[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 105 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9323-S9328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the defense appropriations bill, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2132) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and 
     for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have given the clerk a list of staff 
members. I ask unanimous consent that these staff members associated 
with our presentation of the bill be allowed the privilege of the floor 
during consideration of the defense bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The list is as follows:

       Sid Ashworth, Tom Hawkins, Susan Hogan, Mary Marshall, Gary 
     Reese, John Young, James Hayes, Justin Weddle, Carolyn 
     Willis, Jennifer Stiefel, Frank Barca, and Kristin Iagulli.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senate begins consideration today of 
the 1999 Defense appropriations bill, to fund the military activities 
of the Department of Defense for the upcoming fiscal year.
  This bill provides $250.5 billion in new budget authority for 1999, 
an increase of $2.8 billion over the amount appropriated in 1998.
  The committee reported this bill on June 4th. Unforeseen 
circumstances delayed the consideration of the bill, but I believe it 
is vital that we pass the Defense funding bill prior to the recess.
  The military must know how much money it will have to meet critical

[[Page S9324]]

operational and modernization requirements at the beginning of the 
fiscal year, October 1.
  Fiscal year 1999 represents the first budget cycle under the 5 year 
bipartisan budget agreement--the amount requested by the President 
corresponds to the cap agreed to for Defense.
  That results in a fundamentally different dynamic for balancing this 
bill compared to fiscal years 1996, 1997 and 1998.
  For the previous three fiscal years, Congress and the White House 
were at odds over the total level of funding for Defense. The budget 
submitted by the Pentagon failed to fully accommodate the readiness and 
modernization priorities of the Joint Chiefs.
  For 1999, the committee received a budget proposal consistent with 
the bi-partisan budget agreement--not enough for Defense, but at the 
level agreed to last summer at the summit.
  The content of that budget reflected the priorities and strategy of 
the Quadrennial Defense Review, submitted by Secretary Cohen and Gen. 
Joe Ralston last spring. The FY 1999 budget kept faith with the 
concepts and priorities advocated in the QDR.
  I want to begin by commending Secretary Cohen and Deputy Secretary 
John Hamre for their efforts to present a budget that did not require a 
major overhaul by Congress.
  We do not agree on every item, and fact of life events resulted in 
adjustments on many programs, but essentially, this budget request 
meets the minimum needs of the Armed Forces.
  The recommendations from the committee focus on three goals: ensure 
an adequate quality of life for the men and women of the Armed Forces; 
sustain readiness; and modernize to assure future battlefield dominance 
by our Armed Forces, if needed.
  To achieve needed quality of life for our troops, and their families, 
this bill fully funds the 3.1 percent authorized military pay raise.
  During consideration of the DOD authorization bill in June, I joined 
the managers of that bill in co-sponsoring an amendment to increase the 
pay raise to 3.6 percent for 1999.
  The first amendment that Senator Inouye and I will jointly offer to 
this bill will provide the additional appropriation for the 3.6 percent 
raise.
  Additionally, the Treasury-General Government bill that we will pass 
later today provides a comparable pay raise for civilian Pentagon 
workers. Those amounts are funded from within the general operation and 
maintenance appropriations.
  The pay raise solves only a part of the compensation crisis facing 
the Department of Defense.
  My discussions with the service chiefs, the service secretaries, 
field commanders and the men and women of the Armed Forces, serving in 
my State of Alaska and around the world, lead me to conclude that an 
equally pressing challenge is retirement pay.
  The changes adopted by Congress in 1986 reflected the cold war 
priority of attracting men and women to serve a full 30 year career in 
the Armed Forces.
  Our victory in the cold war led to a wrenching realignment of the 
force, and radical new personnel priorities.
  There is great pressure today for individuals to spend only 20 years 
in active service. The revised retirement plan puts them at an unfair, 
and unacceptable disadvantage, as compared to serving a full 30 years.
  It is my intention to work with the leaders here in Congress, and 
with the Secretary of Defense, to put us on a track to fix the 
retirement system--in my mind, there is no higher defense funding 
priority, for it has led to a series of decisions by men and women in 
the services, not to continue because of their feeling about the 
unfairness of the retirement policies.
  The considerable operational demands on our Armed Forces dictate that 
we also ensure the welfare and quality of life for those on active duty 
now.
  Based on the committee's recent trip to Bosnia and Southwest Asia, a 
new $50 million MWR and retention initiative is included in this bill.
  These funds will provide added resources and flexibility to address 
the though living conditions and family separation challenges of 
deployments to Bosnia and Southwest Asia.
  More than $100 million is added for quality of life enhancements in 
the service O&M accounts, to upgrade barracks, dormitories, and other 
personnel support facilities.
  Our second focus, maintaining readiness, has been stressed by 
overseas deployments during the past three years.
  For 1998, this committee succeeded in providing needed contingency 
funds as an emergency, without disrupting other Defense programs.
  For 1999, the recommendation adds funds for flying hours, depot 
maintenance, training, and base operations.
  We recommend savings resulting from changed economic factors, such as 
fuel costs, foreign currency, and inflation--but restore all those 
amounts to the O&M appropriations.
  There is no option to trade near term readiness for future 
modernization. As long as our Armed Forces face the range of missions 
overseas underway today, we must sustain the O&M accounts at least at 
the levels provided in this bill, and the House bill.
  No sector of Defense has suffered more the past few years than 
acquisition. We must invest more to protect the technological 
superiority that our smaller military force counts on.
  These recommendations fully fund the combat priorities advocated by 
the Joint Chiefs: F-22, the Crusader, F-18, new attack submarine, the 
JASSM missile, V-22, and national missile defense.
  In many instances, the recommendations add funds for technology 
development programs, to look even further down the road, past the 
systems we will deploy over the next ten years--out for the next thirty 
years.
  Achieving these three priorities was especially challenging given our 
fixed budget caps.
  Every dollar shifted among programs came from a reduction to an item 
in the budget request--there were no additional dollars to spend this 
year for Defense.
  Senator Inouye and I sought to allocate the resources available to 
the subcommittee as equitably as possible, and consistent with the 
military needs identified by the Chiefs.
  In most cases, we could not provide large increases in existing 
procurement programs, or to restore programs already terminated.
  No member of this committee, or the Senate, secured every priority 
which he or she advocated to the committee. On the other hand, we 
reviewed all of them, and have done our best.
  I believe the recommendations are fair and achieve a balance between 
the budget and the priorities of Congress. It is my intention to do 
everything we can to work with all of our colleagues to meet the needs 
they have brought to the Committee.
  Finally, there is one notable change from the bill reported last year 
by this Committee--in the area of medical research.
  In the bill we reported last year, we provided $176 million for 
medical research. Coming out of conference, that total grew to $344 
million, almost twice the level of the Senate.
  In the context of adding $6 billion to the budget, that total was 
manageable.
  Let me explain that again. Last year, we had an additional $6 billion 
by the time we came out of the conference, and it was possible to 
increase that amount. This year, we have no top line margin to 
allocate. Whatever is added to this bill will come out of either 
readiness, or future acquisition, or the quality of life concepts that 
I have discussed.
  For 1999, Senator Inouye and I recommended a new appropriations of 
$250 million in the defense health program for medical research grants.
  This increase over last year's appropriation provides adequate 
resources to sustain growth in the breast cancer and prostate cancer 
programs, while enabling the Department of review other research 
programs and opportunities. The report lists all the programs seeking 
funding this year.
  The bill establishes a floor for breast cancer and prostate cancer 
research at the minimum; at least they must be provided at the level 
that we finally agreed to in conference in 1998.

  The bill also seeks to address the funding priorities of the National 
Guard. In testimony before the subcommittee, the Army Guard identified 
as shortfall for 1999 $634 million for their operational requirements--
not for future involvement for just their operational requirements.

[[Page S9325]]

  The bill reported by the committee provides an additional $20 million 
for the Guard counterdrug operation, $225 million for the Army Guard 
O&M account, and $95 million for Army Guard personnel account.
  A total of $475 million will be added to the National Guard and 
Reserve equipment. That is a cut, however, of 25 percent from the level 
appropriated in 1998.
  Finally, the bill reported by the committee did not include the $1.9 
billion requested by the President as emergency spending for Bosnia.
  The Senate considered several amendments during debate on the defense 
authorization bill concerning our future force levels and operations in 
Bosnia.
  Later this morning, I know Senator Hutchison, Senator Byrd, and 
others will raise at least one amendment related to our presence in 
Bosnia.
  At the time we considered this bill in the Appropriations Committee, 
it was premature for this committee to consider funding for that 
mission for 1999.
  Based on our visit to Bosnia in May, and to NATO headquarters after 
that, it is clear that a long-term presence in Bosnia is envisioned by 
NATO and the administration.
  That long-term role cannot in the future be funded on an annual 
emergency basis. The Congress must be part of the decision on the size 
of the force, the duration of the mission, and the cost of the 
operations.
  Mr. President, we bring this bill to the Senate with the hope of 
commencing the August recess tomorrow. Securing passage of this bill at 
a reasonable hour will require the cooperation, consideration, and 
assistance of every Senator.
  It is my hope that we will obtain early today an agreement to have 
all amendments filed at the desk so we can most efficiently dispose of 
those amendments--accepting some, debating some, and encouraging 
Members not to raise others.
  This bill has been available to all Members since June 5. The bill 
closely approximates the level authorized in the defense bill we passed 
last June.
  That authorization bill is in conference with the House, and we have 
continued to work closely with Senator Thurmond, Senator Levin, and 
others on that committee to support the priorities passed by the Senate 
in that bill.
  Mr. President, the presentation of this bill to the Senate would not 
be possible without the leadership and partnership that I have enjoyed 
with my friend from Hawaii, Senator Inouye.
  This is the tenth year that the two of us have come to the Senate 
jointly to present and recommend the defense appropriations bills. Six 
of those years Senator Inouye served as chairman, and I have enjoyed 
that privilege for the past four.
  It is a pleasure and a privilege to work with the Senator from Hawaii 
on defense matters and other matters. I enjoy our personal friendship. 
And the opportunity to bring this bill to the Senate on a full 
bipartisan basis is one that I think comes from the tie between us that 
we enjoy.
  Mr. President, I yield to Senator Inouye for his statement.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, may I first thank my dear colleague from 
Alaska for his very generous remarks. It has been a pleasure to work 
with him for the past 10 years. We hope that together we have been able 
to present to the U.S. Senate a bipartisan approach to this very 
important subject.
  Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong support of the Department of 
Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999, S. 2132, as reported 
from the Committee on Appropriations.
  This bill contains funding for the Department of Defense for the 
upcoming year, excluding amounts for military construction.
  The total recommended is $250.5 billion. This is about $840 million 
less than was requested by the administration, but about $2.8 billion 
more than funded for fiscal year 1998.
  Within these amounts, the committee has recommended full funding to 
support our men and women in uniform.
  This includes a 3.1-percent pay raise as requested by the President. 
Later today, the chairman will offer an amendment to increase that to 
3.6 percent, the amount authorized by the Senate last month. I strongly 
support this amendment.
  Also at the chairman's initiative, the committee is recommending $50 
million to initiate a new fund for morale, welfare, and recreation.
  This new appropriation account will support the personnel support 
needs of our men and women serving on contingency deployments in Bosnia 
and Southwest Asia.
  Last May, Senator Stevens led a delegation of members from the Armed 
Services and Appropriations Committees to Bosnia and Southwest Asia.
  It was apparent in our discussions with these units that the 
deployments for these contingencies were beginning to impair the 
retention of critically skilled individuals and that morale was 
starting to suffer.
  The delegation unanimously concluded that we needed to do more to 
support our troops serving in these areas.
  The chairman's initiative will help ease the burden of these long 
overseas deployments and show our men and women in uniform that the 
Congress has not forgotten them.
  Mr. President, this is a very good bill, which meets the national 
security needs of our Nation, but within the fiscal constraints that 
have been agreed upon in this balanced budget environment.
  I should point out to my colleagues that this bill does not provide 
any funding for Bosnia.
  The President submitted a budget amendment to the Congress requesting 
an appropriation of $1.29 billion in emergency funding to maintain our 
troops in Bosnia.
  When the committee marked up this bill, it was unclear what action 
the Senate would take on Bosnia.
  It is my hope that this matter will be resolved in conference or 
through a supplemental spending measure at a later date.
  Let me assure my colleagues that the committee will not shirk from 
our responsibility to support funding for our forces assigned overseas, 
no matter where they are located. This matter will be addressed at a 
later date.
  Mr. President, I want to close by commending our chairman and his 
staff for the fine work that they have done in putting this bill 
together. As many of you recognize, this is a huge bill. Nearly half of 
our Government's discretionary resources are contained in this one 
appropriations bill.
  There are an enormous number of programs that must be reviewed and 
recommended by the chairman and his staff before this measure can be 
reported to the Senate. That task is made more difficult by the 
thousands of requests for billions of dollars that are made by the 
Members of this body.
  I want to salute the majority staff which really has done yeoman's 
work in putting this bill together for the Senate. It is a small staff, 
many have been with the Appropriations Committee for several years. 
They transcend the political divisions that sometimes divide this 
Senate. The staff is led by Steve Cortese who has been by the 
chairman's side for the past decade and it includes, Sid Ashworth, Tom 
Hawkins, Susan Hogan, Mary Marshall, Mazie Mattson, Gary Reese, John 
Young, Justin Weddle, and on assignment as a legislative fellow, Ms. 
Carolyn Willis.
  Mr. President, the Senate owes them a deep debt of gratitude.
  Under Chairman Stevens' leadership, the resulting bill is a well-
balanced product, crafted in a completely bipartisan fashion. It meets 
the needs of the military services and also fully considers the 
priorities of the Senate and the American taxpayers.
  This is a good bill. I urge all of my colleagues to support its 
passage.
  Before ending my presentation, I would like to reflect upon a few 
things that have just come across my mind in the past few minutes.
  Chairman Stevens and I are what some of us call dinosaurs of the 
Senate. Admittedly, we are chronologically a bit old. Both of us served 
in World War II, the ancient war. I would like my colleagues to recall 
that in that war 16 million men and women served--16 million. Today, we 
are calling upon less than 1 percent of our Nation's population--one-
half of 1 percent--to stand

[[Page S9326]]

in harm's way for us, to risk their lives for us. Some have suggested 
that this is too much spending. As far as I am concerned, if any person 
is willing to stand in harm's way in my behalf, he or she gets the 
best.
  There are many programs that have been carried out at the chairman's 
initiative that he is too humble to even mention. He has been in the 
forefront of medical research, and I am proud to say that, working with 
him, we have been able to come up with a breast cancer program that is 
being acclaimed worldwide--not just nationally. Scientists from all 
over the world come to work with the Army Research Center. It may not 
be evident to many of my colleagues, but some of the best research 
being done on AIDS is being done by the U.S. Army. The same can be said 
for prostate cancer and other tropical diseases.
  I began my closing remarks by saying there were 16 million American 
men and women who served with us in World War II. It was at a time when 
our population was about 100 million. Today, our population is over 250 
million, and we are asking 1.3 million to defend all of us.
  I concur with my chairman: This is the minimum, this meets the 
minimum needs of our military. If budgetary constraints were not placed 
upon us, I am certain we would come forth with something a bit more 
generous. After all, Mr. President, you and I want our children and our 
grandchildren to go to college, we want to be able to have a car in the 
garage, three meals a day. That is part of the American way of life. I 
believe that men and women in the service should also aspire to the 
American way of life, and I am sorry to say that this measure may not 
provide all that is necessary, but we are striving for the best.
  I ask my colleagues to support this measure.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I reciprocate in thanking my good friend 
for his comments. It is interesting when we reflect back on World War 
II. We as a nation knew who we were, what we were doing, and we had 
unanimous support for what we were doing. Today, each of us faces 
comments from time to time about our commitment to defense and 
questions of whether we could not cut this budget. If anything, we 
should have a great deal more money. I shall speak to the Senate later 
about that during the consideration of this bill.
  Let me point out to Members of the Senate that we have knowledge of 
46 amendments on this bill. We have reviewed them with our staff and 
with the staff of those who will present those amendments, and 23 of 
them we are prepared to accept. Of the balance, 13 of them we have not 
seen. It would be very helpful if Members will bring their amendments 
to us so that we can look at them and determine whether or not we can 
work with the person who wishes to present the amendment and accept it 
or modify it in a way that it becomes acceptable. I expect we will have 
some substantial votes today and into the night. But it will be much 
easier for all of us if we can see these amendments and we can try to 
find some way to accommodate the needs of the Senate and the demand of 
our defense spending with the individual desires of Members of the 
Senate.


                           Amendment No. 3391

  (Purpose: To provide a 3.6 percent pay raise for military personnel 
                        during Fiscal Year 1999)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I mentioned in my statement that we have 
a 3.1 percent pay raise in this bill. I want to send to the desk, and 
do send to the desk, an amendment. It is sponsored by myself and my 
friend from Hawaii.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself and Mr. 
     Inouye, proposes an amendment numbered 3391.

  Mr. STEVENS. 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:

       On page 99, in between lines 17 and 18, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 8104(a) On page 34, line 24, strike out all after 
     ``$94,500,000'' down to and including ``1999'' on page 35, 
     line 7.
       (b) On page 42, line 1, strike out the amount 
     ``$2,000,000,000'', and insert the amount ``$1,775,000,000''.
       (c) In addition to funds provided under title I of this 
     Act, the following amounts are hereby appropriated: for 
     ``Military Personnel Army'', $58,000,000; for ``Military 
     Personnel Navy'', $43,000,000; for ``Military Personnel, 
     Marine Corps'', $14,000,000; for ``Military Personnel, Air 
     Force'', $44,000,000; for ``Reserve Personnel, Army'', 
     $5,377,000; for ``Reserve Personnel, Navy'', $3,684,000; for 
     ``Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps,'' $1,103,000; for 
     ``Reserve Personnel, Air Force'', $1,000,000; for ``National 
     Guard Personnel, Army'', $9,392,000; and for ``National Guard 
     Personnel, Air Force'', $4,112,000''.
       (d) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, the 
     total amount available in this Act for ``Quality of Life 
     Enhancements, Defense'', real property maintenance is hereby 
     decreased by reducing the total mounts appropriated in the 
     following accounts: ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', by 
     $58,000,000; ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', by 
     $43,000,000; ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', by 
     $14,000,000; and ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', by 
     $44,000,000.
       (e) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, the 
     total amount appropriated under the heading ``National Guard 
     and Reserve Equipment'', is hereby reduced by $24,668,000.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment will raise the military 
pay to 3.6 percent. This pay raise will add $185 million to the Active 
Forces, Guard, and Reserve pay accounts. Over the last year, our 
committee has heard repeatedly in both hearings with the service chiefs 
and during field visits to Bosnia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Alaska, and 
other places throughout the world that our military members perceive an 
erosion of existing benefits. This adjustment in pay matches the 
private sector wage growth at a time when many service members are 
questioning the value of continued service due to an increasing pace of 
deployments.
  Some economists estimate that the pay gap between the private sector 
and the military may be as high as 13.5 percent. This amendment will, 
at a minimum, provide a fairer base for military pay raises in the 
future.
  I ask if my friend has any comments to make in regard to this 
amendment. He is a cosponsor.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, my only comment is that I wish we could 
have provided much more than this.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for adoption of the amendment. That is consistent 
with the authorization bill, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3391) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3392

 (Purpose: To provide additional funds for U.S. military operations in 
                  Bosnia as an emergency requirement)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have tried to be consistent with the 
authorization bill. As this bill came out of committee, the 
authorization bill did not meet the contingency operations in Bosnia as 
requested by the President. I send to the desk an amendment and state 
to the Senate that, if it is adopted, it will conform the handling of 
the moneys in this bill for Bosnia with the authorization bill as it 
has been amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3392.

  Mr. STEVENS. 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:
       On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       Sec.   . For an additional amount for ``Overseas 
     Contingency Operations Transfer Fund,'' $1,858,600,000: 
     Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may transfer these 
     funds only to military personnel accounts, operation and 
     maintenance accounts, procurement accounts, the defense 
     health program appropriations and working capital funds: 
     Provided further, That the funds transferred shall be merged 
     with and shall be available for the same purposes and for the 
     same time period, as the appropriation to which transferred: 
     Provided further, That the transfer authority provided in 
     this paragraph is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     available to the Department of Defense: Provided

[[Page S9327]]

     further, That such amount is designated by Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.
  Mr. STEVENS. This does conform, as I indicated, with the decision of 
the defense authorization committee for the handling of the Bosnia 
money.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to concur with the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further discussion, the 
amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3392) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                        Privileges of the Floor

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nancy 
Gilmore-Lee, a fellow assigned to my staff, be provided floor 
privileges during consideration of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that James Bynum, 
a Capitol Hill fellow serving on Senator McCain's staff, be granted 
privileges of the floor during debate and any votes concerning this 
bill, as well as any related amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. My previous request and Senator Inouye's request applied 
to time during votes, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3393

(Purpose: To impose a limitation on deployments of United States forces 
                 to Yugoslavia, Albania, or Macedonia)

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3393.

  Mr. ROBERTS. 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:

       On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available under this Act may be obligated or expended 
     for any deployment of forces of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States to Yugoslavia, Albania, or Macedonia unless and 
     until the President, after consultation with the Speaker of 
     the House of Representatives, the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate, the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, 
     and the Minority Leader of the Senate, transmits to Congress 
     a report on the deployment that includes the following:
       (1) The President's certification that the presence of 
     those forces in each country to which the forces are to be 
     deployed is necessary in the national security interests of 
     the United States.
       (2) The reasons why the deployment is in the national 
     security interests of the United States.
       (3) The number of United States military personnel to be 
     deployed to each country.
       (4) The mission and objectives of forces to be deployed.
       (5) The expected schedule for accomplishing the objectives 
     of the deployment.
       (6) The exit strategy for United States forces engaged in 
     the deployment.
       (7) The costs associated with the deployment and the 
     funding sources for paying those costs.
       (8) The anticipated effects of the deployment on the 
     morale, retention, and effectiveness of United States forces.
       (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a deployment of 
     forces--
       (1) in accordance with United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 795; or
       (2) under circumstances determined by the President to be 
     an emergency necessitating immediate deployment of the 
     forces.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the United States and the rest of the 
Western European countries are on the verge of a very deep and 
expensive and very dangerous involvement in yet another area of the 
Balkans, the Serbian province of Kosovo. Unfortunately, and once again, 
it seems to me the administration has yet to explain to the Congress or 
to the American people why it is in our vital--again, I emphasize the 
word ``vital''--national interest to get in the middle of this growing 
conflict.
  Let me make it clear I think a case can be made that, under certain 
circumstances, it is in the U.S. national interest to get involved in 
the conflict in Kosovo. But in my view, it is the responsibility of the 
President of the United States and the administration, i.e., the 
national security team, to explain to the American public and the U.S. 
Congress why such an involvement is in our vital national interest 
before our troops are committed.

  The reports on CNN are clear that the Yugoslavian leader, Mr. 
Milosevic, is taking hard and very brutal action against the ethnic 
Albanians who are living--and, by the way, they comprise, Mr. 
President, 90 percent of the total population--in Kosovo. Certainly, 
this should be of no surprise since this is the same kind of activity 
that he directed in the breakup of Bosnia.
  Our diplomatic efforts are active, but they keep changing in purpose 
and intent. The all too frequent U.S. diplomatic technique has been 
employed. Several lines in the sand have been drawn, with threats of 
severe reprisals if the Serbian action against the Albanian population 
does not cease, but, regretfully, nothing positive to date has come 
from our diplomatic initiatives or threats. So these lines in the sand 
are crossed and the fighting has intensified, resulting in increased 
human suffering.
  The Albanian rebels, known as the KLA, are growing in strength and 
the fighting grows more fierce, with no peaceful solution in sight. The 
United States and NATO have threatened military action, and they gave a 
military demonstration consisting of a determined flight involving a 
considerable amount of aircraft. They called it ``Determined Falcon.'' 
I am not sure how determined the falcon was. At any rate, neither side 
has offered to end the conflict. In fact, the KLA is actually buoyed by 
the apparent Western support for their cause, and therefore they are 
not interested in backing off now. Mr. Milosevic, having observed our 
unwillingness to carry out our threats when he crossed the lines in the 
sand, and coupled with the strong support of the Serbian people to put 
an end to the rebel uprising in Kosovo, has no reason to back off 
either.
  We have now started an international monitoring program, Mr. 
President, in Kosovo. It is ``aimed at bringing peace to this strife-
torn region.'' I don't know of any Senator or anybody or any observer 
who would object to that. But it is not entirely clear what these 
observers will accomplish other than to report on the obvious, and that 
is, there is a small war in Kosovo and we have been unable to influence 
its cessation.
  This observer group is comprised of about 40 diplomats and ``military 
experts'' attached to the embassies in Belgrade. Our ``military 
experts'' are unarmed U.S. military forces from the European Command, 
and they are specifically trained for this mission.
  Here are my concerns: In Kosovo, we are, once again, backing into a 
military commitment, just as we did in Bosnia--and I hate to use this 
example but I think it is applicable--and in Vietnam. The term of 
``unarmed military observers'' or ``experts'' brings back some pretty 
sad memories of other wars that we have backed into. We are running a 
great risk that our military experts or diplomats could be in harm's 
way. As a matter of fact, in terms of hearings yesterday in the 
Intelligence Committee, we were talking about the priorities in regard 
to intelligence assets in certain countries, and force protection, 
obviously, plays a big role in that. So if we have our intelligence 
assets certainly supporting our troops in that part of the world, it 
gives real evidence that this is the case.
  NATO is conducting contingency planning that could involve thousands 
of military troops to separate the warring factions or impose peace--it 
has been estimated anywhere from 7,000 to 25,000 troops, even more.

[[Page S9328]]

  The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, at a 
briefing when the Secretary of State briefed a bipartisan group of 
Senators on what was happening in regard to India and Pakistan, 
actually warned the Secretary of State and said we do not have the 
personnel, we do not have the means, we do not have the materiel to 
commit those kinds of troops, that kind of involvement with regard to 
Kosovo, without emergency funding, without certainly stepping up our 
support, both in terms of funds and in terms of troops.
  The costs of involvement in Kosovo, both in dollars and the impact on 
an already-stressed military, are potentially devastating. The chairman 
indicated that in his discussion with the national security team and 
with the administration.
  There are many unanswered questions of how this conflict in Kosovo is 
in our vital national interest. I think a good case can be made for our 
involvement in Kosovo. I just came back with the distinguished chairman 
of the Senate Intelligence Committee from taking a look at the three 
new NATO countries, what our intelligence assets are there and what the 
situation is there. Every official there, every foreign minister, every 
president indicated that Kosovo was in the interest of NATO and peace 
in Europe. But there are some very serious unanswered questions, and 
there are unexplained scenarios of the conflict in Kosovo leading to a 
larger war in Europe if this war is not ended now.
  But my primary concern is that this whole business has yet to be 
addressed by the administration or, for that matter, to some degree, 
the Congress in any substantive way. He cannot, nor will Congress let 
him, commit the men and women of our Armed Forces without defining our 
national interests, the objectives, and the exit strategy for any 
involvement in Kosovo.
  In the military, Mr. President, there is a term called a warning 
order, which is sort of a heads-up that some action is coming your way 
and, as the commander, you should start planning on how you would 
handle that action.
  The amendment I offer today, which is consistent with the amendment 
that was accepted on a bipartisan basis during the last defense 
appropriations bill in regard to Bosnia, is a kind of a ``warning 
order.'' The intent is to let the administration know that before they 
decide to deploy the military to the region as a result of the conflict 
in Kosovo, we need to address some salient points before Congress will 
fund the deployment. It is that simple.
  The Congress and, more importantly, the American people need to 
understand at least the following information, and information required 
by the amendment. They are as follows:
  No. 1, certification that such a deployment is necessary in the 
national interests of the United States;
  No. 2, to explain the reasons why the deployment is in the national 
security interests of the United States;
  No. 3, to define the number of U.S. military forces to be deployed to 
each country;
  No. 4, to explain the mission and the objectives of the forces to be 
deployed;
  No. 5, to discuss the expected schedule for accomplishing the 
objectives of the deployment;
  No. 6, what is the exit strategy for U.S. forces engaged in 
deployment, if that is possible;
  No. 7, what are the expected costs associated with the deployment and 
the funding source for paying these costs.
  I am going to terminate my remarks very quickly, because I know the 
time schedule here. Let me point out that when Ambassador Gelbard and 
General Wesley Clark appeared before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee and reported again on Bosnia and again said that the mission 
had changed and again said that the objective or the end game could not 
be defined, I pointed out that it could be in our national interest 
that we are in Bosnia and that while it was ill-defined, while the 
mission was changed, my main complaint--and I think one of the 
complaints shared by the distinguished chairman--is that the 
administration didn't fund it and the money is coming out of readiness 
and procurement and modernization, and that has to stop.
  What are the expected costs associated with the deployment and the 
funding source?
  What are the anticipated effects of the deployment on the morale, 
retention, and effectiveness of U.S. forces?
  I think, Mr. President, that Bosnia is the perfect example of why 
such a ``warning order'' is necessary. We have expended over $10 
billion in Bosnia.
  We have yet to answer most of the questions contained in this 
amendment: Why is it in our national interest to continue to be there? 
How many troops do we need? How and when do we get out? And how are we 
going to pay for it?
  I am a strong believer, Mr. President, that once the U.S. flag--the 
U.S. credibility--is ``planted,'' that we must support the U.S. 
position rather than embarrass or put our troops at risk. My intent is 
simply to go on record now before we get involved in yet another 
entanglement in yet another region of the Balkans--before the flag is 
planted and the troops are deployed.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I commend Senator Roberts. He is 
following the path that he followed last year. The Senate adopted his 
amendment that he presented last year, which has had a salutary effect 
on the considerations involved in Bosnia. And we will soon have 
announced the basic reduction in forces in Bosnia, brought about in 
many ways because of the study that Senator Roberts' amendment last 
year mandated.
  I have reviewed this with my friend from Hawaii. And I note that he 
has put in even another provision this year that recognizes that there 
might be an emergency that would be such where the President would not 
have time to prepare the report that is listed. I think that is very 
wise to offer that flexibility to the administration.
  I am prepared to accept this amendment. I ask the Senator from Hawaii 
what his views would be concerning Senator Roberts' amendment?
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I join my chairman in commending our dear 
friend. Once again, he has taken the initiative and leadership in this 
important area. Thank you very much.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3393) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. 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.
  Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding that the Senator from Washington 
wishes to speak on a subject that is not related to the bill. I am 
pleased to afford my good southern friend that opportunity. I ask him, 
how much time does he wish?
  Mr. GORTON. Ten minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator have 10 minutes 
for a statement as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alaska for the use 
of this time, and I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Texas, 
who is here with an important amendment, in granting me this time.

                          ____________________