[Pages S12151-S12166]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATO ENLARGEMENT

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today as one who has been a long-
standing supporter of NATO. For this reason, I am a cosponsor of the
Brown amendment, the NATO Participation Act Amendments of 1995.
Mr. President, no other issue is more crucial to European security
than NATO's relationship with Central and Eastern Europe. Today, we are
in the midst of an historical era, an era of transition, the so-called
post-cold-war era. It is a phase in which the strategic landscape of
Europe is particularly malleable. It is a phase that will not last
forever and which will end sooner rather than later.
How the alliance manages its relationship with the nations of this
region during this period will determine whether or not Europe will
ultimately benefit from an enduring and stable peace.
Careful, gradual, but undeterred enlargement of NATO should be the
geopolitical priority of America's Europe policy. The alliance is
uniquely qualified to provide the institutional foundation for regional
security and peace. No other institution, including the European Union
and the Organization for Security and Cooperation, combine the two
necessary requisites to serve in this role: a transatlantic dimension
and proven operational capability.
The Brown amendment explicitly endorses and facilitates a process of
NATO expansion. If passed, this amendment would authorize the President
to establish programs to facilitate the integration of Poland, the
Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary as well as other Central and
Eastern European nations into the alliance.
Passage of this amendment would be an important step toward
establishing a system of European security consisting of two pillars:
an enlarged NATO and a strategic partnership between the alliance and
Russia.
With the end of the Cold War, Central and Eastern Europe once again
find themselves outside of any viable security structure. The region
is, in essence, a security vacuum between NATO's eastern frontier and
Russia. Both recent- and long-term history show us that the region's
strategic vulnerability has been a source of instability on the
continent--with calamitous consequences that drew the United States
into two World Wars.
Extending the alliance's membership to the nations of Central and
Eastern Europe, beginning with the nations of Poland, Czechia,
Slovakia, and Hungary, will help transform this region from a source of
instability into a cornerstone of peace.
NATO enlargement would help facilitate the economic and political
integration of this region into the West. The absence of a stable
security environment only exacerbates fears and insecurities that
jeopardize the political and economic reform necessary for integration
to occur.
NATO enlargement would project greater stability into Eastern and
Central Europe and thereby enable the

[[Page S 12152]]
region's nations to more confidently focus on their internal
challenges. Mr. President, security is not an alternative to reform,
but it is essential for reform to occur.
I must add, Mr. President, that the adoption of this amendment would
send a much-needed signal of American support to the nations of Central
and Eastern Europe and the reform efforts within them. It has been over
5 years since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and nearly 5 years since
the implosion of the Soviet Union. Many in Central and Eastern Europe
have been disillusioned with the West and the United States for our
failure to more aggressively embrace these nations into the
transatlantic community.
Mr. President, passage of this amendment would demonstrate the
America's commitment to consolidating an enlarged Europe, and it would
give more incentive to all the nations of Central and Eastern Europe to
continue their reforms.
Second, two great European powers, Germany and Russia, are now
undergoing very complex and sensitive transformations. Their outcomes
will be significantly shaped by the future of Central and Eastern
Europe. The extension of NATO membership to Central and Eastern Europe,
beginning with Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, and Hungary, would positively
influence the evolution of these two great powers.
Germany, as a consequence of the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and
German reunification, has become more concerned about developments
beyond its new eastern frontiers. And today, Germany is more capable of
independently addressing her relations with Central and Eastern Europe.
Failure to adequately realize the integration of this region into the
West is likely to foster a more nationalist security policy in Germany.
In fact, this is a fear that Bonn's politicians and experts openly
articulate. NATO enlargement would further lock German interests into a
transatlantic security structure and consolidate the positive role Bonn
plays in European affairs.
NATO enlargement would also assist Russia's democratic evolution. It
would do so by enhancing Russia's own security and by bringing Europe
closer to Russia.
Of all of Europe's reborn nations, Russia is experiencing the most
revolutionary and difficult transformation. Following the collapse of
the Soviet Union, Russia is adjusting to the unraveling of an empire
and the return to frontiers dating back to the 16th century.
By enhancing and reinforcing stability in Eastern Europe, NATO
enlargement would make unrealistic the calls by Moscow's extremists for
Russia's westward expansion. Greater stability along Russia's frontiers
will enable Moscow to direct more of its energy toward the internal
challenges of political and economic reform.
There are two other geopolitical dangers consequent to the
perpetuation of isolation and insecurity in Central and Eastern Europe:
Isolation not only fosters the nationalization of the foreign and
security policies of Germany and Russia, but also of the nations within
the region.
Additionally, Eastern Europe's institutional separation from Europe
and the West certainly sustains Russia's sense of isolation and thereby
risks revitalizing its historic sense of alienation from European
affairs. These dynamics could well present unfortunate opportunities,
if not incentives, for great power revanchism.
Mr. President, allow me to address some of the key arguments being
made against NATO enlargement:
Moscow's sensitivities are frequently highlighted as arguments
against NATO enlargement. Proponents of this view claim that because
Russia perceives NATO enlargement as part of an effort to isolate her
from the rest of Europe, we risk prompting a more aggressive and
dangerous Russian foreign policy.
It is absolutely essential that Russia not be given the false
impression that NATO enlargement is designed to isolate Moscow from
Europe. That is why I support the establishment of a strategic
partnership between the alliance and Russia. This intent is reiterated
clearly and forthrightly in the Brown amendment.
At the same time we must not overreact to outdated Russian
sensitivities at the expense of strategic realities and objectives
central to the interests of the alliance, as well as the United States.
The fact is that Russia is far from being an isolated nation. Today,
Moscow benefits from special bilateral relationships with the nations
of the transatlantic community, especially the United States and
Germany. It is a member of the U.N. Security Council, an active
participant of the OSCE, and has recently become a member of NATO's
Partnership for Peace program. Russia is a chief recipient of foreign
assistance from the United States and the European Union, not to
mention the IMF and World Bank.
In many ways, Russia enjoys far greater engagement with the West than
is now enjoyed by any of our Central and East European neighbors.
Let me emphasize that it will not be NATO enlargement that will shape
Russia's relationship with the alliance, but Moscow's reaction to
enlargement. If Moscow resists the process through intimidation or
aggression, NATO enlargement will more likely be directed against
Russia.
On the other hand, if Russia respects the rights of other nations to
determine their own geopolitical destinies, if Russia recognizes the
objective benefits of NATO enlargement, and ultimately works with the
alliance in this process, NATO enlargement will contribute to a broad
process of engagement and integration that will bring Europe and Russia
closer together.
A second argument against NATO enlargement is that it risks creating
new and destabilizing lines within Central and Eastern Europe.
The fact is that our legislation works to eliminate lines from a
bygone era by replacing them with a process of inclusion reaching out
to all the nations of Central and Eastern Europe. Those nations that
would not be in the first group of states admitted to NATO would
benefit in two ways:
These nations would end up less isolated from the Alliance. They
would no longer be left on the distant fringes of a gray zone in
European security. Geographically, they would be closer to NATO, if not
bordering the alliance. Most importantly, they would be part of a
region being actively integrated into the West.
A third argument one hears against our legislation is that it smacks
of American unilateralism in Europe and would undermine NATO cohesion.
Mr. President, this legislation endorses a vision of European
security. It does not impose it upon our allies. It in no way
undermines the Washington Treaty and its chapters governing the
accession of new members. It does require the President to undertake
programs that will help the nations of Central and Eastern Europe
prepare themselves for the responsibilities of NATO membership.
I can think of no European Ally that would oppose any of these
programs. By enabling the nations of Central and Eastern Europe to more
effectively cooperate with the Allies, we are assisting the interests
of all our Allies.
Mr. President, let me close by emphasizing that NATO enlargement is
not a unique historical step. It has already occurred on three separate
occasions since 1949 with nations whose levels of democratic
development at that time are clearly matched by that found today among
the nations of Central and Eastern Europe.
Enlargement is a process for which the alliance has always been
geared. Indeed, article 10 of the Washington Treaty provides for the
enlargement of the alliance to any European state ``in a position to
further the principals of this Treaty and to contribute to the security
of the North Atlantic area.''
Mr. President, current policy is overly concerned with Russia's
psychological well-being and insufficiently focused on central
objectives. America's policies toward Europe must be structured to
shape a strategic landscape that enhances economic, political, and
military stability in all parts of Europe. That should be our national
interest--and that is the intent of the NATO Participation Act
Amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Brown
amendment be set aside temporarily so we may proceed with another
Bingaman amendment.

[[Page S 12153]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2392

(Purpose: To strike out section 8082, relating to progress payments)

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

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an
amendment numbered 2392.
On page 81, strike out lines 16 through 20.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment which I
do not think anyone should have any difficulty understanding. It
relates to the earlier amendment I offered only in one respect, in that
I did propose to amend this same section there as well. But this does
not relate, I would point out to my colleagues who are here on the
floor, to the LHD-7. It does not relate to ongoing operations. It does
not relate to any specific funding program or any specific project in
the defense bill.
What it does is it says this provision which was included in the bill
to require the Department of Defense to make 85-percent progress
payments, rather than 75-percent progress payments as does the rest of
the Federal Government, should be stricken from the bill.
This is a particularly bad provision. This is section 8082 on page 81
of the bill. It says:

None of the funds available to the Department of Defense
shall be made available to make progress payments based on
costs to large business concerns at rates lower than 85
percent on contract solicitation issued after enactment of
this act.

This provision, which I am proposing we eliminate from the bill, is
particularly objectionable because it is limited to large business
concerns. Why do we want to make 85-percent payments to large business
concerns and retain the 75-percent progress payment to any other
business concern, as is presently the case? Why do we want to have one
set of rules which are more advantageous for defense contractors than
the set of rules we have for all other contractors?
I have great difficulty understanding the rationale for this. I am
not just raising this as a philosophical issue. According to the
figures we have been given, these five lines in the defense bill cost
the American taxpayer $488 million. This is $488 million that the
Department of Defense is going to have to spend in the 1996 fiscal year
more than otherwise would be the case because of these five lines.
All I am saying is we have some other needs in this country besides
speeding up the rate at which we pay defense contractors. We need to
pay these defense contractors. They need to be profitable. We do not
want to fall behind on our payments. I agree with all of that. But I do
not see why it is in the best interests of the people I represent in
New Mexico, or the general public in this country, for us to spend $488
million in this way in the next fiscal year.
So I think clearly the merits are on changing this to just
eliminating this provision, allow us to continue the present
arrangement where we pay defense contractors just as we pay others,
particularly these large business concerns which are talked about in
this language.
Mr. President, in discussing the earlier amendment I also went over
this issue to some extent and pointed out that these so-called large
business concerns--I assume that term, although that is a fairly new
term, at least in any bill I have seen--I assume that within that
definition of a large business concern you would include the 20 top
defense contractors that do business with the Federal Government. Just
as in the previous debate I asked then to have printed in the Record a
copy of the financial performance of the top 20 Department of Defense
contractors during the first quarter of 1995, I again ask unanimous
consent we print that as part of this debate.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF TOP 20 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTORS
[1st quarter 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return on Return on
Company Profits Sales Assets assets sales
(millions) (millions) (millions) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McDonnell Douglas..................................... $159.0 $3,333 $12,026 5.3 4.8
Lockheed-Martin....................................... 137.0 5,644 8,961 6.1 2.4
Martin Marietta (See Lockheed-Martin)
General Motors........................................ 2,154.0 43,285 188,201 4.6 5.0
Raytheon.............................................. 173.90 2,387 7,258 9.6 7.3
United Technologies................................... 135.0 5,344 15,618 3.5 2.5
Northrop.............................................. 54.0 1,617 2,919 7.4 3.3
General Dynamics...................................... 60.0 753 2,635 9.1 8.0
Loral................................................. 94.8 1,459 3,228 11.7 6.5
Grumman (See Northrup-Grumman)
Boeing................................................ 181.0 5,037 20,450 3.5 3.6
General Electric...................................... 1,372.0 15,126 251,506 2.2 9.1
Westinghouse Electric................................. 15.0 2,024 10,553 0.6 0.7
Litton Industries..................................... 28.6 694 3,834 3.0 4.1
National Steel & Shipbuilding......................... 44.7 753 2,304 7.8 5.9
Rockwell International................................ 191.4 3,361 9,885 7.7 5.7
TRW................................................... 114.7 2,596 5,336 8.6 4.4
Texas Instruments..................................... 230.0 2,862 5,993 15.4 8.0
Textron............................................... 109.0 2,387 19,658 2.2 4.6
Tenneco............................................... 153.0 2,163 15,373 4.0 7.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Business Week Corporate Data.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, when you go down this list it is a list
of some of our best corporations. They do a superb job in supplying
products and services for the Department of Defense: McDonnell Douglas,
Lockheed-Martin, Martin Marietta, General Motors, Raytheon, United
Technologies, Northrop, General Dynamics, Loral, Grumman, Boeing,
General Electric, Westinghouse Electric, Litton Industries, National
Steel & Shipbuilding, Rockwell International, TRW, Texas Instruments,
Textron, Tenneco.
Mr. President, I do not believe that these companies should get any
worse treatment than any other company that does business with the
Government. I think they should be treated well. The Government should
pay its bills on time. The Government should pay its bills promptly.
I think it is appropriate we make the customary progress payments as
they complete work on a contract. The customary progress payments are
75 percent--you get paid for 75 percent of the work completed--then
there is some portion held back to ensure that the entire job is done
well and you can pay the rest at the end of the contract. That is the
customary way in which contracting is done.
I do not think it is worth $488 million to the American people to
change that, just for this next fiscal year, and begin paying them an
extra 10 percent as part of these progress payments. It just makes no
sense to me.
I argued long and hard yesterday to try to get support from my
colleagues for $26 million in funding for Indian education. This was
not new money. This was to try to keep the 1995 level of funding again
in 1996. We were turned down. People said there is not enough money, we
cannot do it.
In light of that, if those are the circumstances we face, if we do
not have enough money, if we are trying to balance the budget, and
clearly there is a legitimate desire to get to a balanced budget by
many Members of this body, then clearly people should support this
effort to cut out this $488 million from the bill. So I urge my
colleagues to support the amendment. I think it speaks for itself. I do
not believe we will need additional time.
Mr. President, I address a question to the manager of the bill, the
Senator from Alaska. If the Senator from Alaska could respond to a
question, if he would like to have the same kind of arrangement of 2
minutes for and 2 minutes against prior to a vote on this, I would have
no objection to that course of action.
Mr. STEVENS. I join in asking unanimous consent that when I make the
motion to table there be an understanding that before that vote there
will be 2 minutes on each side--2 minutes for the Senator from New
Mexico and 2 minutes for someone to oppose this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my hope we will have another
amendment to present soon here. So we can hopefully stack the votes and
have a vote sometime around 4:30, hopefully, on all four of these
amendments.
We are looking for one other. We know there is one other that will
take about half hour on each side.
Let me say on this one that I understand the Senator from New Mexico.
It is a very technical issue that he has raised. Actually, the current
progress payment level that the Department is using now is 75 percent.
This is a regulation that is trying to force the Department of
Defense to keep their progress payments at a specific level that deals
with outlays. That is why I say it is very technical.

[[Page S 12154]]
We have outlays when we authorize funds. We authorize $1 million for
one project. They actually might spend half of that the first year.
That would be an outlay of 50 percent. If we have another project and
they only spend 25 percent the first year, it would be an outlay of 25
percent for the first year.
This is dealing with the outlays, and progress payments are related
to those outlays in the current year. We have raised it to 85 percent
because we have a surplus of outlays for 1996 as compared to
authorization. Therefore, that will force the Department to keep its
payments up to make sure that we are not carrying over until the next
year payments that should be made this year. If they were not made this
year and carried over to the next year, it would mean we might not be
able to use the authorizations that we have for the next year in order
to bring about outlays in 1997.
Under the circumstances, I oppose the Senator's amendment, because
the fair way to keep the contractors coming to the Department of
Defense to do work is to see that they are assured that they will not
get less than a specific amount on their progress payments per a time
period of the year. If they do not get the progress payments, they have
to go out and borrow money to continue their operation, and it
increases the cost in the next year because, by definition, that
becomes a cost to the contract. And we are much better off when we have
the outlays available to force the Department to make their payments on
time and, therefore, reduce the amount of money that contractors borrow
and later charge us the interest on the borrowing.
When interest rates are low, we are not that compelled to do this.
But when they get higher, there is an absolute compulsion to do it.
That is why I say we are dealing with a current regulation of 75
percent. We put this in. This is a provision of our bill that goes up
to 85 percent. It will keep the contractors, particularly the smaller
contractors, as the Senator from New Mexico mentioned--I disagree with
him on his conclusion--this means smaller contractors will be more
attracted to doing business with the Department of Defense.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes has expired.
Mr. STEVENS. That is a misunderstanding, Mr. President. The 2 minutes
applies to the time after I have made the motion to table. We want the
opportunity for the Senator from New Mexico to explain his amendment
just before the vote.
There will be a series of votes. Under this, there will be the third
vote that we will have stacked. The Senator will have 2 minutes, and I
or someone here will have 2 minutes to respond. I apologize to the
Chair for the misunderstanding.
But, again I say to the Senator, what we are doing is not only
assisting the smaller contractors who want to work on defense business
this time. The normal payment, everyone realizes, would be 100 percent.
If you have a progress payment concept in your contract, you get 100
percent of your progress payments.
The Department of Defense was not keeping up with those payments. So
we said, ``You have to pay at least 75 percent. You can never fall
behind more than 25 percent in any progress payment period.'' Now we
have told them, ``You have to go to 85 percent,'' because that forces
them to assure contractors that they will get 85 percent of the
progress payments they are entitled to under the contract in 1996.
Again, I say to my friend, it is very technical. It is related to the
Senator's first amendment because his first amendment would be subject
to a point of order if it was not possible to have outlays available,
and this amendment makes those outlays available. If the first
amendment were to carry, the second amendment would have to carry, too.
At least that is my understanding of the intertwining of them.
He also has a principle involved. I appreciate the principle. There
is a disagreement between the two of us over what is accomplished by a
progress payment mandate.
I would be happy to let the Senator proceed. I do not know of anyone
else on this side who wants to have time. He understands that I will
make a motion to table when he has finished with his remarks.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator
from Alaska. I will make just a few more remarks to clarify.
First of all, this amendment strikes a provision that sets up a
different procedure for progress payments to large business concerns.
That is what the statute says. It does not say small business. It says
large business concerns. We set up a requirement for 85 percent
progress payments for large business concerns. The 75 percent which is
customary in the industry remains the procedure for all others.
So this is not a way to help small businesses; this is a way to help
large defense contractors.
To my knowledge, Mr. President, I do not believe anybody could come
to the floor and critique or disagree with me on this.
Mr. STEVENS. I would like to disagree. This is the second time the
Senator made the point. The Senator realizes that under our provision,
progress payments for small business will rise to 90 percent and
progress payments for small disadvantaged businesses will rise to 95
percent because we have not changed the formula under existing law
which forces the Department to pay small businesses higher than the
larger concerns. So if we set the larger concerns at 85, under existing
procedures the small business automatically is at 90, and the small
disadvantaged at 95.
So the Senator has implied that this does not apply to small
business. To the contrary, it applies to a greater extent to small
business.
Does he understand that?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate that clarification. The
language I am trying to strike out is limited to large business
concerns, and there may be some provision elsewhere that applies to
smaller businesses and their progress payments.
But let me again make the point that I was making initially. That is,
we do not have a problem with the profitability of our large defense
contractors. They are all profitable today. They are all reporting
record profits today. Their stocks reflect that. In all respects they
are doing extremely well. And I wish them well. I have no problem with
that.
I think the suggestion that the Senator from Alaska made that the
normal practice is to make 100 percent progress payments is just not in
my recollection of how business is done. I have been in Government a
while. But I can remember before I got in the Government hiring
contractors to do some simple things like building an office building
for me. I had a contract where I made progress payments as that office
building was completed. There was no suggestion by any contractor that
I should make 100 percent progress payments as we went forward. The
understanding was we would keep back some of the money until the
project was completed, and that was an incentive to the contractor to
complete the project on time and to my specifications.
So I can remember building an office project or an office building in
Santa Fe, NM, and the progress payments there were 75 percent. I cannot
believe that these various defense contractors whose names I read off
before, which are some of the largest, most successful, most profitable
corporations in the country, are not used to doing business on the same
basis.
So the argument that we have to raise these progress payments this
year in order to look out for the financial well-being of these large
defense contractors is somewhat hard for me to believe. I strongly
believe that we have here $488 million that we could save in this bill.
I think the simple truth is, this bill as it came out of the
committee has in it nearly $1.3 billion of outlays; that the budget
resolution, as I understand it, has about $1.3 billion of outlays that
are not needed, and, therefore, we have provisions like this in the
bill to try to soak up some of those outlays.
Mr. President, I do not believe it is reasonable to tell the American
people we are going to charge them $488 million next year in order that
we can advance these progress payments or increase them to 85 percent
for major defense contractors. We have other needs in this country for
some of this money. Clearly, if we have an extra $488 million, we ought
to spend it on some of those other needs and not be spending it on this
kind of provision.

[[Page S 12155]]

So I do hope that my colleagues will support the effort to strike the
provision when it comes to a vote later.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, that again shows our disagreement. The
Senator is correct. We have an allocation to our subcommittee of more
outlays than we can use with the budget authority that was given us
because a lot of the budget authority was taken away and used in areas
where they do not have the outlays that we might have had.
We looked at this and we saw that there was a group of contracts out
there and if they increased the rate of compliance with existing
contract provisions now, they would use those outlays this year. If
they do not comply with the contract provisions, it shifts the money
into next year, where we might then have to use money under these
contracts and not be able to pay for the costs of whatever it might
be--the DDG-51's, the pay raise that is coming, whatever it might be.
We are asked now not to use this money because the rate of payment of
bills is too slow. We are saying you must get at least an 85 percent
level of compliance with your own contracts now in making payments for
defense contractors.
And again, when we say that it is based on the cost of large
businesses, that automatically means that for small businesses it is 5
percent higher, and for disadvantaged small businesses it is 5 percent
higher than that. So what we are saying is use this money now. We do
not want you to stretch these contracts out because in doing so you
cause the contractors to borrow money which goes on the next year's
bill.
In addition to that, what it means is we are denied the ability to
meet the schedule for bringing on-line these other items that are being
authorized by the authorization committee. We will have to tell the
authorization committee, if we do not do this, next year we will have
to tell them we are sorry, we did not use the outlays last year; we
have shifted them to next year, and although you have been authorized
this money we cannot allow you to spend it because we do not have the
outlays to allocate to you.
This is an accounting principle, and the Senator is very astute in
finding it because most people would not find it. But we have done that
for the purpose of assuring that we do not fail to keep up with the
rate of payment.
Incidentally, I am just a country lawyer. As far as I am concerned,
if I submit a bill, they ought to pay 100 percent of it, right? And we
find they are not even paying 75 percent. This says you must pay at
least 85 percent of the progress payments that are presented to you
that are due and payable within the year 1996.
So based upon the understanding that we have, I do move to table the
Senator's amendment with the understanding that we will have 2 minutes
on each side prior to the time that it will come to a vote, and we
expect that vote to come sometime, I would say, around 4:20, 4:30,
because we are going to have another couple of amendments brought up
here.
I do make that motion to table with that understanding. Is that
agreeable?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has allowed 2 minutes to a side.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.

Striking of Section 8078

Now, Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Vermont has a
statement. But I also understand the Senator from Oklahoma has worked
out an amendment with the Senator from Hawaii. If he wants to offer
that at this time, may we get this out of the way, I ask the Senator?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes. I am going to offer an amendment and withdraw it.
Mr. STEVENS. This will just take a minute.
Mr. INHOFE. This will just take a minute.
Let me compliment both the Senator from Hawaii and the Senator from
Alaska for being understanding and looking at an amendment with which I
have a problem. I believe the section, which is 8078, clearly violates
the current statutory 60-40 relationship between contract and private
maintenance, inhouse depot maintenance.
I also believe that this section would violate the intent of the
whole BRAC process.
I appreciate very much the willingness of the Senator from Hawaii to
pull out section 8078, and I inquire of the chairman of the committee,
is it necessary to propose it as an amendment?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that section 8078
be deleted from the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. INOUYE. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this section would have allowed the Air
Force to compete core workload. The Pentagon and the Congress have
indicated that core workload is so critical to America's readiness to
go to war that this work must be done by the Pentagon in its depots.
In addition to this, the GAO has a draft report on this very issue
that indicates that competing the workload addressed in this section
does not make sense based on the excess capacity in the Air Force
Depots.
By striking this section of the bill, core workload is retained in
the Pentagon's depot system as outlined in Pentagon policy and title 10
of the U.S. Code. It also follows the recommendations of the GAO
report.
The effort to get this section stricken from the bill was truly a
team effort on the part of myself and my State colleague, Mr. Inhofe.
I want to thank my friend Mr. Inhofe for his efforts. I also want to
thank the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee staff, as well as
Senators Stevens and Inouye who have managed this bill in their
customary fair and open manner.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand there is some
misunderstanding. I did move to table the first Bingaman amendment. If
there is any misunderstanding, for the Record, I again move to table
the Bingaman amendment with the understanding that there are 8 minutes
on a side for debate on that amendment when it first comes up.

Amendment No. 2393

(Purpose: To provide funding for certain impact aid)

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
existing pending amendment be set aside temporarily for the purpose of
offering an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. The amendment is at the desk, I believe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] proposes an
amendment numbered 2393.

Mr. JEFFORDS. 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 82, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

SEC. 8087. FUNDING FOR CERTAIN IMPACT AID.

(a) In General.--Of the funds appropriated by the
provisions of this Act, $400,000,000 shall be available for
carrying out programs of financial assistance to local
educational agencies authorized by title VIII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, of which--
(1) $340,000,000 shall be for payments under section
8003(b) of that Act;
(2) $20,000,000 shall be for payments under section 8003(d)
of that Act; and
(3) $40,000,000 shall be for payments under section 8003(f)
of that Act, which amount shall remain available until
expended.
(b) Limitations on Availability of Funds.--(1) Funds
available under subsection (a) shall be used only for
payments on behalf of children described in subparagraph
(A)(ii), (B), and (D) of section 8003(a)(1) of that Act.
(2) Such funds may not be used for payments under section
8003(e) of that Act.
(3) Such funds shall be governed by the provisions of title
VIII of that Act.
(c) Payment Amounts.--(1) Payment amounts for local
educational agencies shall be calculated by the Secretary of
Education under the provisions of title VIII of that Act
based on the total amounts provided to the Department of
Education and the Department of Defense for Impact Aid.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall distribute funds to
local educational agencies based on calculations under
paragraph (1).
(d) Offset.--The amount made available by subsection (a)
shall be derived from a reduction in the amounts appropriated
by this Act. In achieving the reduction, a reduction of an
equal percentage shall be made from each account (other than
the amount from

[[Page S 12156]]
which the funds under subsection (a) are made available) for which
funds are appropriated by this Act.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Let us step back for a moment and think about the big
picture here. Our job is to set the priorities for the Nation, and in
doing so, restore the economic health of our Nation by putting the
budget on the path towards balance. If we fail to make spending cuts,
our children will pay a terrible price. And if we make those cuts
inappropriately, or by some strict formula without regard to merit,
they will pay an equally harsh price. Our job is to prioritize, to
carefully scrutinize the relative value of the various functions of
Government and to decide how a shrinking resource base should best be
divided.
To do this exercise properly requires the ability to examine each
area of the budget on its own merit and to move funds appropriately.
Personally, I believe that the construction of firewalls hinders that
ability. Firewalls separate off certain areas of the budget and remove
them from consideration, forcing us to make tradeoffs within certain
limited areas of the budget. However, I am aware that the Senate went
on record again last week in support of retaining the firewalls between
defense and domestic spending. And while I disagree with this decision,
since it has prevailed, we must look carefully at the full implications
of that policy.
The premise of firewalls is that the Department of Defense should not
have to pick up the tab for nondefense spending. And should not the
reverse also then apply--that other departments should not be picking
up the tab for costs incurred by the Department of Defense? I believe
so, and I think the majority of my colleagues will agree with me.
One area where the Department of Defense has traditionally enjoyed a
reprieve from carrying its full weight is that of impact aid. Current
law recognizes that local communities surrounding military
installations incur costs in the education of military dependents that
are not collectable in the traditional manner of local governments
because the installations do not pay taxes to the towns. Impact aid was
designed to offset these costs and ensure that military children are
not relegated to a second-rate education.
But, Mr. President, the funding for impact aid currently comes
entirely out of the Department of Education. Yet, this is clearly a
cost incurred by the Department of Defense. DOD has accepted the
responsibility of bearing the full costs of educating military
dependents overseas--why should it be allowed to shirk its
responsibility for offsetting the costs that it incurs at home?
The amendment that I am offering on behalf of myself and Senators
Harkin and Simon does not increase Federal spending by one dime. Nor
does it effect in any way the formula devised for distributing aid to
impacted communities. All it does is to ensure that DOD pick up the
costs it incurs instead of continuing to pass those costs off to the
Department of Education. If we are to have firewalls, Mr. President,
then it is only fair that they be respected in each direction.
It is important that my colleagues recognize the backdrop against
which we are operating. While defense spending has declined in the past
decade, it has done so only moderately, particularly in the context of
a greatly reduced threat to the security of the United States. The
disappearance of our chief adversary entitles the American people to
reap some of the fruits of this hard won victory. And this must
translate into being able to direct some of our national investment
away from armaments and into the real bulwarks of national defense--a
sound economy, a vibrant technological base and a topnotch educational
system.
But this is not what we see happening here. Federal spending for
education has been cut. Since 1983, education's share of total Federal
expenditures decreased by more than 25 percent, falling at a time when
poverty is on the rise. More than one-quarter of all our future front-
line workers are now growing up in poverty, a statistic unparalleled
among advanced industrialized nations.
And compared to these competitors, our students are failing.
Thirteen-year-olds in the United States are at the bottom in math and
science performance, subjects which are key to our future economic
viability, scoring lower than 15 competitor nations. We have already
begun to see the consequences as our students fall farther behind. Over
the past 20 years, real income in the United States has grown at a rate
5 times slower than in Canada, 6 times slower than in Germany, 7 times
slower than in Italy, France, and Japan, and 8 times slower than the
United Kingdom.
More than half a trillion dollars in GDP is lost each year because we
fail to educate our people. We spend $208 billion in welfare
expenditures and $200 billion for employment training. In addition, the
fact that 50 percent of adults in this country are functionally
illiterate costs the marketplace $225 billion in lost wages each year.
Thus, this amendment goes beyond the Washington rhetoric of arcane
budgetary terms such as fire walls. This goes to the heart of the
defense of our country--our education.
Mr. President, I offer this amendment because I think it is an
incredibly important issue of concern to a great number of Members.
However, let me inform my colleagues that it is my intention to
withdraw the amendment and to propose it on the authorization bill when
it comes up later. I am confident that there will be general support
for this issue when it is fully understood.
As I have said previously, my first concern is with education. I am
not going to speak at length, as I have to my colleagues in the past,
about the serious problems this Nation faces with respect to its
educational programs. I only point out that our deficiencies seriously
threaten our economic capacity and our ability to have the best trained
people engaged in the defense of this Nation. Instead, I would like to
talk about the children of military personnel and about the history of
what this Nation did to make sure the communities in which they reside
and are educated are not punished by a loss of property tax revenue.
Some 40 years ago or more, I believe back as far as 1949, impact aid
was designed to assist local communities educate the children of our
military personnel.
Impact aid makes payments to local education agencies to make up for
the shortfall of funds to the communities in which they reside. The
purpose, therefore, was to help military kids. After the creation of
the Department of Education, funding for impact aid was transferred to
the Department. However, the payments still are made to the local
educational agencies.
So I believe the history is clear that these costs are incurred by
Department of Defense personnel, and the fact that it is now funded out
of the Department of Education does not change that. I believe upon
further study of this issue my colleagues will agree with my conclusion
that this is not a firewalls issue.
The House has made roughly a 10-percent cut in impact aid. Those of
us who represent not only military children but all of the children of
this country are going to look at areas where we can, under the force
of the budget, shift the funding responsibilities for those programs
which rightfully belong in other departments. There is no question that
history establishes the obligation for impact aid with the Department
of Defense.
At this particular time in our history, to quote a very fine
editorial from David Broder, it is ``just plain dumb'' to be cutting
educational funds, whether those funds are used for establishing the
necessary standards to make sure we are competitive worldwide or
whether they are used for the general education and the general health
of the Nation. It is just plain dumb to be cutting our investments in
human capital--which would otherwise increase our revenues and decrease
our social costs--while attempting to eradicate the deficit.
So, Mr. President, I would like to say that it is an obligation of
the Department of Defense to take care of its own children. They do
that now in the DOD schools. They send direct payments to the DOD
schools. The DOD also sends direct payments to local educational
agencies, but those funds are being cut back. They are not, however,
cutting back the funding for DOD schools.

[[Page S 12157]]

Hence, my goal is to ensure equal provisions for the education for the
children of our military personnel. It is a perfectly legitimate issue
to raise. Please note, though, that we are not discussing or
considering other impact aid provisions which should rightfully be the
responsibility of the Department of Education.
Mr. President, I do not intend to speak much longer, but I want to
reiterate that I do not believe this is a question of firewalls or
anything else. This is a question of making sure that the Department of
Defense lives up to its obligation, created in 1949, to pay for the
cost and the impact of military children on local districts.
I hope that we will consider this issue at the appropriate time and
vote to ensure that DOD takes its money to help the children of its
military personnel. That is my intent. At the appropriate time I will
offer the amendment again.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Vermont raised
a very complex and meaningful issue. It involves not only the subject
he raised, but also involves the complexity of payment in lieu of taxes
that are paid to communities because of nontaxable Federal property
within their jurisdiction.
It does seem to me that we have to particularly now as we enter into,
I hope, a long peacetime era where there are going to be fewer of these
installations and less impact, really, on schools, that we try to find
a more fair way to deal with those situations where the children of
military dependents do have an adverse impact on school districts. The
impact aid concept was created for that purpose.
Now, we actually have communities competing for these bases. It is
difficult, on the one hand, to have people competing for bases, and
then when they get them, for us to be in the position where the
taxpayers should provide the assistance for programs such as impact
aid.
I think the Senator--my feeling is we should have really some
dialogue between the committee on which he serves and the authorization
committee, chaired by the Senator from South Carolina, and the Senator
from Hawaii and myself, to see how we can find a way to transition this
money to the Department of Defense.
We do not want to get to the position where once it is not coming out
of your budget, that your committee feels that you can raise this
standard higher and higher because it is coming out of the Department
of Defense funds. On the other hand, we do agree, when we are living
under a cap, that the Defense impact should be met from Defense funds.
I am prepared to make a commitment to the Senator that we will work
with him and with the Armed Services Committee to try to fashion a
program that will give us the advice of those who do have the oversight
on education assistance from the Federal Government, while at the same
time striking the proper balance between authorization and those of us
who must find the money to pay the bill.
I appreciate the willingness of the Senator to withdraw the amendment
and congratulate him for bringing the issue forward, because it can be
very meaningful to generations of children whose parents are serving in
the armed services.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator for his remarks. I know we are both
concerned about this issue and want to make sure that all the young
people of this country, including the children of military personnel,
receive the best education possible. And that can only be done if we
all work together and share costs in an equitable fashion. I look
forward to working with the Senator on this issue.
As I said, I also intend to offer this amendment before the
authorizing committee at the appropriate time to stimulate a similar
discussion and perhaps pursue it further.
Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 2393) was withdrawn.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. THURMOND. I want to commend the able Senator from Vermont for
bringing up this question. In some cases school districts are put at a
great disadvantage where they have large numbers of schoolchildren and
do not get impact aid. I think it is a matter we have got to consider
in some way, somewhere, by somebody. I want to commend the Senator for
bringing this question forward and commend him for withdrawing it so it
can receive careful consideration by all the people considered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator and yield the floor.
Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

Amendment No. 2394

(Purpose: To strike out section 8083 relating to payment of invoices)

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, if it is appropriate at this time, I
will send another 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 New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an
amendment numbered 2394.

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

On page 81, strike out lines 21 through 23.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is in some ways a companion
amendment to the one that I just offered a few minutes ago. The lines
21 through 23 on page 81, which I am proposing to strike, read as
follows:

Section 8083. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Department of Defense shall execute payment in not more
than 24 days after receipt of a proper invoice.

Mr. President, to the uninitiated that seems like a very apple pie
kind of a proposal. Who could argue with that? The problem with that
proposal, Mr. President, is that it will cost the American taxpayers,
in fiscal year 1996, $750 million to advance payment by 6 days from
what has been the custom in government and in industry throughout the
Western World. So, Mr. President, this is a concern.
Let me go to the bottom line here. We are requiring the Department of
Defense to spend an extra $750 million next year by paying its bills in
24 days rather than in 30 days. We are saying by the language that I am
trying to strike out of the bill here--if the language stays in there,
we are saying that paying our bills 6 days earlier is a higher priority
than providing funds for education, even funds for education of
military personnel, such as the Senator from Vermont was talking about
just a few minutes ago. We are saying that paying these bills a few
days early is a higher priority than funding health care. We are saying
that this is a better use of funds than anything else we have been able
to come up with.
Mr. President, the simple fact is, the provision in the bill that I
am trying to strike out, it is not a serious provision to try to speed
up payment of Government bills. If the Appropriations Committee wanted
to speed up payment of Government bills by the Department of Defense
and require the Department of Defense to pay its bills more quickly
than any other agency of Government, then clearly what they would do is
provide additional funds, additional staffing to our various
contracting centers so they could gear up to do this.
If this became law, this would put a significant burden on those
contracting centers which no other agency of the Federal Government has
to deal with and, in fact, which no private firm has to deal with. I do
not believe there is a private firm in this country that has a policy
of paying its bills in 24 days rather than 30 days.
Let me explain to my colleagues what, with this requirement of paying
bills within 24 days rather than 30 days, really is going on here.
Earlier this year, much of the discussion about our defense spending
was that the problem we had in our defense spending was inadequate
funds for readiness. We had hearings in the Armed Services Committee,
and we had speeches given saying that we had neglected readiness; the
Clinton administration had neglected readiness. So the Budget Committee
added both budget authority and outlays for the defense accounts,
assuming that some of that

[[Page S 12158]]

would go to operations and maintenance, which is what we use to fund
our readiness accounts.
Instead, all of the additional funds that we are adding to this bill,
this $7 billion, in fact, and in the authorization bill, all goes to
procurement and R&D instead of to readiness. So they have $1.238
billion in outlays left over.
These two provisions, the one that my previous amendment addressed
and the one that this amendment is addressing, are provisions that are
simply put in this bill to soak up those outlays and to preserve those
until they get to conference, so that they can go to conference and
have those available to be spent by the conferees on other activities.
Obviously, they are not going to keep this provision in law. There is
no intention to do so. I believe this is not good policy. It would be
much better to strike these out and admit that the budget resolution
made a mistake. If we are not going to put the money into readiness, as
we originally thought we would at the time the budget resolution was
written, if the problem now is weapons modernization, what we see
reflected in the defense bill, the defense appropriations bill as well,
then let us shift these outlays to the domestic subcommittees.
We can use these funds in the Labor-HHS Subcommittee, we can use them
in the VA-HUD Subcommittee, we can use them in the Interior
Subcommittee, which we had a very difficult time with yesterday when we
were considering it on the floor because of the drastic cuts which were
required to be made in the accounts that are under the jurisdiction of
those subcommittees.
So, Mr. President, that is what is really going on here. There is no
legitimate effort to try to speed up the payment of bills by the
Department of Defense. What we are doing is we have some provisions in
here--this one that I am trying to deal with in this amendment will
cost the Department of Defense $750 million. So if it is dropped in
conference, then there will be $750 million of outlays available for
use somewhere else by the committee conferees.
I think we are much better off, the American people are much better
off, if we recognize we do not need these outlays, given our change in
the situation as we see it. We do not need these outlays in the
Department of Defense for these purposes and, accordingly, they should
be spent elsewhere, or they should be applied to the deficit.
There are a lot of people out there in the country who figure if you
do not need to be spending that $750 million, you should not spend it.
That is a hard thing for me to argue with, Mr. President. I do think
the better part of valor would be for us to adopt this amendment and
that way not have to explain to people in our home States why it was
worth $750 million to them for the Department of Defense to pay its
bills 6 days early.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I know others wish to debate the
amendment.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, again, it is a difference of agreement
here, but this is money that is owed to private entities, individuals,
by the Department of Defense. President Bush ordered that all such
payments must be made within 23 days once they are declared to be due
and payable. That was moved back to 30 days because of the need for
outlays in a bill in 1994. It was not done by this committee; I think
it was done by the authorization committee. Someone did it.
The impact of it is that, to the contrary of what the Senator from
Mexico says, the further they push out, the sooner the interest is due
and payable. This is not a situation where this will save the
Government any money by delaying them. To the contrary. It is a budget
calculation that you save the money for a particular period, but it
becomes due later and, as a matter of fact, it pyramids. So that in the
next year, you owe more money and you have to have greater outlays
available to make the payments.
If the DOD pays valid invoices in a timely manner, it reduces the
cost to the taxpayers and it is a simple thing. When you get a bill
from a credit card--how many have credit cards? What does it say? Pay
it in 30 days or you pay interest. Now, that is exactly what our law
says: Pay it in 30 days or you pay interest. But beyond that, if you
pay it sooner, you do not have to have the problem of carrying over, in
some instances, into the next year. This amendment has the effect of
$750 million, that if you take it out and put it back in the 30 days,
it means theoretically you do not have to spend $750 million in fiscal
year 1996. But guess what? You have to pay that same $750 million out
in the next year and you have to have a greater amount of outlays
allocated to you to accomplish that and pay other bills that are also
due in 1997.
We are moving back toward a concept of simply saying, ``The
Department of Defense, pay your contractors within the 30-day period.''
As a matter of fact, we are calculating that they should pay them
within 24 days, and if we do that, this provision will help small
businesses, again, because they will be able to survive with the DOD as
a customer since they know their bills will be paid promptly.
If they are paid promptly, then they do not have to go down, again,
and borrow money to carry over until the Defense Department pays their
bills. When that happens, on the next bid, the small businessman or
person has to increase the cost to the Government to pay for the cost
of carrying their business because they were not paid on time. It is
$150 million a day that theoretically you do not have to have outlays
for, but guess what? It is not something that goes into a savings
account, because it does have to be paid. We are saying pay these
invoices on time, pay them in a timely manner, reduce the cost of doing
business with the United States and you will get a better price as we
go on, and that has been proven.
I do hope the Senate will support us with the concept that is
involved here. Again, I have to confess, and I congratulate the Senator
from New Mexico on his work and his staff's work, we would not be able
to do this if we did not end up with a year that we had outlays that
cannot be used because we do not have the budget authority. But since
we do that, if we move them now to 24 days, we do not have to do
anything next year. There is no savings or loss by keeping that
schedule. You have a savings or loss where you change it for the
purpose of increasing the outlays or decreasing outlays. We have the
outlays available to get this back on time.
I say it is a good place to allocate those outlays. They are going to
spend money by paying bills that are due promptly. That cannot hurt the
economy.
As a matter of fact, I was raised to pay them when they come in the
door and not wait the 30 days. The assumption is they are going to wait
at least 24 days before they make the payment on a bill that is
presented for payment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me just respond very briefly. I am not arguing we
should not pay our bills promptly. I pay my bills promptly. I am sure
the Senator from Alaska pays his bills promptly. All of the commercial
practice that I am aware of calls for people to pay their bills within
30 days. That is the practice in the Department of Defense; that is the
practice in the Department of Commerce; that is the practice in the
Senate; that is the practice of VISA, Mastercard, and anyplace else you
look. I think there is no problem with that. I am not trying to disturb
that.
All I am saying is that we can save $750 million in outlay for use
somewhere else in the budget by not having this provision in here that
artificially says let us speed up the payments in the Department of
Defense. There is not a serious effort to speed up payments in the
Department of Defense. If there was a serious effort, if it was really
a priority for the Congress to get these bills paid in the Department
of Defense in 24 days rather than 30, like everybody else in the
Western World--and maybe the Eastern World, too--I would say put some
money into these contracting centers; give them additional people. Let
us tell them to get these things out the door. I have heard no
complaints in my office about them not paying their bills on time. I am
just saying, here is $750 million in outlays that can be better used
somewhere

[[Page S 12159]]

else in the Federal budget. We cannot get the smallest amounts of
funding added to for these activities.
The Senator from Vermont was here talking about the importance of
education. I have heard so many speeches about the importance of
education. You ask your colleagues to support adding $20 million to
education and you would think you asked for Fort Knox. Here we have
$750 million of budget authority--$750 million that is in this bill
simply to speed up the payment of our bills out of the Department of
Defense. It is not a priority, Mr. President. It is something we ought
to strike out of here. I hope my colleagues will support the efforts to
do so.
As I understand it from the earlier statements of the Senator from
Alaska, he intends to move to table this amendment. We will have 2
minutes of debate on each side prior to the final vote, is that
correct?
Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I must oppose this amendment. Much has
been said, but there are two items. One, it is the policy of this
Nation--and we have an act that says we shall promptly pay our debts;
that is the law of the land and the policy of the land, to make prompt
payments.
Second, among the many reasons we used to justify this change was a
very simple one. We have gone through a very painful period in the
history of our Defense Department, a period of BRAC. As a result, many
fine companies, many manufacturing plants have had to close their doors
or to send yellow slips to their employees. And we felt that by
speeding up the payment process, we would save them money and provide
them the resources to recoup.
Mr. President, it is true that when we went from 30 days to 24 days,
we knew it would cost the Government about $700 million. We could have
amended the Prompt Payment Act and gone from 30 to 36 days, and we
would have saved--if that is the argument--$750 million. But we felt
that the time had come that with this pain that we are inflicting upon
the people of the United States, we should do whatever we can to
provide some relief. Keep in mind that for each large procurement--take
the B-2--it is not the big companies that are involved; there are 200
small subcontractors. They are the ones who want prompt payment; they
are the ones who will suffer, and they are the ones who send out the
pink slips.
So, Mr. President, I must oppose this amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, some of the centers have a policy to pay
in 10 days. But the overall rate is somewhere around 29, 30 days. We
are moving it back because of the reasons stated by the Senator from
Hawaii. For 2 years, by the way, a study showed that they actually paid
in an average of 23 days. It was faster than we are requiring now, but
it was slipped because of the pressure of trying to obtain outlays.
So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have a period of 2
minutes for Senator Bingaman to explain his position, and 2 minutes on
our side to explain the opposition to Senator Bingaman's amendment.
I make a motion to table his amendment based upon that unanimous-
consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Did the Senator from Alaska ask for 2 minutes
and 1 minute?
Mr. STEVENS. No, 2 minutes on each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Does the Senator move to table the Bingaman amendment?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
I now ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from North
Carolina wishes to comment. And the Senator from Arkansas is here to
offer another amendment. When he finishes his amendment, we will try to
have a vote on all five of the amendments that will be available for us
to vote on at that time. I have not been able to determine from the
Senator from Arkansas how long he will take. We will do that soon and
announce to the Senate when we expect to vote on the five amendments
that will be stacked.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have been in three successive meetings
all afternoon long, each dealing with a different aspect of foreign
policy. I have lost track of what is going on the floor. Am I to
understand that you have four amendments in line now? I make that
parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five amendments have been set aside for votes.
Mr. HELMS. Is the amendment of the distinguished Senator from
Colorado [Mr. Brown] one of the five?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
Mr. STEVENS. It is one of those set aside but not set for a vote as
yet.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No time has been set for any vote, but the
Brown amendment, as I understand, has been called up and set aside.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will try to clarify the situation as I
understand it. We have the Dorgan amendment, three Bingaman amendments,
and the Bumpers amendment to come.
Mr. INOUYE. 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. HELMS. 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. HELMS. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished majority
leader, Mr. Dole, Senators Lieberman, and McCain, and myself, I shall
momentarily send a bill to the desk to be read for the first time and
appropriately referred.
I will pause here just a moment, Mr. President, to ask a
parliamentary inquiry. Inasmuch as what I am to discuss--and Senator
Dole will be here momentarily to make his comments. We are introducing
a bill to be properly referred. Is it necessary that we ask unanimous
consent to lay aside any amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The introduction of a bill is in order only
during morning business, so the Senator should request unanimous
consent to proceed as in morning business.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader and
myself, I ask unanimous consent in that regard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I will defer to the majority leader because
he has another appointment that he needs to make.
Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object,
will the Senator allow me to make a unanimous-consent request on what
will happen after?
Mr. HELMS. Certainly.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent, on an amendment offered by
Senator Bumpers, there be a 1-hour time limit, 45 minutes for the
Senator from Arkansas, and 15 minutes for the opponents.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. That will follow the introduction of the bill by the
distinguished leader, and the Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Dole and Mr. Helms pertaining to the introduction
of S. 1157 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PELL. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the
Bumpers amendment I be able to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arkansas.

[[Page S 12160]]

Amendment No. 2395

(Purpose: To reduce the amount of total contingent liability of the
United States for defense export loan guarantees)

Mr. BUMPERS. 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 Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes an
amendment numbered 2395.

Mr. BUMPERS. 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 69, strike line 3 and insert in lieu thereof the
following: ``section may not exceed $5,000,000: Provided
further, That the exposure fees charged and collected by the
Secretary for each guarantee, shall be paid by the country
involved and shall not be financed as part of the loan
guaranteed by the United States,''.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I do not know what the people were
thinking last fall when they swept the Democrats out of Congress and
turned it over to the Republicans. But I can tell you one thing that I
do not think they were thinking. I do not think they intended for us to
design yet one more way to sell arms in the international market. We
have four methods on the books right now; four--count them. We have
four ways that the arms merchants of this country can finance arms
sales to other nations. You would think that would be enough. Obviously
it is not. We have a fifth one in this bill.
No. 1, most people do not know it but the President can guarantee any
loan from any company to any country. That is a powerful thing for the
President. He does not often exercise the power. But he has it. Then
every year when we pass our foreign operations bill--the bill that the
ordinary man on the street in this country thinks is going right down a
rat hole--a good big portion of that is for weapons, $1.5 billion for
Egypt, $1.5 billion for Israel. If anybody wants some weapons, stand in
line. We will give them to you. If you cannot afford them, we will
finance them for you. That is called the Foreign Military Financing
Program; No. 2.
No. 3, securities assistance: The Securities Assistance Program I
think is also in the foreign operations program. I am not sure. But
that is where we finance a country-to-country sale. I assume we take
weapons out of our stock, out of our inventory, to sell to somebody
else, and we finance it; No. 3.
No. 4, 3 years ago I fought like a saber-toothed tiger to keep the
Eximbank out of the arms financing business, and succeeded marginally.
We kept the Export-Import Bank from selling tanks, howitzers,
airplanes, and lethal weapons. But they now are permitted to finance
nonlethal military equipment. I guess that means tents and blankets and
anything that will not explode.
Now here is the fifth one in the DOD authorization bill.
I get too loud when I am on the floor of the Senate. But I feel so
strongly about these things I guess it is irresistable to express my
contempt for the United States to be the leading arms merchant of the
world, and now we are setting up yet another program to make it easier
for countries to buy all the weapons they want. Do you know who most of
these countries are? They are people that are starving their own people
to buy weapons. That is the moral dimension to arms sales.
But here is the financial dimension. This bill that we have before us
right now provides for 15 billion dollars' worth of credits to sell
arms to foreign countries. I am going to tell you this is a real enigma
to me. I do not understand it nor has anybody been able to explain it
to me. They say it will work just like the Export-Import Bank works.
You pay a fee. You bear in mind that this is not set up yet. The
authorization bill directs the Department of Defense to set this
program up and to guarantee loans from arms manufacturers in this
country to about 37 different nations. Turkey, for example, who cannot
afford a turkey sandwich will be eligible. I do not mean to demean
Turkey. They have been a reliable ally of ours. But they are a poor
nation. They cannot afford it. But here is $15 billion in this bill.
Just so you will know. I did not drag that figure out of thin air. On
page 68 of the bill, section 8067, ``To the extent authorized in law,
the Secretary of Defense shall issue loan guarantees in support of U.S.
defense exports not otherwise provided for, provided, that the total
contingent liability of the United States for guarantees issued under
the authority of this section may not exceed $15 billion.''
My colleagues, all you tight-fisted budget balancers who ran last
year and promised the American people how you were going to balance the
budget, go home and tell them that there is $15 billion in this bill
that is not even scored, and does not count for anything.
When I sit down I want the managers of this bill to tell us how we
can assume $15 billion in contingent liabilities and it not cost us one
penny. In my 21 years in the Senate I have never heard--my staff tells
me there are a couple of examples like that--but I have never
personally heard of us assuming a $15 billion liability and it does not
cost us anything. It sounds like the good old days of the S&L's in the
late 1980's to me.
So how does this work? An arms manufacturer comes to the Defense
Department and says, ``We have country A and they want to buy 500
million dollars' worth of weapons from us, and we sure would like to
sell them because we have 3,000 people working in plants that will
produce this 500 million dollars' worth of weapons.''
The DOD which wants to set this program up will say, ``Well, you have
to pay a fee.''
``How much?''
``One percent.'' What is 1 percent of $500 million? The authorization
bill says this will be paid either by the country that is buying the
weapons or by the company that is selling them.
I strike company in my amendment. Do you know why? Everybody here
knows that a company will say, ``Look. This is really $500 million.''
But you do not have $5 million to pay the fee. ``We will pay it for
you.'' And the sale price will be $505 million. So instead of charging
them $500 million, they charge $505 million. And they get their $505
million, and they turn around and put $5 million of it in the DOD
treasury as the guarantee.
I say if we are going to do it--you all know we debated this the
other night. I tried to strike this in the authorization bill. I think
I got 40 votes, and when you have 100 Senators and you only get 40
votes, you lose. I lost.
But I am saying that if you are going to go forward with this
program, which I deplore, at least make the purchasing country put up
the fee. If they do not have enough to pay a 1- or 2-percent fee,
whatever it happens to be, they certainly have no business obligating
themselves for such massive amounts--98 percent and 99 percent--more
than they can come up with even for the guarantee.
Mr. President, right after Desert Storm we had a field day. In 1993,
1994, and 1995, we sold 54.5 billion dollars' worth of weapons.
Incidentally, some of these countries we sell these weapons to American
men often get the opportunity to face those weapons because those
weapons last longer than our friendships. I was in Iran in 1976 when
the Shah was trying to buy every single weapon we would sell him.
I went to an airport in Tehran. It was loaded with F-16's. And he
could hardly wait for us to produce the F-18. He wanted that one, too.
And the Shah wanted weapons and a strong military not because of an
exterior threat but because that was the way he solidified his power.
Now, unhappily, he was replaced with a government that was just as bad,
but all these dictators want weapons to make sure nobody challenges
their authority. And he was no exception.
So now one of the people we classify as one of the most likely
adversaries of the United States is Iran. Iran has a big arsenal of
weapons that we sold them, and they are considered one of the four most
likely adversaries we will ever have to face.
Vietnam, what an arsenal we left when we left there. The Vietnamese
were rich with American weapons, and they sold them to the contras.
They sold them to Cuba. I never liked the idea of selling the Afghans
Stinger missiles. One Stinger missile can hold any international
airport in the world hostage. A terrorist can simply say: We

[[Page S 12161]]
have a Stinger missile. Any airliner coming into this country and into
this airport is going to get it at some point. The whole city and the
whole country is terrified as a result.
I am not sure how many Stingers we sold to Afghanistan. I voted no,
no, no, and yes. It came up constantly because we felt the Afghans
could make the Soviets losses so great they would pull out. And let us
face it; it pretty much worked. But there is a problem. We do not know
what happened to all the Stingers. Iran --I mention Iran again--got 35
of them, so I am told.
So Iran, which is considered a terrorist nation, is in a position to
hold 35 international airports hostage thanks to Uncle Sugar.
That is all just a way of coming back from whence I started. This
program has not even been set up. My amendment says it is not likely to
be set up and very many sales made before we argue these points again
next year. My amendment says, therefore, let us cut this $15 billion
authority to $5 billion. We are only planning on selling 10 billion
dollars' worth of weapons in foreign sales this year which,
incidentally, will probably be about 52 percent of all arms sales in
the world except France made a couple of big airplane deals so they
have quite a few weapons to sell this year. They will be a player. But
today we sell 52 to 53 percent of all the weapons sold in international
commerce, and by the turn of the century we will be up to 59 percent.
Let me ask my colleagues, for a brand new program, never been tried,
we do not know how it is going to work, do you think it makes more
sense to start with a $5 billion authority or a $15 billion authority
when we are only likely to sell a total of $10 billion from all sources
in the coming year? And that will include foreign military, the foreign
military sales program that is in the foreign aid bill, the securities
assistance programs, the Export-Import Bank program, any arms weapons
that the President guarantees the price of. Do you not think $5 billion
is going to be enough?
But here is the real clinker in this whole thing. How do we guarantee
$5 billion or $15 billion with no liability? As I say, that beats the
S&L crisis. We are going to take a fee from these people to sell
weapons and if they default, as Egypt did in 1990 to the tune of $7.1
billion, DOD has to pay it. Where do they get it? Congress gives it to
them. Where does Congress get it? Right out of the pocket of the old
taxpayer.
I have been through this defense bill for 20 years. This is one of
the most bizarre things I have ever seen. They put $15 billion in there
as though it is chump change and say sell 15 billion dollars' worth of
weapons and, Congress, do not worry; do not score it; it does not count
on the deficit. If all these people default, you have to cough up $15
billion, but we will worry about that later.
It is the height of irresponsibility to pass something like this. But
I have already tried to kill the program without success. So now I am
saying for God sakes, do not put $15 billion in a brand new program
that nobody has a clue as to how it is going to work. I feel like the
most magnanimous person in the world by saying $5 billion is enough.
When the managers of this bill take issue with this amendment, I do
not want them to overlook telling my colleagues in the Senate how you
put $15 billion in authority here to finance 50 billion dollars' worth
of weapons, a good portion of which we will wind up paying for because
these countries will default on. Only the least creditworthy countries
are going to opt for this. I want you to tell my colleagues where the
money is coming from.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. I send a modification of my amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 69, strike line 3 and insert in lieu thereof the
following: ``section may not exceed $5,000,000,000: Provided
further, That the exposure fees charged and collected by the
Secretary for each guarantee, shall be paid by the country or
company involved and shall not be financed as part of the
loan guaranteed by the United States;''.
Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, if the Senator from Hawaii will yield,
just for edification we inadvertently put in $5 million instead $5
billion.
Mr. INOUYE. I have been advised the Senator from Connecticut wished
to be recognized to speak against the amendment.
Does the Senator from Connecticut wish to be recognized?
Mr. President, may I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes are yielded to the Senator from
Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment offered
by my friend and colleague from Arkansas.
Mr. President, there is a sense of deja vu about this because we did,
as the Senator from Arkansas has indicated, argue this out in an
amendment he submitted to the Department of Defense authorization bill
on the subject, which was an attempt to actually do away with the
program entirely. Here in this amendment he aims to diminish the
guarantee authority from $15 billion down to $5 billion.
I was pleased to initiate this proposal with my colleague from
Connecticut, Senator Dodd, and with my colleague from Idaho, Senator
Kempthorne. I believe Senator Kempthorne is on his way to the floor to
speak against the amendment that has been offered.
There is a basic point here to which I do want to go back, which is
that we are talking here about a way to make sure that the American
defense industry can compete on a level playing field with the defense
industries of other countries that are competing in the area of arms
sales around the world.
Mr. President, part of why we feel this is necessary and why it is a
decent investment--in fact, a cost-free investment--is because all the
fees are paid by those who are beneficiaries of the program. We
obviously are in a time where the resources we are devoting to defense
are shrinking. There have been some arguments here about whether we are
spending too much in the defense authorization bill or in the
appropriations bill for defense purposes before us now as others have
said before me. We are spending for defense at a percentage of GDP that
is historically low. And the world, with the cold war over, remains a
troubled world.
But let us leave that macroeconomic data aside. The fact is that each
of us knows--and I can speak to this with painful intimacy coming from
the State of Connecticut--our defense industries are cutting back.
Thousands of people are being laid off who had good jobs and are having
trouble providing for their families. That, of course, is just the
worst experience for them.
But what is at risk is the capacity of our country to maintain an
industrial base for defense purposes so that we are capable of at least
turning out a reasonable, if not minimum, number of weapons systems and
equipment that we can use to defend our national security, but also to
preserve these defense factories, to keep them alive, even if at a
drastically reduced level, so that in case of some future conflict or
crisis we will have the ability to surge, to build more; we will not
have to recreate these industries.
One way to do it, frankly, is for American defense companies to be
involved in arms sales throughout the world. This is not a case of
America sort of pushing arms on people who do not want them. This is a
case of a demand for arms that will be satisfied either by American
companies making weapons, made by American workers, or that demand for
arms will be satisfied by foreign defense companies employing foreign
defense workers. And what our companies find increasingly is that they
are losing contracts to other defense companies from other countries
because their governments have defense loan guarantee systems.
This is the basic principle of the Eximbank which has been so
important to American exporters generally, which, generally speaking,
the American defense industry is prohibited from employing that we are
now attempting, through the creation of this program, to extend in a
limited way

[[Page S 12162]]
without risk here, limiting the number of countries that can be
supplied with weapons. And when we went through this before, my friend
from Arkansas cited many countries. But let us be very clear about it.
The only countries that can participate are NATO allies, our major non-
NATO allies, or qualified Central European and APEC non-Communist
countries in Asia. That is a total of 37 countries. The program
mechanics that are set up are structured so that defaults are highly
unlikely and a country that has any record of risk will have to pay
very high administrative fees.
Mr. President, this is a 2-year program. Reports are required on the
cost, benefits and recommendation for modification. The $15 billion
limit which is in the defense appropriations bill that is before us now
perhaps will not be reached, although the truth is that in this area $1
billion is a sale number that recurs over and over again. So we have to
see what develops.
The authorizing language in the Department of Defense bill requires
that a fee be paid incrementally in proportion to the amount of the
guarantee issued. And I think that is in its way a response to the
second part of the amendment offered for my friend from Arkansas.
I saw an article in the paper the other day. I say, finally, Mr.
President, unfortunately I did not cut it out, and I do not have it
with me. But it said in one category, in a large category of arms
sales, that last year the French actually replaced the United States in
sales. French sales doubled. American sales were cut in half. And that
is a significant development which has implications for the jobs of
thousands of workers here in our country and in defense plants and has
implications, as I indicated, for our industrial base.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and look forward to returning as the
debate continues.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment as they did defeat a
similar amendment on the DOD authorization bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Senator Bumpers' amendment will limit the
ability of the Government to guarantee loans for defense exports to $5
billion.
Now, that seems reasonable at first blush. But this is the situation.
I am told that we are in a period of reduced spending for domestic
requirements for defense systems and defense equipment. At this time
defense exports make a significant contribution not only to the
preservation of U.S. jobs and industrial base, but to the extent they
are successful, actually lower the unit cost of the defense production
that we must acquire if there is a wider market throughout the world
for the produce that comes out of our major defense industries.
Now, we have found that in the international defense export market,
it is a very competitive market and one that is very difficult for a
U.S. defense company to deal with, unless it can offer the same kind of
proposal that its competitors can offer.
Particularly this is so because the market financing is one of the
main factors, a decisive factor, in what is the cost of the loans.
These guarantees give our U.S. industrial base the opportunity to be on
a level playing field with industries from governments that do not just
guarantee loans, they actually loan their industry money.
Now, the Department of Defense has indicated to me that it strongly
supports this program because it gives the U.S. industrial base the
opportunity to compete in the world market and will reduce the cost of
our acquisition of systems in the future.
This amendment was proposed to the Senate Armed Services Committee
last week. That was defeated by a substantial amount. I do believe that
the Senate should be reminded we voted against this amendment just last
week by a vote of 41 to 58. Now, it is our intention to oppose the
amendment and to make a motion to table when all time has expired.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes 7 seconds.
Mr. STEVENS. I see the Senator----
How much time? Five minutes?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Five minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. I yield the Senator 5 minutes.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Thank you. And I want to thank the floor manager.
I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from
Arkansas. The Bumpers amendment proposes to limit the amount available
for the self-financing--I stress the self-financing--export loan
guarantee program at the Department of Defense.
As the Senator from Alaska pointed out, last week we dealt with this
very issue. The amendment was defeated 41-58. The program provides
financing for defense sales to a very selected list of countries that
meet all the existing export controls and nonproliferation policies of
this administration. It grants the administration the authority, but it
is not a requirement that they must utilize this program.
It is also important to note that the authority is not limited
strictly to arms. In many cases American companies lose bids to
maintain or upgrade previously sold military equipment because they
cannot offer financing.
The program in the defense authorization bill will allow U.S.
companies and American workers to compete on a level playing field with
our international competitors. Today almost every major arms exporter
provides financing to support the export of their domestic products and
services.
Indeed, some purchasers now make financing a requirement before a
company can bid on a proposed purchase.
The program is financed by fees paid by the buyer or the seller.
Based upon the exposure fees charged by the Export-Import Bank, the fee
is determined by the creditworthiness of the buyer. Therefore, a high-
risk buyer is excluded by the high-exposure fee which makes the loan
too expensive for them to even enter into.
The list of eligible countries is limited to our NATO allies,
nonmajor allies, Central European countries moving toward democracy,
and selected members of the Asian Pacific economic cooperation group.
Of the 185 members of the United Nations, only 37 countries would be
eligible for this program.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of those 37
countries be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

The List of Eligible Countries

1. Albania.
2. Australia.
3. Belgium.
4. Brunei.
5. Bulgaria.
6. Canada.
7. Czech.
8. Denmark.
9. Egypt.
10. France.
11. Germany.
12. Greece.
13. Hong Kong.
14. Hungary.
15. Iceland.
16. Indonesia.
17. Israel.
18. Italy.
19. Japan.
20. Luxembourg.
21. Malaysia.
22. Netherlands.
23. New Zealand.
24. Norway.
25. Philippines.
26. Poland.
27. Portugal.
28. Romania.
29. Singapore.
30. Slovakia.
31. Slovenia.
32. South Korea.
33. Spain.
34. Taiwan.
35. Thailand.
36. Turkey.
37. U.K.

Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, as a result of our defense downsizing,
American companies continue to lay off thousands of U.S. defense
workers every month. This program will help us avoid paying
unemployment for the defense workers of America and help us preserve
the United States defense industrial base.
It makes sense to sell U.S. defense systems and services to our
friends and our allies, assuming those countries

[[Page S 12163]]
qualify for the equipment under our existing export controls.
The House-passed defense authorization bill includes similar
language, and in a strong bipartisan vote, the House voted 276 to 152
to keep this language in the bill.
Mr. President, in conclusion, I stress again this certainly is far
more advantageous than us paying unemployment benefits to American
workers who are unemployed. It allows us to keep our defense base in
production. It allows us to have capacity, should we need it, to again
provide for the needs for this country. This program goes through the
existing safeguards that are in place for nonproliferation, and it is
an authority. It is not requiring the administration to do so. It is a
tool that can help our allies, that can help our friends, but it also
is significantly going to help the American worker.
With that, I yield my time back to the floor manager and yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-seven minutes and eighteen seconds.
Mr. BUMPERS. I yield such time as the Senator from Illinois may
require.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arkansas, and I
thank him for this amendment.
There is only one flaw with this amendment, and that is it still has
$5 billion in it. It should not have anything.
Do you know what the total amount owed by all countries through the
years, the accumulated amount right now is? The total amount owed by
other countries right now is $16 billion. This will, for all practical
purposes, double.
We do from time to time forgive loans to other countries, and I have
voted for them. I am not critical of this. But when we make these loans
for weapons--Egypt, for example, we forgave $7 billion. I voted for it.
Poland, I forget what the amount was we forgave. That did not happen to
have any weapons in it. Jordan we forgave.
I note the presence on the floor of Senator Lieberman from
Connecticut who was mentioned, that this came as a suggestion from
Senator Lieberman and Senator Dodd. They are two of the finest Members
of this body. But even a fine Member can be wrong, and the State of
Connecticut which has a lot of defense industry happens to have the
highest per capita income of any State in the Nation. We should not
shed too many tears for people in Connecticut, and certainly should not
burden the taxpayers of the United States of America with $15 billion
worth of debt.
We are already far in excess of where we ought to be in this defense
appropriation. We are spending more than the next eight countries
combined. If you look back to 1973, I say to my colleague from
Arkansas, put the inflation factor on and we are spending more today
than we were in 1973 on defense. Then we were in Vietnam, we had twice
as many troops in Europe, we had a cold war, we had a totally different
situation. And here, through the back door--and that is really what is
going to happen--through the back door, the Defense Department and the
U.S. taxpayers are going to guarantee $15 billion worth of weapons to
any country that defaults. Guess who automatically, not through a vote
here--at least in the case of Egypt, the case of Poland, the case of
Jordan, we had to have a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.
Now it will just be automatic for any country that defaults.
I think it is not sound policy. We talk about deficits, and we let
something like this get out and we will pick up a huge, huge burden.
Let me ask my colleague from Arkansas a question. If Ford wants to
sell some Fords to some other country, do the U.S. taxpayers guarantee
those sales?
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the answer to that is ``yes,'' under
certain conditions, the Export-Import Bank would finance it.
Mr. SIMON. The Export-Import Bank would finance it only to the extent
that there may be a risk to that government.
Mr. BUMPERS. Absolutely.
Mr. SIMON. It is not this kind of a guarantee.
Mr. BUMPERS. I might also say that is not a 100-percent guarantee
either.
Mr. SIMON. Right. In fact, we will say to the defense industry, ``You
are going to get preferential treatment over Ford, Chrysler, and
General Motors. You are going to get preferential treatment over
farmers who want to sell grain.'' Any nonmilitary exporter, you are in
the second tier. The preferential treatment goes to the defense
industry. That does not make sense.
As I said in my opening remarks, there is only one thing wrong with
this amendment. He leaves $5 billion in there. I wish we did not have
the $5 billion in, but I know the Senator from Arkansas is trying to be
practical.
What we are doing, if we approve this--there is no question for those
who say this will be great for the defense industry, they are right.
This will not be great for the taxpayers of America. I commend my
colleague from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I thank my very distinguished colleague
and good friend from Illinois for his comments. When he leaves the
Senate, there is going to be a great big void. He has been the
conscience of this place on so many occasions.
I cannot say that particularly about myself, but I do not know who
has fought many more laudable but losing causes than I have, unless it
is the Senator from Illinois.
I say to my colleague, it is tough to shape this place up, is it not?
Let me just close with a few remarks. First of all, my good friend
from Alaska, the chairman of the committee, said the administration
supported this. Here is what, 10 days ago, the White House said in its
Statement of Administration Policy:

The bill would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a program to issue loan guarantees ensuring against
losses arising from the financing of Defense exports to
certain countries. The administration opposes this program
because the administration has not found it necessary given
the availability of existing authority for transactions of
this type and the substantial American presence in
international markets for military equipment.

So we are not alone. The administration also opposes this.
No. 2, let me just remind my colleagues--because our memories grow
dim around here in about 2 days--George Santayana said, ``Those who do
not understand history are doomed to repeat it.'' Voltaire, a long time
before that, said, ``History does not repeat itself; men do.''
We never seem to learn around here. We just keep making the same
mistakes and paying heavy prices. But I agree with Bill Perry: We do
not need this program. Let me ask you this. Who here wants the United
States to guarantee arms loans to Albania? Who here wants to guarantee
arms sales to Bulgaria? Who here wants to guarantee loans to the
Philippines? Then there are Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania.
They are fine countries. But are they good credit risks? How many of
you want to stand up and say, I think this is a jim-dandy idea to
finance weapons to those countries? People are staring in the streets
in some of them. It is almost obscene to encourage them to buy weapons.
Do you remember the big agricultural loan program to Iraq? We really
did not want Iraq or Iran, either one, to win the war, and it looked
for a time as though Iran might have a little of the upper hand, so we
started financing agricultural sales to Iraq. It went the same way as
when our weapons are turned against us. Look where Iraq is now--a
mortal enemy, and we are paying off $2 billion in agricultural loans
that we guaranteed to Iraq. But that has been 10 years ago, and the
Senate just cannot remember that far back.
The Senator from Illinois, a moment ago, said that we are spending
more money than our eight most likely adversaries. I hesitate to
correct my good friend, but the truth is that we spend twice as much as
our eight most likely adversaries, including Russia, China, Iraq, Iran,
North Korea, the whole schmear--twice as much as all of them combined.
What has been the record on the four programs we have in existence
right now in arms sales? I am not absolutely sure of this, but I think
Norway and Israel are the only two nations that have been totally
reliable in paying their

[[Page S 12164]]
debts to us. Already this year, we have forgiven Jordan $300 million
they owe us for arms, and I was for it because they have been
instrumental in the Middle Eastern peace process. But $300 million
where I come from ``ain't bean bag.'' I also voted to forgive Egypt the
$7.1 billion in 1990, because they are an important ally. But you are
going to be voting for a lot more of those if you pass this thing.
The worst argument I know of for arms exports is jobs. Let me say to
the Senator from Connecticut right now, you vote against this program
and I will vote for whatever you want up to a billion dollars to
attract industry to Connecticut.
Did you see where Virginia just got a new deal for a chip
manufacturing company? It did cost Virginia some money, $165 million.
But compared to financing $500 million worth of weapons and
guaranteeing them to a poor country that can't afford them, that is the
best deal Virginia will ever pull off, and it is the best deal for the
United States Government.
So, when it comes to jobs, I promise you, with what we are going to
wind up paying out of this program, we could create three times as many
jobs as the arms industry is going to get out of this program.
Another argument is: ``If we do not do it, somebody else will.'' The
one thing my father told me when I was a kid is, ``I do not want you to
be like others. I do not want you to do things just because everybody
else is doing it.'' I suspect I am not the only Member of the Senate
whose parents ever admonished him on that point. He expected more of
me. But, above all, he wanted me to think for myself and do what I
thought was right, not just because somebody else was doing it. And we
are going to sell these weapons because if we do not, somebody else
will. Let them. Why should we be immoral just because somebody else is
immoral?
Finally, Mr. President, I know, after my 21 years in the Senate, what
this is; this is a foot in the door. You get this program firmly in
place, and next year it will not be 37 countries eligible, it will be
50. And the year after that, it will be 60. I have never, in 21 years,
seen that prediction fail. It is the nose under the tent.
So, Mr. President, I have done my best to talk sense on this issue--I
am sure to no avail. The Senator from Alaska will move to table. Some
Members will walk in that door not having a clue as to what was said in
this debate, and they will vote however he tells them to vote. Serious
indictment, but true. And they will go home to the Chamber of Commerce,
and if there is an industry in that town that has an overseas sale,
they will take credit for it. And if the taxpayers wind up having to
pay that loan off, you will never hear that mentioned in the same
Chamber of Commerce banquet.
Let me tell you a little anecdote that has nothing to do with this
debate. But I have chided the Senator from Idaho about the amendment he
offered the other night on the hard rock mine law reform that said
mining companies will be required to pay the fair-market value for the
land. I squealed like a pig under a gate, and you could have heard me
in Charleston, AR, about what a sham that was. The truth of the matter
is that the land has no value; $10 per acre will cover most of it. It
was the billions of dollars worth of gold under that ground I was
talking about.
Anybody that voted for that, who does not come from a mining State,
can go home, and if somebody asks him a question in a town-hall
meeting, ``How come you voted to give away $15.5 billion worth of gold
the other night to the richest mining companies in America,'' he can
say, ``I also voted to make them pay fair-market value.'' They will not
tell you it was just for the surface and not the minerals. Who in that
room is going to know the difference?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I point out to my good friend from
Arkansas that section 8067 says, ``To the extent authorized in law, the
Secretary of Defense shall issue loan guarantees in support of U.S.
defense exports not otherwise provided for.''
We go on to say that total contingent liable, ``the total guarantees
under this authority may not exceed $15 billion.'' We are putting a
limitation on existing law. The law, by the way, is contained in the
authorization bill that has not passed yet. We are really putting in
this section a limitation on a law that may be enacted in September.
It is a total outstanding guarantee and cannot exceed $15 billion. In
view of the amount that we do, in fact, procure ourselves, that is
really not an extensive amount in the worldwide scene to try to make
sure that our allies and those who are aligned with the United States
are able to provide the defense that we rely upon them to provide.
Does the Senator from Connecticut desire to speak?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask for the Senator to yield the remaining time.
Mr. STEVENS. I yield.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Two points. The Senator from Alaska made the point, I
think convincingly, about why the $15 billion was chosen.
Second, the Senator from Arkansas keeps talking about leading some
programs to conclude that we are granting money, these billions of
dollars to foreign nations.
These are loan guarantees. Every other loan guarantee program, and
the fees, are paid by those who use the program, and they have default
rates that are extremely low. The State of California has operated a
program like this for 10 years. The default rate is just under 1
percent.
Finally, to my friend from Illinois, it is true we have the highest
average income in Connecticut, but believe me, it is not based on those
who work in the defense industry. They are losing their jobs. This bill
will save thousands of those jobs and keep those workers and their
families at a decent level.
A final example, in the State of Connecticut the Norden defense
industry operation was forced to move some of its production to Canada
in order to qualify for the Canadian export defense loan guarantee
program to allow Norden, a Connecticut company, to sell to a foreign
buyer. Mr. President, 72 jobs leave Connecticut.
This bill will turn that around.
Mr. BUMPERS. How much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven minutes are remaining.
Mr. BUMPERS. I will take just a minute, Mr. President, to remind my
colleagues of one thing: The bill allows the company selling the
weapons to pay the guarantee fee.
Think about that. They can either add it to the price of weapons and
then finance the entire thing, thereby financing effectively the fee
that they have paid, or they can have such a cushy profit in whatever
they are selling they will say we will sell them for $16 million apiece
and we will pay the fee. If the fee is 1 percent and their cost is $12
million for that product, they still have a bonanza.
I want Members to think about this: Here is a loan program that is
going to make every other program pale because the company--if you do
not vote for this amendment--the company can pay the fee and finance it
as part of the loan that is guaranteed by the taxpayers.
So everybody that wants weapons and do not have the money to pay for
the weapons, and do not even have the money to pay a fee of 1 percent
or 2 percent, the company will pay it. And Uncle Sugar is going to be
held for the principle of the loan.
I still do not understand how we can obligate ourselves for $15
billion in this bill and not have a dime scored against the deficit or
against this bill. It is in the bill--$15 billion. The Senator from
Alaska says we have not authorized that yet; that is only because we
have not passed the Defense Authorization Bill yet. Passing that is as
certain as the Sun coming up in the morning.
I am not even trying to kill the program. I have tried that already
and got 41 votes. I am trying to reduce our liability from $15 billion
to $5 billion just for 1 year. They do not need $15 billion. They have
not even got the program in place yet.
Colleagues, for God's sake, do your duty. I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that we proceed with the amendments
that have been set aside, calling up first the Dorgan amendment for
final consideration, with time for an explanation.
This amendment would cut national defense spending by $300 million.
The arguments have taken place. The spending here in this bill is
consistent with the levels in the Senate Armed Services authorization
bill.

[[Page S 12165]]

The same amendment was defeated by a vote of 51 to 48 last week.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendments will
be considered in the order they were offered.
Mr. STEVENS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield for just a second?
I failed to yield back the balance of my time and I am prepared to do
that.

Amendment No. 2377

Mr. STEVENS. I yield 3 minutes on the Dorgan amendment to the Senator
from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Alaska for yielding this time.
At the risk of sounding redundant, I do not feel badly about that
because the Senator from North Dakota has been redundant in his
discussion of this effort to take the money out of our national defense
system.
I think what we need to do is be sure we understand that we have
voted on this amendment before. This amendment has failed before. This
is the same amendment. It is not changed at all. It is taking $300
million out of what we feel is necessary to put ourselves in a position
to have a national missile defense system of some sort by the time the
threat is here by the year 2000.
The assumption from the Senator from North Dakota is that there is no
threat out there, that the cold war is over and the threat is no longer
there. Yet at the same time, the former security adviser to the
President of the United States, Jim Woolsey, has said we know between
20 and 25 countries that have developed or are developing weapons of
mass destruction either nuclear or chemical or biological, and they are
developing the missile means of delivering those weapons. Five of those
countries are North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Syria.
We learned in the Persian Gulf war that the technology of the short-
range missiles is there. It is a reality. It works. The Scud missiles
were aimed at Israel and Saudi Arabia and our United States troops. In
fact, 28 of our troops, the largest single casualty in one incident,
was the result of a Scud attack.
The CIA has now said the Taepo-Dong I intercontinental missile should
be ready by the year 2000, and it is ironic that the two managers this
afternoon are from Hawaii and Alaska. The Taepo-Dong I intercontinental
missile would have the capability of reaching both of those States by
the year 2000.
It is something that is here. It is upon us now. Even though the CIA
came out and said a long-range missile is not likely, not likely by the
year 2005, not likely is not enough security for me to ignore the fact
that we have a $38 billion investment in a system that could be ready
for deployment in the year 2000.
We have talked about this before, but the threat is very real. The
intelligence community agrees that the threat is real.
As I asked the Senator from North Dakota when we debated this
earlier, what if you are wrong? What if it is the year 2000 instead of
the year 2005? We have an opportunity right now. This is not Star Wars.
This is not a fantasy. This is a technology that is here today, with a
combination of land-based missiles, Aegis missiles, the 22 ships we
have that are ready for the upgrades.
This is a system that can be improved upon now. We can come up with
at least a modest method of defending ourselves by the year 2000.
For those who may have seen on television from my home State of
Oklahoma the devastation that took place with the Murrah Federal
Building, standing outside as I was, on April 19, 20, and 21, not
knowing how many people were alive and dead in that building, and you
multiply that disaster by 1,000, that is what we are potentially faced
with.
All we are trying to do is keep the $671 million to keep the
development going so we can be ready by the year 2000 in the event the
threat is there at that time. It is very reasonable.
I urge my colleagues to vote against it as they did before on the
Dorgan amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of time on our side
on the Dorgan amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dorgan, I yield the
remainder of his time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the Dorgan
amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, may I make a statement before we start?
It is our intention, following this amendment, to have a dialog
concerning further amendments after this amendment.
I ask unanimous consent the votes to follow this amendment, there are
four others that will come immediately thereafter, will be limited to
10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object, I understood from the
Senator from Alaska there would be a 4-minute hiatus between each vote
to be equally divided between the proponents and opponents of each
amendment, 2 minutes each.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. That may be extended in some
instances. But the request I have just made limits the time within
which to take the rollcall. It limits the time of the rollcall, not the
time preceding the rollcall. I renew my request.
Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator consider making that a part of the
request, for 4 minutes in between each vote?
Mr. STEVENS. I say to the Senator from Arkansas, there are at least 2
minutes on each side before each vote. I have been informed there may
be a request for additional time before one or two of the votes, and we
are prepared to yield that if it is necessary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Vote On Amendment No. 2377

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the
Dorgan amendment No. 2377.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley]
is absent because of illness in the family.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 384 Leg.]

YEAS--45

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Gregg
Harkin
Hatfield
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone

NAYS--54

Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Bradley

So the amendment (No. 2377) was rejected.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. I call attention to the fact that this next vote will be
a 10-minute vote, and under the agreement we will have now a series of
votes. Just before the votes we have 2 minutes on each side to explain
the amendment.
Senator Bingaman has 2 minutes.
It can be yielded back.

Amendment No. 2390

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair.

[[Page S 12166]]

Mr. President, this amendment is sponsored by myself, Senator
Lautenberg, Senator Exon, and Senator Kerrey from Nebraska.
The purpose of this amendment is to provide in this bill funds for
the highest priority that the Secretary of Defense has identified if we
are in a position to provide any additional funds in this defense bill.
As everybody here knows, the administration asked for a certain level
of funding, and this body is adding $7 billion to that pursuant to the
budget resolution. The Secretary told us in the Armed Services
Committee that if we had any additional money--not if we had $7
billion, but if we had anything extra--we should fund what he
considered ongoing operations. Those are the two operations going on in
Iraq--one in northern Iraq and one in southern Iraq--we should fund the
refugee support at Guantanamo, which is ongoing, and we should fund the
humanitarian support and the deny-flight activities in Bosnia. He said
at a very minimum next year he is going to have to spend a total of
$1.188 billion on those activities.
We did not in this bill fund that, and what I am proposing in this
amendment is that we go ahead and fund that as he requested. In
addition, we reduce the outlays in the total bill by $111 million.
Now, the offset is to cancel, at least for this year, or put off, I
should say, the funding of an amphibious assault ship, the LHD-7. This
is a ship which the Department of Defense said they would like to come
to Congress and request funds for 6 years from now, in the year 2001--
not 1996, the year 2001.
The appropriators have taken the request for the 6th year and moved
it forward into this next year. We do not need this ship next year.
This would be the 12th LHD amphibious assault ship that we are buying.
There are two under construction now. We just christened one in
February of this year.
Mr. President, it is not a priority for the Pentagon. It was not
requested by the Pentagon in this year's budget, and it was added by
the appropriators. We should delete the funding for that and spend it
on the top priority of the Department of Defense. That is what the
amendment does. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this does subtract $1.3 billion for the
LHD-7. It is the top priority for the Marine Corps and the Navy. The
Secretary of Navy has reaffirmed support of the LHD-7. It is authorized
in the authorization bill.
I have moved to table. I yield back the remainder of my time. I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a suffered second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the
Bingaman amendment No. 2390. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. This is a 10-minute rollcall.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair reminds the Senate this is a 10-
minute rollcall.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley]
is absent because of illness in the family.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 26, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 385 Leg.]

YEAS--73

Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Breaux
Brown
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerry
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pressler
Robb
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--26

Baucus
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Bumpers
Conrad
Daschle
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Graham
Harkin
Kerrey
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Rockefeller
Simon
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--1

Bradley

The motion to table the amendment (No. 2390) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the motion was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

____________________