers to Pakistan)

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2407 to amendment No. 2405.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of the amendment, add the following:

     SEC. 1064. REPEAL OF RESTRICTION ON CERTAIN ASSISTANCE AND 
                   OTHER TRANSFERS TO PAKISTAN.

       Section 620E(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2375(e)) is repealed.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as I pointed out, I am a cosponsor of 
Senator Feinstein's efforts in this regard, the resolution being put 
forward. I think that is positive and it is a right step to do. I think 
we need to do that. But I think at this critical juncture we have to 
act even more decisively than what we are doing with this resolution, 
and that is why I am proposing this amendment to the resolution that I 
cosponsor. I think the amendment that Senator Feinstein has put forward 
is the right thing to do.
  I think, as well, at this very moment in Islamabad and throughout 
Pakistan they are considering: How do we respond? What do we do? Should 
we set off a nuclear weapon ourselves, in this escalating set of 
events?
  If you are in Islambad and you are the Prime Minister of this 
country, or a parliamentarian, or somebody that's an official in this 
nation, you have to be sitting there saying, What do we do? Is this the 
time we should show strength in the form of retaliation, in the form of 
setting off another nuclear weapon, and we get the escalation going on? 
And there is pressure building in the streets, and the people in the 
streets say, ``We need to respond, we need to show strength in the form 
of detonating a nuclear weapon.''
  We have to do everything we can today to try to encourage the 
Pakistanis not to respond in kind. We need to hold out some carrots to 
them, saying if you will show restraint, if you will show wisdom, if 
you will show moderation, we can help and we can work with you and here 
is a way. The Pressler amendment has been in place. It has been 
partially repealed over time. We can say to them, If you will show 
restraint, we are going to move towards lifting this; we are going to 
lift this Pressler amendment.
  Then they have a different choice to make. They can say, You know, if 
we don't respond in kind we can get the onus of this off our back that 
we have tried to have removed for some time. If we do respond in kind, 
the Glenn amendment automatically hits the Pakistanis as well, and you 
are going to have a wider range of issues and of sanctions that will be 
hitting Pakistan. So now there is a carrot and a big stick sitting out 
there of, How do we respond? And the pressure is building in the 
streets in Islamabad and throughout Pakistan of, How do we respond? We 
have to do everything we can, near term, to stop that and provide them 
some option and some means and some reason not to set off a nuclear 
weapon.
  What repealing this outdated, I think, unilateral sanction will do is 
bring Pakistan on the same playing field as the rest of the world and 
will offer them a carrot. If Pakistan detonates a nuclear weapon, as 
India has, it will be subject to the same sanctions as India. And 
believe me, I will be the first one to urge that the United States move 
swiftly and decisively to impose the sanctions.
  It is important that we factor in several considerations as we 
consider this amendment. The first is that there are multiple laws in 
place to deal with nuclear proliferators: the Glenn-Symington 
amendment, the Glenn amendment, and various others. Pakistan will not, 
and should not, be allowed to get away with nuclear proliferation. 
There can be no excuse for transgressing international norms or U.S. 
laws.
  However, we must also face an important reality. Pakistan, a long-
term friend and ally of the United States, is next door to a nation of 
960 million people who just tested five nuclear weapons this week. 
India could not have been more clear that it was sending a message to 
China and as well to Pakistan and the rest of the world. It is not 
unnatural, though it is clearly unwise, for Pakistan to consider its 
options.
  Pakistan's conventional military abilities have been seriously eroded 
because of the Pressler sanctions. I believe that were Pakistan able to 
be more reliant on a conventional deterrent the nuclear option might 
seem less attractive. In addition, were Pakistan aware of the immense 
international support behind a policy of restraint, so, too, might they 
feel less threatened and feel like there is something in this for them 
if they show a bit of moderation and a bit of restraint.

  We are at a crucial moment. Failure to take decisive action at this 
juncture could mean disaster in south Asia. I think time is absolutely 
of the essence or I would not have brought it out on this today. 
Decisions are being made now in Islamabad of what reaction they will 
take to the Indian's action, what they have done this week in 
detonating five nuclear weapons. Those decisions are being made now. I 
wish we could put this debate off for a month or 2 or 5 months, or a 
year, but it is now that it counts. It is now that decisions are being 
made. I hate to rush people towards these sorts of actions, but if we 
fail to act now, with all the potential we have to urge restraint in 
Pakistan, I am fearful we will have acted too late and the graphite 
rods will have been pulled out and the chain reaction continues and we 
have not done everything we possibly can.
  This is something we can possibly do. I wish it were in another place 
on another vehicle. There is no other place or time to be able to do 
this. I think the base amendment is a good one to pass. I think this 
one sends the absolute positive signal to Pakistan, please, please show 
restraint. That is why I ask consideration of my amendment to the 
amendment.
  At the appropriate time, if necessary, I will be asking for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, regretfully I rise to oppose this 
amendment which, in the current heated environment surrounding the 
Indian nuclear tests, seeks to repeal the Pressler amendment.
  I believe that to put a repeal of the Pressler amendment on this bill 
and to allow the United States to resume military aid to Pakistan would 
be counterproductive and would contribute to a further destabilization 
of an already unstable South Asian security environment.
  What would India do in response? I urge the Members of this body, 
when considering whether to vote for an imminent repeal of the Pressler 
amendment, to think that we are doing this before our people have even 
had a chance to ascertain what the particulars of this situation are. 
We are doing it before we have any assessment of what might be the 
response to this action. I think that is precipitous, and I think it is 
unfortunate.
  Most immediately, what would be the effect? A repeal of Pressler 
would release 28 F-16s which Pakistan purchased in 1989, but due to the 
inability of the President to certify in 1990 that Pakistan does not 
possess a nuclear device----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will withhold.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the 
completion of this vote, the floor be restored to the Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2387

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 3 p.m. having arrived, the 
question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table amendment No. 
2387. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 24, nays 76, as follows:

[[Page S4880]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 136 Leg.]

                                YEAS--24

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Breaux
     Cleland
     Daschle
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grams
     Hagel
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Levin
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Reed
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller

                                NAYS--76

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2387) was rejected.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to lay on the table the motion 
reconsider is agreed to.
  The Senator from Arkansas.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2401

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I, as the sponsor of the amendment, 
accept the second-degree amendment by Senator Thomas, ask unanimous 
consent to vitiate the yeas and nays, and urge the adoption of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the yeas and nays are 
vitiated. Without objection, the second-degree amendment is adopted.
  The amendment (No. 2401) was agreed to.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the reason for my concern about this 
amendment is reflected in the statement that was sent to us by the 
administration. I very much support the purpose of this amendment. I 
think it is right on target, and I commend the Senator from Arkansas 
for focusing on this problem.
  But the statement of the administration policy raises a concern that 
the requirement to disclose publicly the list of Chinese military 
companies operating directly or indirectly in the United States could 
implicate classified information that needs to be protected in the 
interests of national security, i.e., intelligence sources and methods. 
That is the basis for my concern, and therefore I will vote ``no'' on a 
voice vote, and I ask unanimous consent that this statement of 
administration policy be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                 Washington, DC, November 4, 1997.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


    h.r. 2647--monitoring commercial activities of chinese military 
                companies (fowler (r) fl and 16 others)

       The Administration opposes H.R. 2647 because it is 
     unnecessary and counterproductive. In particular, the 
     Administration opposes the requirement to disclose publicly 
     the list of Chinese military companies operating directly or 
     indirectly in the United States. The requirement for such 
     disclosure could implicate classified information that needs 
     to be protected in the interests of national security, i.e., 
     intelligence sources and methods.
       The Administration is also seriously concerned about the 
     precedent of authorizing the exercise of authorities under 
     the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) 
     without regard to the Act's strict standards of an 
     international threat. H.R. 2647 establishes no clear 
     standards for invoking the IEEPA authorities against Chinese 
     military companies and bears no relation to the effect on the 
     United States of the commercial activities of the designated 
     Chinese companies. If the People's Liberation Army companies, 
     or any other foreign companies, undertake specific illegal 
     activities, there are U.S. laws authorizing a broad range of 
     sanctions. In cases when U.S. law is violated, the 
     Administration can, and will, act to enforce the law.


                 Vote On Amendment No. 2387, As Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2387), as amended, was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 2388, As Amended, As Modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my understanding is the Senator from 
Arkansas has a second amendment.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, amendment No. 2388 is the second 
amendment. Has the amendment been modified by the Harkin amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has been modified.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Once again, this is a good amendment. It was broadly 
supported in the House on a bipartisan basis. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. I again commend my friend, the Senator from Arkansas, on 
this amendment. I think it is a good amendment. I ask unanimous consent 
I be listed as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2388), as modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, to advise Senators, we will not have 
further votes prior to the hour of 5 o'clock. My understanding is the 
Senator from Oklahoma has an amendment which he wishes to bring to the 
Senate. I am hopeful we could accommodate a few more minutes of debate, 
which the Senator from California had asked for, on her amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Virginia yield on that point?
  Mr. WARNER. I yield.
  Mr. LEVIN. I believe we did enter a unanimous consent agreement that 
the Senator from California be recognized after the disposition of the 
Hutchinson amendments, since she was in the middle of her remarks at 
the time that the regular order required us to begin the last votes.
  I am wondering if we could just spend 30 seconds seeing if the 
Senator from California would like the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join in that request, and then the 
Senate can proceed to the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. I ask 
unanimous consent that following the remarks of the Senator from 
California, the Senate proceed to the amendment that will be submitted 
by the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from 
California is on her way and will be here in a few moments. I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescind.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I had been asked previously by the 
Senator from Iowa that he be listed as a cosponsor of the amendment I 
put forward. I ask unanimous consent that while we are waiting that he 
be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator withhold? Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senator from Oklahoma be recognized for 5 minutes at 
this time and then the Senator from California regain recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  As chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, I want to make a couple of 
comments concerning the defense authorization bill of 1999 and how it 
affects readiness.
  Over the past several years, a number of military officers have 
expressed deep concerns regarding the trends in the operational 
readiness of the Armed Forces. Last year, these trends led one military 
officer to state, ``The storm clouds are on the horizon.''
  This was a year in which most of the Armed Forces were ready to meet 
their wartime mission, but in order to do so

[[Page S4881]]

in a resource-constrained environment, they were forced to resort to 
cost-saving practices which could impact negatively on our wartime 
readiness.
  For example, the Marine Corps began using retreaded tires. This had 
not been done before. We have no way of knowing how these will perform 
in the case of some type of a Persian Gulf or Middle East desert-type 
of operation.
  While the overall readiness of forward deployed units remains 
adequate, this is increasingly accomplished at the expense of 
nondeployed units. According to Vice Admiral Browne, Commander of the 
Navy's Third Fleet: ``More today than in the past, forward deployed 
readiness is being maintained with the slimmest of margins and at the 
expense of CONUS based training and increased individual PERS- TEMPO.''
  He went on to say: ``To get the U.S.S. Denver underway early as part 
of the Tarawa ARG amphibious readiness group, two other ships were 
cannibalized for parts.''
  Furthermore, Colonel Bozarth of the Air Force's 388th Operations 
Group stated: ``The people that pay the price, though, are the folks 
that are back home. Because if you take a wing like ours, 5 years ago, 
in 1993, we were looking at full mission capable rates in the nineties. 
In the 1995-1997 timeframe, we are looking at mission capable rates in 
the eighties. Now we are down into the lower seventies.''

  Unfortunately, there are reports that even the readiness of the 
forward deployed units is beginning to suffer. According to naval 
officers in the Pacific, 20 percent of the deployed planes on the 
carriers are grounded awaiting spare parts and other maintenance, all 
the time cannibalization of the aircraft is taking place. It has gone 
up 15 percent over the past year. In fact, Admiral Browne recently 
acknowledged that, ``Full mission capable rates from fiscal year 1996 
to 1997 for our deployed aircraft have declined from 62 to 55 
percent.''
  I am very much concerned about this. Mr. President, I think this is 
due to two problems that we have. One is the deprived budget, insofar 
as our modernization program, which is leading us to have to use older 
equipment, and the other is the high deployment rate.
  It is interesting that since 1992, we have had twice the number of 
deployments that we had in the entire 10 years before that. This is not 
for missions that are affecting our Nation's security.
  I have had occasion to go to many, many, many installations 
throughout America and around the world. I can tell you right now, we 
have very serious problems. In Camp Lejeune, in talking to these guys 
down there--they are tough marines, but their OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO 
rate, to the extent the divorce rate is up, the retention rates are 
down. It is a very serious problem.
  I think most people realize it costs $6 million to put a guy into the 
cockpit of an F-16, and yet our retention rate right now has gone down 
28 percent. In the Mojave Desert, the National Training Center in 
Twentynine Palms tells us the troops they get in for advance training 
are far below the level of proficiency that they were 10 years ago. 
Nellis Air Force Base where they have a red-flag operation, which is a 
very good operation for training combat pilots, they now have dropped 
these operations from every 12 months to 18 months. This means they go 
down from six to four operations each year.
  What this means is, these pilots who would otherwise be going through 
the red-flag exercises getting this simulated training that is actually 
for combat are off providing missions, supporting areas like Bosnia.
  I draw attention to the 21st TACON, because in this area, we have 
both of these problems occurring. The 21st TACON is using old 
equipment. Some of the 915 trucks that they use have over a million 
miles on them. I personally saw that they are using for loading docks 
old flatbeds that are wired together.
  As far as the deployment is concerned, we know there are serious 
problems around the world. We know that Iraq is about to boil. We know 
we may have to send in ground troops, and yet they would have to be 
logistically supported by the 21st TACON. Right now they are at 100 
percent capacity just supporting the Bosnia operation.
  What we are dealing with in the defense authorization bill for 1999 
is a budget that is not adequate and it does not put us in the state of 
readiness we should be in, but it is the very best we can do under the 
constraints that we are operating.
  While it is inadequate, I do ask that our colleagues support the 
defense authorization bill for 1999.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is critically important that the 
United States be able to protect its troops in the field from ballistic 
missile attack, and this includes modern ballistic missiles of 
increasing range and sophistication. To do that, we need both lower 
tier systems like the Patriot and more capable, upper tier systems like 
the Theater High Altitude Air Defense, or THAAD, and Navy Theater Wide.
  It is disappointing that the THAAD system has not yet achieved a 
successful intercept in its test program. Given the program's history 
of lengthy delays between flight tests, it is unlikely that a 
sufficient number of tests can be conducted in fiscal year 1999 to 
enable the program to enter into the Engineering and Manufacturing 
Development, or EMD, phase. Accordingly, I understand the rationale for 
the amendment offered today which would remove an additional $250 
million from the THAAD Program. While I am disappointed that the 
program's lack of progress has brought about this decision, I believe 
the action proposed by the chairman and ranking member of the Armed 
Services Committee to be reasonable. And, along with everyone else, I 
call on the Government and the contractors supporting the program to do 
everything they can to ensure future success.
  Let's not forget, however, that we have test programs to find and 
solve problems. We would move our weapons systems right from the 
drawing board to the field if we never expected to uncover problems 
during testing. While we would prefer there to be as few problems as 
possible, test programs are conducted to wring these problems out of 
our weapons systems. We should not be too quick to overemphasize the 
results of any one test.
  The level of scrutiny being applied to the Demonstration and 
Validation phase of the THAAD Program is higher than that applied to 
any other program in its Dem-Val phase that I am aware of. In fact, the 
scrutiny it is undergoing is more like that normally found in the EMD 
phase of a program. This intense scrutiny will ultimately be beneficial 
in helping us get this system fielded as soon as the technology is 
ready. Given the EMD-like scrutiny in the THAAD Dem-Val program, 
Congress should examine the Department of Defense plans for the 
structure and length of its EMD program. It is important for this 
program to be long enough to ensure the THAAD system ultimately 
produced is the right one, but not so long as to leave U.S. forces 
vulnerable for a minute longer than technologically necessary.
  The need for missile defense doesn't disappear because of a single 
flight test. Given the results of the most recent intercept attempt, it 
is reasonable to delay provision of THAAD EMD funding beyond fiscal 
year 1999. Additional reductions, however, are not warranted.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from 
Mississippi. He has shown such leadership in bringing to our attention 
the importance of a missile defense system for this country. We have 
all been shocked this week to hear what is happening across the globe 
with India actually testing a nuclear weapon and starting an arms race, 
tension that we haven't seen in a long time.
  I can't think of another country in the world that would be testing 
its own missile defense system out in the open as we are, the THAAD 
missile that my colleague just talked about, but we did. Yes, it didn't 
work. And, yes, we are all disappointed and we are hoping that we can 
learn from what didn't work on that test and perfect it. But that is 
why we have tests of defensive systems.
  But I think what Senator Cochran has done is, he is putting in 
context how important it is that we put our full force behind the 
priority of defending our shores and our troops, wherever they may be, 
anywhere in the world, against any incoming ballistic missile,

[[Page S4882]]

a Scud missile or an intercontinental missile. Senator Cochran is 
right. The Senate had a very important vote yesterday, and by only one 
vote--by only one vote in the Senate, we were not able to move and 
clearly say that this country's first priority is going to be a 
defensive system for the ballistic missiles that we know 30 countries 
are now in the process of perfecting.
  So I commend him for the statement he just made, for the efforts he 
has been making over the last year, and for the future efforts that we 
are all going to make to continue to press this very important issue. 
As we are debating the defense authorization bill for our country, I 
can think of no higher priority than to make sure that the shores of 
our country are protected against an incoming ballistic missile, 
whether it be from a rogue nation or terrorist act. That our people 
would know that we would be protected is the very highest priority. We 
are debating right now how to fund and make sure that our troops have 
everything they need to do the job to protect us. They should have that 
same protection anywhere that they would be representing the United 
States of America. In any theater anywhere in the world, we should be 
able to have a defense against an incoming ballistic missile.
  So I commend the Senator from Mississippi, and I want to say we will 
not rest until we have won this issue, that we would be able to deploy 
right now our first priority, a defensive system for incoming ballistic 
missiles.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished Senator 
from Texas for her kind and generous remarks. I agree with her that we 
need to do everything we can to study the test results, translate that 
into solving the problems we have in these systems for theater weapons 
that we have to protect our troops that are already being programmed--
there are already deployment decisions that have been made, even though 
we haven't completed the development and the testing phase.
  I hope we can see some successful tests soon and we urge the 
contractors and the Department to work as hard as they can to see that 
is done.


                           Amendment No. 2410

(Purpose: To provide eligibility for hardship duty pay on the basis of 
 the nature of the duty performed instead of the location of the duty, 
                      and to repeal an exception)

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order for the Senate to consider amendment No. 2410; that the amendment 
be agreed to; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2410) was agreed to, as follows:

       At the end of subtitle B of title VI, add the following:

     SEC. 620. HARDSHIP DUTY PAY.

       (a) Duty for Which Pay Authorized.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 305 of title 37, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking out ``on duty at a location'' and all that follows 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``performing duty in the United 
     States or outside the United States that is designated by the 
     Secretary of Defense as hardship duty.''.
       (b) Repeal of Exception for Members Receiving Career Sea 
     Pay.--Subsection (c) of such section is repealed.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Subsections (b) and (d) of 
     such section are amended by striking out ``hardship duty 
     location pay'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``hardship duty 
     pay''.
       (2) Subsection (d) of such section is redesignated as 
     subsection (c).
       (3) The heading for such section is amended by striking out 
     ``location''.
       (4) Section 907(d) of title 37, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking out ``duty at a hardship duty location'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``hardship duty''.
       (d) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 305 
     in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 5 of 
     such title is amended to read as follows:

``305. Special pay: hardship duty pay.''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment will give the Secretary of 
Defense authority to compensate our men and women in uniform that are 
serving in remote areas, in very difficult situations. Specifically, 
this amendment amends hardship duty location pay and allows the 
Secretary of Defense to designate certain ``duties'' as a hardship 
rather than limiting the pay to hardship duty ``locations'' only. This 
will allow for designation of certain missions like Joint Task Force 
Full Accounting (JTF-FA), the POW/MIA search teams, and the Central 
Identification Lab (CILHI) to be designated for receipt of the hardship 
duty pay. These teams are exposed to the most arduous conditions while 
deployed to remote, isolated areas of Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, North 
Korea and China to conduct excavations of crash sites and 
identification of remains of U.S. servicemembers.
  This amendment also allows the Secretary to recognize members serving 
in high operation tempo missions and eliminates the restriction on 
members receiving sea pay and hardship duty pay simultaneously. This 
would allow naval members who are serving in high operations tempo 
units to receive the added benefit. The hardship duty pay limit of $300 
per month would not be changed.
  I commend my friends of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) for 
bringing this to my attention. Their concern for the state of the 
military and those that serve is unsurpassed. During a recent trip to 
Southeast Asia, the VFW learned that personnel deployed under the 
command of JTF-FA are not authorized and do not receive imminent danger 
pay when deployed on Joint Field Activity operations in Laos and 
Vietnam. They reported their concerns to me because many of the crash 
sites were in extremely difficult terrain, littered by unexploded 
munitions.
  At one Joint Field Activity excavation site that they visited in 
western Laos, the area in which the team was conducting excavations was 
littered with unexploded BLU-26 cluster bomb units. Another crash site 
excavation was located next to sidewinder missiles. In addition, the 
teams are exposed to resistant strains of malaria, dengue fever, and 
other diseases while they are deployed in these isolated and remote 
areas. Furthermore, most of these sites are far removed from any modern 
medical facility.
  Mr. President, I feel it not only the right thing to do, but that it 
will help the services to adequately compensate our men and women in 
uniform so as to entice these young Americans to stay in the service 
and to consider a career in the military. For the difficult and 
dangerous duties that they do, they deserve no less.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for up to 10 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is informed there is an order to 
recognize the Senator from California. Is there objection to the 
request?
  Mr. THURMOND. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________