(Pages S18038-Sl8067)
(Pages S18001-Sl80l4)

[pS180381]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.

The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (HR3807) to amend the Arms Export Control Act to authorize the President to transfer battle tanks, artillery pieces, and armored combat vehicles to member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in conjunction with implementation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. BYRD, is recognized for a period of time up to 5 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor. Senators who desire to converse are encouraged to retire to the cloakrooms to do so, so the Senator from West Virginia who has the floor may be heard.

The Senator may proceed.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. I hope the time is not being charged against me.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Time is not being charged to him until the Senate is in order,

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

The distinguished Senator from Georgia has developed an important, far-reaching proposal which should be considered on an urgent basis. I sat in the Chair earlier today and listened to the debate on the proposal and I was very much persuaded to support that proposal. The Soviet nuclear weapons inventory is vast, mindless, and dangerous. In some cases, I understand that the integrity of the command-control system may be in question, and the security of the weapons cannot be guaranteed.

We cannot afford to leave opportunities for the black market sale of such weapons to terrorist organizations, unreliable nations, and thereby set into motion nightmare scenarios of blackmail and threats that could ensue from the diversion of these weapons.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order. The Senator from West Virginia retains the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland, and I thank the Chair.

The amendment pending by Mr. NUNN, Mr. LUGAR, and Mr. BOREN, I believe, gives the Soviet Union an opportunity to use our help to destroy these weapons and reduce the threat of proliferation and instability. It provides an opportunity to take weapons that may exist in areas where compromise or diversion might occur, and transport them to secure sites.

The issue of nuclear proliferation is an extremely worrisome one in the present circumstances of instability present in the areas of the Soviet Union and its former and present Republics.

This is a question of vital practical importance and I commend the vision of the Senators from Georgia, Oklahoma, and Indiana, for offering the proposal.

Mr. President, I also found appealing the argument that this could hasten the day when we could see a further considerable, very considerable reduction in our own defense appropriations which I think is important, extremely important, as we look across the country and see the deteriorating infrastructure in our own country.

Now, originally the amendment would, in essence, have constituted an earmark on Defense Department funds. But that language has been changed now so that the appropriations process would be followed.

I would like to ask the distinguished Senator from Georgia, in view of the fact that we are nearing the end of the session, that there is only one appropriations bill that will go to the President other than the foreign operations bill, and that will not be until February, probably-there is only one appropriations bill still available for action and that is the supplemental appropriations bill which passed the Senate last Friday night and will be going to conferences would like to ask the distinguished Senator if he would comment on the urgency of this matter from the standpoint of the appropriation of the money not to exceed $500 million; and whether or not this is a matter that can or ought to wait until next year. Or is it so urgent that action should be taken now, before Congress adjourns?

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, first I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his support of this concept. Second, I would say in response to his question, I believe this is urgent. That is the reason, in spite of opposition when I first intro)duced this concept, I kept trying, because I do not know whether we will be able to accomplish the same things next February-March that as we might accomplish in the next 4, 5, 6, or 8 weeks.

We believe it is most urgent. We wrote a letter to the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Oregon stating it is most urgent and requesting that funding for this be allowed in the supplemental appropriations bill which the Senator has alluded to. So I would certainly agree that it is urgent.

I would say in further response, Mr. President, to the Senator from West Virginia, that the reason that original legislation was worded the way it was, was because I had intended to have it as an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill. And the Senator is certainly correct,

it is an amendment to another bill which is not an appropriations bill. The wording should be changed. And when the Senator suggested that, I agreed to that. I thought it was a good suggestion. But it is subject to an appropriation, and that means if it is put on the appropriations bill I think that adds to the urgency of the appropriations bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator from West Virginia the 5 minutes under the previous consent order has expired.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for an additional 5 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield at that point for just one item?

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr- STEVENS. Mr. President, those of us on the arms control observer group hosted a group of the Soviet scientists who came to this country looking for assistance in the dismantling of the weapons they have already agreed to dismantle. They were led by the Deputy Minister of Atomic Energy and Industry, and they made a very, very compelling case that they do need assistance, technical assistance and financial assistance.

I would state to the Senator from West Virginia, the distinguished chairman, that I would be happy to join with him in seeking to amend the supplemental to achieve the coal that is sought by the Senator from Georgia. There is no disagreement, I think, among, those of us who have served on the observer group that this is a very compelling matter that ought to be dealt with before we recess.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I take it that the administration supports this?

Mr. DOLE. We do not yet know.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am sorry to say I do not know of that. I did notify those in the administration that I would normally contact concerning this, and exposed them to those Soviet scientists. But I do not know whether there is an administration position on the matter. I just know that this Senator reached the conclusion that it is an issue that should be supported and we should act before we recess.

Mr. LEAHY. May the Senate be in order, please?

Mr. BYRD. May I say to the distinguished Senator from Georgia I have not yet received the letter. Would he produce it? I would like to show it in the RECORD at this point.

Mr. NUNN. I would be glad to. In fact, I just signed it. It is on the way. Senator LUGAR and I joined together in that letter and I will put it in the RECORD.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. I yield to the Senator from New York.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I certainly hope we will do this. The Senator from Alaska is absolutely correct. In this rarest of possible moments, the people of the Soviet Union see their nuclear arsenal as a threat to themselves, to their internal stability.

They have been sending this signal for at least 6 months. Thanks to the Senator from Georgia and others, we are responding.

I thank the Senator from West Virginia. This is rare-the rarest conceivable moment.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. President, I now have the copy of the letter that has just been delivered to me and I ask unanimous consent that letter, with the approval of the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Indiana, Mr. LUGAR, be included in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: U.S. SENATE,
Washington, DC, November 25, 1991.

Hon. ROBERT C. BYRD,
Chairman.

Hon. MARK O. HATFIELD,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.

DEAR ROBERT AND MARK: Later this afternoon, we hope the Senate will give overwhelming approval to an amendment concerning U.S. assistance in destroying Soviet nuclear weapons that we and 24 other Senators have offered to HR3807, the "Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty Implementation Act of 1991." We have attached a copy of the amendment.

Sec. 221 of the amendment provides as follows:

"(a) FUNDING(1) The President may,to the extent provided in appropriations Acts, transfer from amounts appropriated to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1992 for operation and maintenance or from balances in working capital accounts established under section 2208 of title 10, United States Code, such amounts as may be provided in appropriations Acts, not to exceed $500,000,000, for reducing the Soviet nuclear threat under part B." (emphasis added)

We would respectfully request that you consider action to provide the appropriations authority and funding required to implement this critical program. In our view, the deteriorating situation in the former Soviet Union is of such urgency that we could well miss an historic opportunity to reduce the Soviet threat if, prior to adjournment sine die later this week, we do not complete the process of providing the President with full legislative authority to conduct this program. We would, therefore, urge you to incorporate relevant appropriations authority and funding in the course of your on-going conference on HJRES157, the Dire Emergency Supplemental Act.

Sincerely,
Sam Nunn,
Richard G. Lugar,
U.S. Senators.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I simply want to engage and join in this colloquy. I agree with the comments made by the Senator from Georgia in response to the comments of our distinguished President pro tempore that the matter is urgent. Without going into any classified matters on the floor, I say to my colleagues that we are investigating significant warnings from the intelligence community about the instability of the Soviet Union and the dangers of the proliferation of weapons.

And, in addition to that particular problem, there will be a second amendment that will be offered by myself and Senator COHEN, and also Senators NUNN and LUGAR, immediately following the disposition of this amendment, which will provide the President with emergency airlift capability to go to pinpoint locations in the Soviet Union where there is social and political unrest.

I say to my colleague from West Virginia, this also would need to be considered in the same fashion. We met with Mr. Primakov, Mr. Yakovlev, and others this week and last week from the Soviet Union. There is an extreme threat that food shortages could bring about a social and political disruption that would simply be beyond the ability of the current Government to control. This could actually cause a change of Government in the Russian republics or the Soviet Union, as well, if not dealt with.

So these two matters, I simply say to my colleague, I believe, having listened to the evidence both from the Republics and Soviet sources, word coming through diplomatic sources, Ambassador Strauss and former Ambassador Matlock, and what I have been hearing from the intelligence community over the last several days, in particular, we face a very urgent situation and that we need to, before we go out of session, give the tools necessary to the

President, both on the issue of proliferation, and also on the issue of emergency supplies, the transportation capability for emergency supplies to prevent a breakdown of order in key locations, particularly in the Capital City and elsewhere, in the weeks that we will not be in session.

So I was very pleased to hear the comments of my distinguished colleague from West Virginia. I can only underline that I believe this is the gravest of situations and one that we will fail to heed at our peril. I would urge that appropriate action be taken on both of these amendments if they are, indeed, both adopted by the Senate later today.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I do not know what the sentiments of the House conferees will be on the supplemental appropriations bill, as to whether or not they will be supporting this amendment. But I think that we ought to take advantage of the opportunity at this point to at least lay the matter before them.

I would like at the conference to know what the position of the administration is, whether or not it is supportive of this amendment, and if it is agreeable with the distinguished Senator from Georgia and others, I would like to offer an amendment to the Nunn-Lugar-Boren amendment.

It is my understanding that an amendment in the second degree, if such amendment is relevant, is in order under the order that was entered. And my amendment, which I would offer-I will be happy to show to the Senator from Georgia, if he would like to offer it himself-it is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. It reads as follows:

At the end of the pending amendment, add the following: It is the sense of the Senate that the conferees on HJRES 157, the Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1992, should consider providing the necessary authority for the Secretary of Defense to obligate these funds in the conference agreement.

Mr. President, I think with that language, it would be a matter for the conferees; they could consider it. I would be hopeful that they would agree to it, and I would do whatever I could do in the conference to persuade others to agree to the amendment. It is a needed situation of persuasion.

I hesitate to sit here supinely and see the last opportunity go by to fund this amendment, in the event the Senate agrees to it. And I take it there is overwhelming support for the Nunn,and others, amendment here. I would not want it to be said that the amendment was adopted, but 2 months went by and nothing was done for lack of an appropriation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chairs informs the Senator from West Virginia that time has expired.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

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

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, if I could say in response to the Senator from West Virginia, I am delighted with his support. It is enormously important. It is a true emergency. I believe this second-degree amendment would not only be acceptable, but I welcome it as an amendment to our amendment.

I also say in response to the Senator from West Virginia that the administration knows about this amendment. I have sent copies of it to the State Department, Defense Department, down to the White House, and the National Security Council; I talked to most of the high-level officials in the executive branch about it. I am not trying to speak for them, but I believe I know their position. Their position is they have no opposition, but I have not had an affirmative support position from them on this.

I believe if there is a resounding vote on the floor of the Senate, the administration will join in supporting it. That is my belief.

Mr. BYRD. Does the Senator wish me to yield to him?

Mr. BOREN. Yes.

I say to the Senator from West Virginia, before I send to the desk a second amendment that will be offered in line with the original amendment, it will make the modification that he has suggested in the first amendment so that the two will track in terms of the appropriations language.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator visit with me about that modification? I am not familiar with his second-degree amendment.

Mr. BOREN. I will be happy to do that.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Mr. NUNN, myself, and other Senators who wish their names added.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment. The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. BYRD], for himself and Mr. NUNN,
proposes an amendment numbered 1440 to amendment No. 1439.

At the end of the pending amendment, add the following:

It is the sense of the Senate that the conferees on HJRES157, the Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1992, should consider providing the necessary authority for the Secretary of Defense to obligate these funds in that conference agreement.

Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.

Mr. DOLE. I wonder if I may use 2 minutes of my leader time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I support the Lugar-Nunn amendment. I also support the second-degree amendment offered by the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I am not certain what the administration position is.

I think it is fair to say at this point, President Bush is getting a little tender from being beaten up for trying to be of help to people who are in need overseas, and I hope this debate and this vote may end some of that unfair criticism. If he is going to be criticized now for spending any of this $500 million, if it is appropriated, after Congress, particularly the Senate, goes on record substantially in favor of it, then I think that would certainly be unfair criticism. I think it is time we called a time out.

There are certain foreign policy needs and foreign policy considerations, and I think it is unfair to say if you live anywhere else but in America, President Bush will help you; if you live in America, you are out of luck. That is not the case, but that has been some of the rhetoric we have been hearing from some Members on the other side and some Members in the other body.

So I intend to support the amendment. I do want to say for the President, if we want to be responsible, then it ought to be complete responsibility.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for not to exceed 2 minutes.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I do not want my constituents in West Virginia to labor under any misunderstanding that this is an amendment to provide aid for other countries in the usual sense. I voted against foreign aid for a good many years, for the most part, and probably will again. I do not look upon this particular amendment as a foreign aid amendment.

I just want to say that for the record, so there will be no misunderstanding among my constituents in West Virginia. I see this as an amendment that is offered to enhance the security of the United States of America, to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and to usher in the day when not only the Soviet Union will be spending less money on defense, but more important, or as importantly, the day when we ourselves will be spending less money on defense and more money on infrastructure, both human and physical.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. I yield to Senator NUNN.

Mr. NUNN. As one of the principal authors of the amendment, I say I completely agree with the Senator's interpretation. I do not consider this aid. I think this is in the direct security interests of the United States.

Mr. BYRD. I yield to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. SARBANES. I point out, as the Senator indicated, a failure, in fact, to destroy these weapons may require us to spend more in the defense budget-well beyond this figure-than would otherwise be the case.

This is an opportunity to lower the level of armaments of our adversary and, therefore, is a very important national security measure.

Mr. BYRD. I agree with the Senator.

Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield? Does the Senator have additional time?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds.

Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed for I minute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I strongly support the Nunn proposal and the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia for all the obvious reasons that have just been made by the Senator from Maryland. That is, here is a chance where the United States may very well receive a 100-percent dividend on its investment. I intend to support the sense-of-the Senate resolution of the Senator from Kansas when it comes up.

I want to tell you this little story, and you think about it. In 1980, 1 told the Nevada County Cattlemen's Association in Arkansas that I would never vote for another grain embargo against the Soviet Union short of war; it was a mistake. An 80-year-old cattleman in the back stood up. He said, "You know, Senator, I've always said that a fat, happy Russian is a lot less threat to us than a starving Russian. And I think we ought to send them anything we can afford to send if it's to eat." The resolution of the Senator from Kansas goes in that direction.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's minute has expired.

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. GORE addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia controls 26 seconds.

Mr. GORE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield.

Mr. GORE. With the clarification provided by the President pro tempore and the Senator from Georgia that this is not aid in the traditional sense, nevertheless, I would like to say I agree with the remarks of the Republican leader that should the President decide to proceed with the spending of the money authorized by this measure, he should not fairly be subject to partisan criticism of the kind which occasionally is levied elsewhere and has been fair, in my opinion. But with respect to this matter, the President should not fear such partisan criticism.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time allocated has expired. The question is on agreeing to the Byrd amendment.

The amendment (No. 1440) was agreed to.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join in cosponsoring the Lugar-Nunn amendment, as well as the Boren-Cohen amendment which will be offered later. I want to take this opportunity to comment briefly on both amendments.

Recently, we've had a lot of rhetoric on foreign aid, in general, and aid to the Soviet Republics, in particular. Most of the rhetoric has been highly partisan, and not particularly helpful.

We could all probably do some finger pointing about who is responsible for the politicization of these issues. My own view is that President Bush has gotten a very bad rap, and has been the subject of some very cheap shots.

But I think it is time to put all of that behind us, and for all of us to begin taking a rational and informed look at the national interest.

It is very much in our national interest for the Soviets to dismantle large numbers of weapons of mass destruction.

The Lugar-Nunn amendment would provide authority for the President to expend a very modest sum from the defense budget to help the Soviets rapidly and safely dismantle those weapons. It also has, built in, all the appropriate safeguards and conditions.

It is also very much in our national interest to help prevent a food or energy crisis in the Republics of the former Soviet Union this winter. Nothing would jeopardize the achievements of Boris Yeltsin and his democratic allies more than widespread public disorder-food and energy riots-even as the fledgling democratic governments are faced with the tough, bite-the-bullet problems of moving from a Communist to a democratic, free-market system.

The Boren-Cohen amendment would provide the President standby authority to utilize our airlift capacity to meet real emergencies in the former Soviet Union; to provide urgently needed food and medical supplies on a timely basis.

Both of these amendments-as their principal cosponsorship suggests-are bipartisan in nature. Both of these amendments are very much in the national interest.

Both of these amendments-as well as the amendment the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senator LEVIN, will be offering later-represent an important turning point in our consideration of the issue of aid to the Soviet Union. The amendments put the national interest first, where it must be.

They advance the national interest in important ways.

They do the right thing, in a moral and humanitarian sense,

And they put us back on the track of bipartisanship-where we should be when we are talking about helping people in real need, and advancing the national interest of the United States.

I commend the principal sponsors-they have taken an important initiative; I am happy to cosponsor both amendments; and I urge all Senators to vote for them.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we have spent tens of billions of dollars since World War II on strategic weapons systems designed to deter nuclear war. Now, at a fraction of the cost, we have the opportunity to help the Soviet Government actually destroy many of the nuclear weapons we have feared for so long. I certainly hope that we will give the President the resources and authority necessary to seize this historic opportunity.

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have been carefully considering the future of the Soviet Republics and the impact of events there on our intelligence and defense posture. I must say that I have become increasingly concerned about the prospects for unrest, rebellion, and even civil war among the Soviet Republics.

All of us have seen grim photographs in the papers depicting the recent fighting in Yugoslavia. I hope that this will not prove to be a portent for the future of the Soviet Republics, but the parallels are both obvious and ominous. In both cases, a patchwork quilt of ethnic and religious groups was held together for decades by an oppressive Communist regime. Now that these regimes have been discredited and lost power, long-suppressed animosities and irridentist claims are gathering momentum in an environment of instability, uncertainty, and economic hardship. As tragic as the consequences in Yugoslavia have been, the potential for a disaster in the Soviet Union is far greater. As my colleagues know, there are an estimated 30,000 nuclear weapons in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union also possesses far more chemical weapons than any other nation. Today, the forces that control these weapons are riven by ethnic strife and torn in their loyalties between the republics in which they reside and the Soviet general staff and the central government.

The Soviet Government recognizes these problems and appears to be taking some steps to consolidate and improve security over nuclear and chemical weapons. But they have told U.S. officials-and I believe them-that when it comes to dismantling and destroying these dangerous weapons, they are lacking in both resources and expertise. This amendment does not require the President to provide assistance to Soviet authorities, but it makes available up to $500 million of DOD funds so that he can respond to Soviet requests if he determines that it is in our national interest to do so. The amendment also stipulates, however, that such assistance can only be provided if the Soviets are themselves heavily investing in this process, are in compliance with relevant arms control agreements, and are not simultaneously engaged in nuclear weapons modernization.

As my colleagues know, I have consistently supported efforts to reduce funding for the strategic defense initiative. In my view, cooperative arrangements such as this, between the United States and our former Soviet adversary. offer a far more effective and inexpensive means of reducing the risk of the accidental or unintended launch of nuclear missiles. I hope the President will succeed in making arrangements with either the Russian Republic or Soviet central government to destroy tactical nuclear weapons, as provided for by this amendment. I also hope the administration will purse negotiations to further reduce the risk of nuclear war through the installation of mechanisms to ensure greater control over nuclear missiles and make possible their destruction in the event of an accidental launch.

In closing, Mr. President, I would simply like to observe that I do not believe the American people will complain about the expenditure of Defense Department funds for this purpose. Although President Bush has been castigated by some for spending too much time on foreign affairs, I think the American people recognize that the collapse of the Soviet Union is not an event that we can prudently ignore. The President needs and deserves the flexibility to respond to the mounting crisis in that vast land, and this amendment will help to give him that flexibility.

In sum, I think this is a very timely and worthwhile amendment. If we can help Soviet authorities destroy the thousands of tactical nuclear weapons in their arsenal, that strikes me as a tremendous bargain that will help ameliorate the danger of nuclear proliferation and nuclear war. I think the President needs and deserves the authority to seize this unique opportunity, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor of the Nunn-Lugar amendment for one simple reason: we have the opportunity to actually reduce the number of Soviet nuclear weapons, and thus their threat to Americans. This is a legitimate aim of U.S. defense spending.

As the Soviet Union undergoes dramatic political change, we have a unique chance, and perhaps a limited window of opportunity, to effect equally profound change in their nuclear posture. Leaders of the central Soviet Government and the individual republics have expressed willingness to guarantee the control and destruction of many nuclear warheads and have asked for help from the United States. They need our expertise and money to make good on their promises of reduced threat. We owe it to ourselves to make that investment.

Moreover, the specter of Soviet nuclear weapons falling into irresponsible hands also now rears its ugly head. The danger of theft or sale of these terrible weapons to terrorist states is real. Controlling and safeguarding them until they can be destroyed are immediate priorities.

Thus, we must now take bold steps to help our former enemy ease his finger from the trigger, put down his weapon and rejoin the company of civilized nations.

A moment ago, I defended this plan as a legitimate defense expenditure. Consider the billions, even trillions of dollars we have spent to counterbalance Soviet strategic nuclear missiles in the last half century. We can now spend $500 million and, in return, actually eliminate some of the weapons aimed at our own heart.

We have pared down and focused the scope of this amendment, and thereby made it workable and worthwhile. We have eliminated the retraining of soldiers and workers in Soviet military industrial complex. We have eliminated humanitarian aid. We have constrained the Soviet Union from replacing destroyed weapons, building more conventional military equipment than the absolute minimum that its own national defense requires, and reneging on the arms control agreements which it has already signed. The President must certify to Congress that the Soviets have met these obligations and more before any money can be spent.

Furthermore, any spending under this amendment is absolutely discretionary for the President: he and Secretary of Defense Cheney will make the judgment of how much, if any, we should appropriately spend on Soviet nuclear reduction to help guarantee America's freedom and safety.

For these reasons I have cosponsored the Nunn-Lugar amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the greatest obstacle to a peaceful transition to representative governments within the emerging democratic republics will be the availability of adequate supplies of food. A major reason for current food shortages is the poor itself on helping others to become self-sufficient. Thus, we should assist these emerging democracies to develop an infrastructure and food distribution system that will reduce crop losses from spoilage.

Agricultural reform and the development of permanent, modem infrastructure will take many years. Nonetheless, we believe that we can start this process now through the use of an important and economical tool: the portable grain storage silo.

Presently, the Soviet Union does not have adequate storage capacity for its crops. The Foreign Agricultural Service reports that Soviet storage capacity can accommodate only 68 percent of an average crop. This lack of proper storage wastes both foreign food assistance and crops grown in the Soviet Union. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development estimates that 28 percent of the Soviet Union's grain crops are lost each year because of spoilage.

The existing Soviet grain storage system was designed to accommodate a centralized command economy. Its large facilities are not well distributed throughout the countryside, and Soviet farmers do not trust their operation. Given the massive need for additional storage capacity and the present difficulty and expense of creating the infrastructure necessary to support permanent silos, the United States should directly provide or finance the purchase of portable grain storage silos.

These storage facilities have four major benefits: First, portable silos can be put into service very quickly. They require minimal site preparation and infrastructure development. With rapid deployment of portable silos, we can reduce crop losses during this critical political transition period and enable the people to be better fed throughout the coming year. Second, portable silos are significantly less expensive than conventional grain storage systems. Thus, our assistance will be used more productively. Third, these storage facilities can be used in coming years in different geographic areas to address changing needs. For example, they can be relocated from areas with weak crops to areas with bumper crops, or they are installed to lesser developed areas. Finally, the American people deserve our best efforts to spend their tax dollars wisely on aid programs. These storage facilities are vital in making the food distribution system work efficiently and in preventing waste of food. In fulfilling these functions, they buttress the case for a rational food assistance program.

In summary, the United States should provide, as part of its assistance package to the Soviet Union and the emerging democratic republics, portable grain storage silos. Such a step will help our food assistance reach more people, decentralize Soviet agriculture, and reduce food spoilage now and in the future.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want to salute the fine work done by Senator NUNN in launching an initiative to assist Soviet military authorities to dismantle many of their nuclear weapons. The Soviets have approximately 27,000 nuclear warheads and some of those may fall into the wrong hands if the Government's authority breaks down. We have to assist the Soviets in reducing their numbers as quickly as possible. I am therefore, proud to join as a cosponsor of the amendment offered by Senator NUNN.

Key Soviet and Republic leaders have also asked us to help them reduce their elephantine military-industrial complex, which is still eating away at the Soviet economy, devouring as much as 25 percent of the gross national product. Its giant factories are still producing weapons that are no longer needed, for a war that will not be fought. As long as the Soviets continue to channel inordinate resources into their military-industrial complex, they will not be able to raise the living standard of their people, and if their standard of living does not improve, the chances of chaos will increase.

Under President Boris Yeltsin's economic reform plan, there is finally a willingness to shake off this albatross from the Communist past. We can help President Yeltsin in ways that involve modest financial expenditures, but invite a major financial return. For once the Russians come to grips with their military production behemoth and begin to reduce their defense expenditures, we can procede with own efforts to cut the defense budget.

In addition to providing assistance in dismantling their nuclear warheads, the United States should encourage exchanges with Soviet Government officials that will be involved in this process. Many American defense companies have already started down this painful road and have much to teach their Soviet counterparts. We must also reach out to Soviet military officers. If large numbers of these officers are discharged, as they almost certainly will be, they could form a disgruntled group of political activists bent on promoting authoritarian political parties. We need to establish exchanges between United States and Soviet military officers to promote the American principles of civilian control over the military, legislative oversight, and private market economies.

We should also extend existing investment support programs to American firms that want to invest in former Soviet defense facilities that are going down the difficult but essential path toward civilian production.

Mr. President, it is in our national interest to provide assistance to the Soviets in order to transform their military-industrial complex. We do not want political chaos to occur in a country with thousands of nuclear warheads. Nor do we want tens of thousands of military engineers trying to market their skills to radical Third World states like Iraq and North Korea. It would be a terrible irony if the fall of communism actually increased the dangers of proliferation as Soviet nuclear scientists left their native land out of economic desperation.

The alternative to this nightmare is slow but steady economic progress toward a market economy that produces competitive, commercial goods. We cannot lead this effort, but we can assist it. The Russia of Boris Yeltsin wants to join the democratic free market world. They have been freed from the burden of the Communist Party and the Communist security apparatus. We must now help them to grapple with one of the last holdovers of the Communist system, its military-industrial complex.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Nunn-Lugar amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BINGAMAN). The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 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 Hawaii [Mr. AKAKA], the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIXON], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HARKIN], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. KERREY], and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. PRYOR] are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. AKAKA] would vote "aye."

Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. HELMS] is necessarily absent.

The result was announced-yeas 86, nays 8, as follows:

(Rollcall Vote No. 274 Leg.)

YEAS-86

Adams Biden Boren Bryan Bums Coats Conrad Danforth Dodd Durenberger Fowler Gore Gramm Hatfield Heflin Inouye Kassebaum Kerry Leahy Lott McCain Mikulski Murkowski Pell Robb Rudman Sasser Simpson Thurmond Wirth

Baucus Bingaman Bradley Bumpers Byrd Cochran Cranston Daschle Dole Exon Gam Gorton Grassley Heflin Jeffords Kasten Kohl Levin Lugar McConnell Mitchell Nunn Reid Rockefeller Sanford Shelby Specter Warner Wofford

Bentsen Bond Breaux Burdick Chafee Cohen D'Amato DeConcini Domenici Ford Glenn Graham Hatch Hollings Johnston Kennedy Lautenberg Lieberman Mack Metzenbaum Moynihan Packwood Riegle Roth Sarbanes Simon Stevens Wellstone

NAYS-8

Brown Pressler Symms

Craig Seymour Wallop

Nickles Smith

NOT VOTING-6

Akaka Helms

Dixon Kerrey

Harkin Pryor

So the amendment (No. 1439), as amended, was agreed to.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the bill?

Mr. BOREN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I will very shortly send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator COHEN, Senator NUNN, Senator DOLE, Senator LUGAR, Senator PELL, Senator MURKOWSKI, Senator RUDMAN, Senator BRADLEY, Senator LEVIN, Senator DANFORTH, Senator CHAFEE, Senator CRANSTON, and Senator LIEBERMAN, which will provide authority for the President, in emergency circumstances, to utilize our military airlift capability to provide emergency supplies, whether it is food, medicine, or other supplies, to locations in the Soviet Union or other Republics of what has previously been known as the Soviet Union, on an emergency basis.

Mr. President, we have been receiving, as I indicated briefly during the discussion of the previous amendment, very clear warnings that the situation inside both the Russian Republic, and other parts of the previous Soviet Union, is deteriorating at a very rapid rate. I am often in a situation. after some crisis occurs, of answering this question: Why did the intelligence community not warn us that we were facing a very dangerous situation and a possible crisis?

Mr. President, for obvious reasons, I cannot go into detailed classified information on this floor. But I want to make it very clear to my colleagues that the Intelligence Committee has been briefed by the intelligence community about the situation in the Soviet Union and its various Republics, and that we have been told that the situation there is very unstable, and potentially dangerous.

Mr. President, we have also heard from those observers inside the Soviet Union-keen observers, who have been right time and time again-that there is a very real possibility of an emerging dictatorship again within those territories. There is a possibility that even the Government of Mr. Yeltsin and the Russian Republic, and that of Mr. Gorbachev in the central government, could be changed by force or social disorder during the next few weeks and months, especially if there were to be a hard winter and a severe shortage of food and medicine.

I saw indications, in terms of the ability of the Soviet Union to produce needed medical supplies, and in some cases we are now projecting that they will only be able to produce 1 percent of certain items necessary for medical services in their country.

We have heard from the distinguished American economist, Mr. Samuelson, and from the Soviet Union, like Mr. Popov, and others, that the gross national product of the Soviet Union this year will decline by some 30 percent. By comparison, in the worst year of the Great Depression, the American GNP declined by a maximum of 8 percent.

We are seeing a catastrophic, a catastrophic breakdown in what has been the Soviet Union in the past. Those observers, including Mr. Yakavlev and Mr. Shevardnadze who issued the warning prior to the attempted coup by Mr. Kryuchkov and others that such a coup attempt would take place-and they were absolutely right in those predictions-are among those who once again sounded the alarm to us about what could happen in the Soviet Union.

We were visited this last week by Mr. Prirnakov who has just been made head of the external part of the intelligence service, what was the KGB, previously a diplomat in the Soviet Union, and Mr. Stankevich, the vice mayor of Moscow, who indicated again to us that they are gravely concerned about the possibility of social and political disintegration even in the Russian Republic during these winter months that will soon be upon us.

Our former Ambassador from the United States, Matlock and current ambassador from the United States, Mr. Strauss, have also sent us a very strong warning signal about what could take place.

We know there has been a shortage of food, even to military units, and there is no doubt about morale in military units-it has been widely reported in the news media, both in written reports and in televised reports, that the moral within the Soviet military is at an all-time low, that there are hundreds of thousands of military personnel returning from Eastern Europe and other locations to inside what was the Soviet Union where they have no place to live. Some are being quartered in tents. And, again, there is very little food for them and for their families.

Mr. President, without being overly alarmist-and we hope this situation will not develop-I must say candidly with my colleagues that it is not beyond question that there could be a breakdown of social order brought on by a shortage of food and medicine and other necessary supplies that could in fact bring down the current government which is struggling to be friendly to the United States and end the arms race, willing to enter into such negotiations and technical exchanges as were spoken about on this floor as we considered the Nunn-Lugar amendment to bring about the destruction and dismantling of nuclear weapons that threaten the United States.

There is a possibility that other factors in the next few weeks, especially during the time that we are out of session, other factors could make it impossible for those leaders to stay in power or even begin that process of the dismantling of nuclear weapons that are aimed at the United States.

Mr. President, this is not a foreign aid issue. This is a national security issue. We are not talking about any country in the world. We are talking about the Soviet Union. We are talking about the Republics like the Russian Republic and other former parts of the Soviet Union where there are still 30,000 nuclear warheads, at least 12,000 of which can hit the United States of America.

Mr. President, I think we would underestimate the intelligence of the American people if we were to say we are afraid to take action to protect their security because we think they might not understand the reason why we would want to reach out to preserve social and political order in key cities in the Soviet Union and the Russian Republic during this winter.

We have spent hundreds of billions, into the trillions of dollars, on the arms race. If we have an overthrow of the Government now in power in the Soviet Union and the central government and in the Russian Republic and other key Republics, reformers who are committed to a process of partnership, a reduction of weaponry and end to the arms race with the United States, and see them replaced by dangerous nationalistic, ethnic governments with a dislike for all outsiders, including the United States, again in alliance with those elements within the military which are most hard line and in the previous establishment, we could again have a very dangerous situation.

In 1930-and let us not forget it-the world was threatened not by a Communist, not by a person who called himself a Communist, but by someone who called himself an anti-Communist nationalist. Just because Adolph Hitler did not march under the Communist banner does not mean he was not a threat to the rest of the world.

In many ways the conditions we now face in this world are more like the conditions we faced in the 1930's than the conditions we faced in the 1970's and 1980's.

We would be derelict in our duty in terms of our responsibility to protect the American people and the national security interests of this country if we do not, on a bipartisan basis, give the President the authority to move with our military transport capability to bring emergency supplies to pinpoint locations in Eurasia where trouble might erupt so we can help preserve political stability.

When we talk about costing the American taxpayers, when we talk about making it difficult to meet our needs at home for the homeless, for those who need education, for those who need other help in our own society, I need not remind my colleagues what will happen to our ability to deal with those needs at home if we are once again threatened by a successor government in the Russian Republic or the Soviet Union which controls this vast nuclear arsenal and which might well reignite the arms race.

It is a very, very dangerous situation, Mr. President. All of us should face this situation with our eyes wide open. It would, again I say, be foolish, and it would really be a dereliction of duty for us not to give the President standby emergency authority to move supplies to critical points that would be necessary to preserve order and social and political stability this winter inside the Soviet Union and the Russian Republic.

That is exactly what this amendment does. It does not appropriate any dollars as of this moment. It simply authorizes the President to move to use our military capabilities and other capabilities to transport emergency supplies if an emergency does develop. It requires that the President would have to give prior notice to the relevant committees of Congress on an emergency basis. It provides that while we are giving him this authority today, he should have to declare an emergency himself. He would be accountable for his actions under this provision. He would be required to declare an emergency in order to make such a transfer. He would have to report back within 10 days and on an ongoing basis any transfers which he made under this emergency power.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join with the Senator from Maine, me, and several other colleagues who have offered this and will offer this amendment very shortly so that we can have a very strong show of support for decisive action if an emergency does indeed develop. We are all too often reacting. We wait until it is too late because we do not know if a political consensus is present to take a certain kind of action.

But for once, being armed with warnings that have already come to us from our own experts in our own Government, from the keenest observers inside the Soviet Union itself, from our own intelligence community, that we face a very serious situation, let us put emergency powers in place now to protect the national interests of the United States if this situation should develop.

Mr. President, as I said, I will send the amendment forward just shortly.

We are making one or two small technical changes in it so we make sure we conform with both the Appropriations Act and the Budget Act.

I will yield the floor. But first, before I yield, let me first yield for a question from the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. SASSER. Will the Senator yield for a question here of the amendment itself and how it would be funded?

Mr. BOREN. I yield.

Mr. SASSER. Now, as I understand it, we have not heard from the President as of this time and the President has taken no position one way or the other with regard to this amendment.

Mr. BOREN. The Senator is correct in the formal sense. Let me say that I have had discussions with several of the President's advisers, including the National Security Adviser, on this matter. It is my belief-and without any authority to speak for them in a formal sense-that if the Congress were to give this emergency power to the President to respond in this kind of situation, it certainly would not be resisted by the White House, and I think that the President would be prepared to use it if such an emergency did develop.

Mr. SASSER. As I understand the amendment that will shortly be offered by the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, he does direct in the amendment that in the event the expenditure is made, the funds will come out of the 050 or Department of Defense account, and that this expenditure can only be made upon the President declaring an emergency and expending the funds, directing the expenditure of the funds out of that account.

Mr. BOREN. The Senator is correct on all of the matters he just raised. Yes, it would come out of the defense accounts. Again, we view this not as a foreign aid question, but as a national security question. We are talking about preserving the national security of the United States. I think it would be appropriate if it did come out of the defense accounts. It would not be competing, therefore, with any other domestic programs, for example. But in order that we make certain we do not set a precedent that we would regret later, I very much admire the work of the distinguished chairman and his colleagues on the Budget Committee to make sure that we are responsible for a budgetary point of view.

I know that my colleague on many occasions has resisted efforts to undo the budget agreement, to stay with it, to be fiscally responsible. We would require that the President would have to declare an emergency under the terms of the Budget Act and budget agreement, so that the funds would be expended in this way. So it would take, in essence, action by both branches of Government.

We would in advance, since we are not going to be in session, be saying that we consent in advance to a declaration of an emergency by the President. But he would still be required to make that declaration.

So you would have, in essence, a dual declaration of both branches of Government of a state of emergency as required by the Budget Act to make this kind of exception.

Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, just to make the point crystal clear, you can differentiate between the amendment that the Senator from Oklahoma will offer shortly and those amendments that were offered earlier to transfer funds from defense to domestic spending or to international spending. You can make a difference here or differentiate between those amendments that were defeated earlier this year and the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma, in that the spending is to be directed out of the DOD account, but can only be expended out of that account if and when the President acts jointly with the Congress in declaring this an emergency.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely correct. I think we can draw that distinction. It would require the Presidential declaration of emergency, in addition to the action by the Congress, which we would be taking today. And also, I think, again, it is very clearly not a matter of transferring defense funds to a nondefense use. I think we would all be in this situation that if we were to stand by and, let us say, rioting and a breakdown of order took place in certain key cities in the Soviet Union, the military did not respond, and the government was replaced by a government hostile to the United States, now controlling all of those nuclear weapons, I think the American people would say: Why did you not look after our national security needs?

So I think there is a very clear distinction here. This is a national security issue, the gravest of national security issues. The funds would come within the defense budget itself, and would not be transferred out of defense to some other area of Government. And it would require this Presidential declaration of emergency.

Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, just let me say this to my friend from Oklahoma. I do not disagree with the considerations that are driving the offering of this amendment. I think that the Senator from Oklahoma makes a clear and convincing case for his amendment on policy considerations.

My earlier reservations were premised on the fact that this might do damage to the budget agreement that we entered into last year. And I was vigilant to the notion of keeping intact the fences between defense spending, domestic spending, and international spending. As I said earlier, a number of Senators have offered amendments to try to take funds from the defense accounts and put them into domestic spending accounts, including the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. BRADLEY, who I see is now on the floor.

But in this instance, what we are doing is keeping the budget agreement intact, as I understand it, by requiring the President and the Congress to declare an emergency. And that is the difference between the amendment offered by my friend from Oklahoma and previous amendments offered on prior days that would have sought to use defense money for another purpose.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee. He is absolutely right. I understand the great pressure under which he has been operating all through this session. He has had the responsibility of keeping the budget agreement intact, and making sure that the provisions of the Budget Act are followed.

We all know that is a very difficult task, to make sure that Congress behaves in a way that is budgetarily responsible. I salute him for that. I respect him for that. I think virtually in every case this Senator has supported the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee in holding that line and it has been a very hard one to hold.

I would say, I think here we have a clearly different proposal that in no way would set a precedent that would give a green light to those kinds of transfers that would not meet this kind of test. I think, both from the point of view of substance and the point of view of procedure, by here requiring the President to enter into a declaration of emergency, and by us with this action, in essence, giving our concurrence to this declaration, so this would also be an action by this body declaring an emergency, I think we have clearly set forth a very different procedure.

So on both procedure and substance, I think we are very clearly not setting, a precedent that would violate the position that the Budget Committee and many of us have taken, throughout the remainder of the session.

I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for calling this matter to my attention, and for helping us technically make sure that we did not set a precedent that we would later regret from a budgetary point of view.

Mr. President, I will send the amendment to the desk very shortly. I now yield to the principal cosponsor, who served with me for so many years as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I am privileged to have him as a cosponsor.

I yield the floor to the Senator from Maine.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for just a minute?

Mr. COHEN. Yes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, as in Executive Session, I ask unanimous consent that the President be notified of the Senate's action on the CFE Treaty.

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

Mr. MITCHELL. I thank my colleague.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I see the Senator from New Jersey is also on the floor. He played a major role in this entire effort. I know he wants to speak, as do several other Members.

Let me say first to my colleague from Oklahoma that when the minority leader mentioned that some Members of this body, and indeed, some in the other body, were charging the Bush administration with neglecting domestic affairs in favor of international or foreign affairs, my colleague and friend from Oklahoma has not been among them.

He has, throughout his career in the Senate, attempted-and I believe been successful in that attempt-to act in the best interests of this country, especially in the field of foreign policy. He has been one of the true leaders in every bipartisan effort, not only to establish a sound intelligence community, but a sound national defense, on a completely bipartisan basis. I believe that is the way in which he approaches this particular issue.

Mr. President, several years ago, I conceived of a fictional account in which the Soviet Union began to disintegrate, President Gorbachev was thrown out of office, Boris Yeltsin was removed violently by members of the KGB, and a new leader emerged who was authoritarian in nature, who said that: "We tried democracy; we tried capitalism. And look what it got us. It brought anarchy, food riots, and very little else."

And those forces who were driven back by the democratic aspirations of the reformers returned with a vengeance. They promised order; they promised security; they promised food. And there was only one thing they had to sacrifice and that was liberty.

Well, we can see from today's headlines and unfolding news accounts, that fact is not very far away from fiction. Now it may be Mr. President, that some of the realities that are being influenced upon the Russian people and the Soviet people's today has been a case of self-infliction.

The other day, I believe on Saturday, I quoted from one Soviet commentator who supported what the Soviet military has done with respect to the equipment located in Europe. That commentator commended the military generals who, in fact, succeeded in circumventing the CFE Treaty by removing from Europe well over 50,000 pieces of equipment before the Treaty was signed in order to circumvent the provisions of the treaty. If not the provisions, certainly the spirit. The quote was:

It is unfortunate, of course, that all of this coincided with a record harvest occupying badly needed rail cars and making the job of transport more difficult. But who was to blame for that? First and foremost, the Foreign Ministry, which was rushing full steam ahead toward a treaty.

So, what they were saying is, "Thank God we have the military officers here to put a halt to what the Foreign Ministry is trying to do by signing treaties with the United States. We need guns; we do not need butter."

So they had a record harvest a year ago. That harvest has never made it to the marketplace because they were so busy trying to circumvent the CFE Treaty they did not take the harvest to the marketplace. So some of that is self-inflicted.

Nonetheless, Mr. President, I do not know anyone, Republican or Democrat, who wants to see the kind of hardships that are not too far away from the Soviet peoples unfold in that way. The chairman of the Intelligence Committee and perhaps Senator BRADLEY may wish to elaborate on this. But there are potentially health problems coming this winter, be it in the form of the spreading of diphtheria, tuberculosis. We talk about an AIDS epidemic in this country. I think they are on the verge of experiencing an AIDS epidemic that will make ours pale by comparison because they do not have the capacity to even manufacture the necessary needles for their hospitals and they are reusing them over and over again. We are going to see an AIDS epidemic, I think, that is going to shock not only the Soviet Union but this country as well.

Mr. President, I said I would not take much time, and I do not intend to. I am going to yield the floor in just a moment. I think this particular provision is absolutely essential. I think it is actually more important than the one we just passed to help the Soviets dismantle their nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. I believe this is more imperative because it is more pressing. It may take weeks, months, maybe even years to achieve the other. There is not much time before help is going to have to be given to the people of the Soviet Union in order to prevent the kind of catastrophe that we see looming on the horizon. So I hope we will have strong bipartisan support.

I commend the chairman once again and also the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Michigan, who is not on the floor right now but who I know will be speaking on this issue, and I hope we have a very broad level of support for this amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. BOREN], for himself, Mr. COHEN, Mr. NUNN, Mr. DOLE, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. PELL, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. RUDMAN, Mr. BRADLEY, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. DANFORTH, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. CRANSTON, and Mr. LIEBERMAN, proposes an amendment numbered 1441.

Mr. BOREN. 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:

"SEC.. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER CERTAIN FUNDS TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY AIRLIFT AND OTHER SUPPORT.

(a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds-

(1) that political and economic conditions within the Soviet Union and its republics are unstable and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future;

(2) that these conditions could lead to the return of hostile, anti-American leaders in the Soviet Union;

(3) that one of the most effective means of preventing such a situation is likely to be the immediate provision of humanitarian assistance; and

(4) that should this need arise, the United States should have funds readily available to provide for the transport of such assistance to the Soviet Union and its republics.

(b) AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER CERTAIN FUNDS.-Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Defense, at the direction of the President, shall be authorized during fiscal year 1992 to transfer sufficient funds from those appropriated to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1992 to the extent provided in the Appropriations Act, not to exceed $200 million, in order to transport, by military or commercial means, food, medical supplies, and other types of humanitarian assistance to the Soviet Union, or is Republics, or localities therein-with the consent of the relevant Republic government or its independent successor-in order to address emergency conditions which may arise therein, as determined by the President. Any funds which are transferred pursuant to this provision shall be drawn from the Operations and Maintenance or working capital accounts of those funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1992. The Congress designates all funds in this section as "emergency requirements" for all purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds in this section shall be available for obligation only to the extent and only in the amount designated by the President, not later than the date of enactment of this provision to the emergency funding requirements within the meaning of part C of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

(c) PRIOR NOTICE.-Before any funds are transfered for the purposes as authorized in section (b), the President shall notify the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives, and the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives, of the account, budget activity, and particular program or programs from which the transfer is planned to be made and the amount of the transfer.

(d) REPORTS TO THE CONGRESS.-Within ten days of directing the Secretary of Defense to transfer funds pursuant to subsection (a), the President shall provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives, and the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives, which shall at a minimum, set forth-

(1) the amount of funds transferred under this section, including the source of such funds;

(2) the conditions which prompted the use of this authority;

(3) the type and purpose of such assistance; and

(4) the locations, organizations, and political institutions to which the assistance was delivered.

(e) It is the sense of the Senate that the conferees on HJRES 157, the Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1992, should consider providing the necessary authority for the Secretary of Defense to obligate these funds in that Conference Agreement.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, this is the amendment which I have just been discussing. It has also been discussed by my colleague from Maine and also by the Senator from New Jersey. This is the amendment which would allow for the President to have emergency authority to transfer Department of Defense funds, up to a maximum amount of $200 million, to provide emergency airlift transportation of supplies necessary in the event of crisis within those areas that have previously been under the designation of the Soviet Union. As I have indicated, we could very well face that kind of situation this winter.

I appreciate very much the kind comments just made by my colleagues. And I want to thank my colleague from Maine for the comments which he made about my efforts, the efforts of this Senator to approach these kinds of problems in a bipartisan fashion.

This is no time for partisan politics. As the Senator from Indiana and I said on the floor last week, it is time for us, when it comes to the vital national security interests of the United States, to call a truce on partisan politics. This is no time to be trying to be scoring political points by one side of the aisle against the other or by one party against the other, even though it is the season in which we are going to be approaching a Presidential campaign. We are dealing here with a matter of great importance to the national security interests of the United States. And when you face a situation like that, there can be put one appropriate designation for all the Members of the Senate and all of those charged with policymaking responsibility for this country, whether they are in the legislative branch or the executive branch, and that designation must be American. We must put aside politics and look at what is in the best interest of this country.

And, clearly, if we were to have a situation develop, one in which the United States could have played a part in trying to sustain in power a Government in the Soviet Union or in the Russian Republics or elsewhere in that land mass favorable to the United States, one which controls thousands of nuclear weapons, and we stood on the sidelines and did nothing only to see that Government replaced by one which would want to reignite the arms race and threaten the security of this country, the citizens who sent us here to act as their trustees would demand to know of us why we were not alert to the danger, why we did not listen to the clear warnings that have already been given to us, why we did not look after their interests.

Mr. President, that is why it is my hope that this amendment will be adopted by a very large majority. It is in the national security interests of the people of the United States. It deserves to be supported in a bipartisan way, strongly, on both sides of the aisle and to be implemented decisively by the President of the United States without regard to political considerations if this kind of emergency situation does indeed develop.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SIMON). Is there a sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BOREN. I will be happy to yield.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before my distinguished friend from Oklahoma leaves the floor, I have a question that I was curious about. In this matter, is it correct to assume that the President and the administration is requesting this or is this something that we have just decided to offer them?

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, in the formal sense, I am not prepared to say this is something that the President has requested. I am not authorized to speak for the administration. I have had numerous conversations with members of the administration, including the National Security Adviser, the Director of Central Intelligence, and others, about this matter.

I think we have all understood that we have been into a political situation over the last several weeks in which there has been a lot of discussion about whether the President was paying sufficient attention to domestic matters. I think this debate, and certainly this Senator does not disagree with some of the points that have been made. We have to take care of our own at home if we are going to help anyone in the world. I think it has created something of a climate where both those in the Congress and the White House have been hesitant to act.

This Senator, the Senator from Indiana, the Senator from Maine, and many others, have come to the floor to say let us not confuse this with the debate about foreign aid or paying attention to other countries versus paying attention to the needs at home. This is a national emergency and we ought to view it as that. It is dealing with our national security. We are not talking about any country, we are talking about a country that has 30,000 nuclear warheads.

Mr. President, I will say this. In my discussions, I feel certain, this is certainly not opposed by the White House. I think that certainly if this situation did develop as an emergency that the President undoubtedly would declare an emergency, he would be required to do so; that in essence they would have to have both branches of Government working together. We would be giving them the authority by our action today. He would have to come forward and join us and say, "I need to activate this authority. I find there is an emergency existing." That way there would be a partnership effort by the Congress, by a bipartisan action of the Congress and the President for us to move forward.

I had hoped that the President would explicitly say that he authorized us to say that he requested this authority. He is not in a position to say that yet.

Mr. DODD. Let me ask an additional question of the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

Just out of curiosity, what is left of the Soviet Union-I am not quite sure who I ought to make the request of as to who might make the request, whether it is Mr. Yeltsin, President Gorbachev, or someone else. Has there been any indication at all from the potential beneficiary of this that they are seeking this kind of assistance as well? Normally we get some sort of request for aid.

Mr. BOREN Yes; I can say to my colleague, I think it is pretty clear that they do request this kind of assistance and would be very reassured by this kind of an emergency authority for the President. I had discussions about 10 days ago with Mr. Yakovlev who, as you know, is the personal representative of President Gorbachev. He also is the chairman of the democratic reform movement in the Soviet Union. I also had conversations last week with Mr. Primakov and the vice mayor of Moscow, Mr. Stankevich all of whom have come to Washington to have discussions about the internal situation and their needs.

I explicitly asked those three, among others, from the Soviet Union and the Russian Republic who have visited with us, if they felt that if such an emergency developed and we gave this kind of authority to the President, would they be prepared to make such a request, including the granting of use of Soviet and Russian republic air space to move our military transport to key locations where there was grave need?

They said they had no doubt that the authority would be given. They felt it was a certainty the authority would be given, the permission would be given. And if that kind of circumstance developed, they also indicated to us there was no small possibility, there was certainly a serious possibility that these kinds of conditions could occur, that they would welcome this authority be given to the President and that they had no doubt whatsoever that the authority would be utilized and permission would be given.

So I wish that I were in position to say, and it is somewhat frustrating for this Senator not to be able to say that in the formal sense I can say to you I know the President of the United States and the administration want this authority. I wish I could say to you in the formal sense, and it is a little bit difficult now with the situation in the Soviet Union that there has been a formal request, but I think I can tell you that in the informal conversations that have occurred, there is not opposition, but there is general support for this, both in the executive branch and in the Soviet Union, the Russian Republic and other key locations.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield further, I assume, Mr. President, that a request was made of the administration to make a request or at least to indicate their support of this; is that the case? And if so what has been the response? I mention this to my colleague purposely, Mr. President, because I am inclined to be supportive of this and it makes some good sense, but I also went through-I remember watching the last couple of weeks when the issue was up about money being included in the defense authorization bill that there were members of the administration who indicated their support of that program, the minute anyone raised any questions about it they sort of proverbially headed for the hills on this issue.

They may be a bit skittish but before we all buy into this, I would feel a lot more comfortable if the Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of State, if not the President, would say we like what you are doing here. It has our imprimatur approval.

I see the Senator from Maine here.

Mr. BOREN. If I could yield to my colleague from Maine and then I want to make a comment following his comment to your question.

Mr. COHEN. If the Senator would yield, let me respond to my colleague from Connecticut. He raises a legitimate point: Why has not the administration expressed its enthusiastic support for this particular measure?

This had its genesis, this was part of a larger measure that was fashioned by the Senator from Georgia several weeks ago during the consideration of the DOD authorization bill. At that time, it came to the attention of the full committee at the last moment with very little notice to or participation by the minority, and there were objections because of the scope of the proposal. It dealt not only with the dismantlement of the nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, with transportation of needed medical and other types of necessities, but also helping to convert military installations into more commercial factories, to train scientists and military officers, and so on. So it was quite broad in scope and was drafted with very little participation by the minority.

At that time, there were conversations between the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and members of the administration and, again, there was some hesitancy there because the administration was being beaten day after day after day in this body and elsewhere about its alleged preoccupations say alleged preoccupation-with foreign policy and not domestic policy. So there was an inclination to back away.

Now as a result of the scope of the amendment that was originally drafted by the Senator from Georgia and the reluctance on the part of the minority of the Armed Services Committee to fully support it, Senator NUNN, Senator BOREN, and others went back to the drawing board and said let us get very specific and very narrow. As a result, Senator NUNN, LUGAR, BOREN, and others brought the measure before the Senate earlier today that would deal with the dismantlement of the nuclear materials.

With respect to this amendment addressing the transportation of medication and food and the transport of other types of humanitarian relief, this was brought about by the leadership of the Senator from Oklahoma, with my support. I believe he is correct in defining this as a national security interest.

Just as you have legitimate questions as to why the administration has not expressed its enthusiastic support for this, I think the Senator should have the assurance because of the bipartisan nature of this initiative, with Senator BOREN, myself and others, he should have no fear that the administration tomorrow or the next day is going to turn around and point an accusatory finger at this body and say: "Look what they are doing down there; they accuse me of being preoccupied and then they foist this off on to me. I will not touch it." The Senator should have little fear of that particular possibility because there is strong bipartisan support. And were that to take place, I think that he will find us being very, very vigorous and vocal in our expression in response.

So I think the Senator can rest assured that this initiative is coming from the Senate.

Mr. DODD. Yes,

Mr. COHEN. It is coming from the Senate on a bipartisan basis. If the administration chooses to ignore it, I say it will do so at its peril. If they then seek to point an accusatory finger at the Senate or the House, I think you will find many people defending the actions of this body.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I may further inquire. I appreciate very much the response of my colleague from Maine to the question. I am not even asking for enthusiastic support. I would feel a little more comfortable if they were at least indicating some support.

The question that also comes to my mind as I read the amendment-and I supported the last amendment and intend to support this one as well, but it struck me in looking at this one particularly-the last one, it seems to me, because we are talking about dismantling missiles, we may be charting new territory, new ground there. But does not this authority exist in law already? My point would be is that it seems to me emergency authority like this under the Budget Act is already given to the President if he wanted to utilize it, and our action really is not necessary.

Mr. COHEN. There is a limitation. I was under the same impression as the Senator from Connecticut. There is a dollar limitation in terms of the use of the military aircraft, I am told. I think the total is $13 million.

Mr. BOREN. The Senator is correct. After Operation Comfort and other operations which have taken place this year, while there is a general authority for the President as Commander in Chief, obviously, to commit military resources, there is a real question as to whether or not there is sufficient funds.

So perhaps even more important than the granting of authority under this amendment is the granting of the right to, without additional action by us, declare an emergency and transfer up to $200 million to carry this out. Because if we did get into a really serious situation, obviously, the small amount that is perhaps now available simply would not be sufficient. When we think about the kinds of expenditures we are talking about here compared to the $3 trillion we have spent on the arms race, obviously, we are talking about a wise expenditure of funds.

Let me say to my colleague from Connecticut, I share his frustration about the political situation that we have had. I share his frustration that we have not been able to get a clear cut, formal, as I say, statement from the administration on this matter after a lot of informal consultation.

I, myself, have had consultations with numerous people within the administration on this matter. I have not had anyone speak a discouraging word to me about it. I had hoped that we could have had a bipartisan meeting of the leadership, and Senator LUGAR and I proposed that last week, of the congressional leadership, both sides of the aisle, those particularly interested in foreign policy and national security down to the White House to discuss this matter. I was told such a meeting would probably take place. I held my schedule open for it for several days. It has not taken place. I think we are in this-and that is disappointing to me, having been a Senator that time and time again has tried to behave in a bipartisan fashion. I think my credentials are clear on that. They are so clear that sometimes colleagues on my side of the aisle wonder if I am not too bipartisan. So I am disappointed in the fact, to be candid about it, that the White House has not entered into this kind of formal setting of negotiation or a formal statement about this amendment and the amendment that immediately preceded it that we just adopted.

But I think we have to set that aside when you understand there are bruised feelings, as the Senator from Maine has said. We are all human beings and we all understand the political risks that are involved.

I would simply say to my colleague, I think there comes a time, no matter what others may do in this body or what others may do in the White House or anyplace else, we have to set aside political considerations and say, all right, whether we have a formal word from the President or we do not have a formal word or whether we have a formal endorsement by the congressional leadership on each side of the aisle or we do not, this is right for the United States and we are simply going to be responsible enough to go ahead and do what is right for this country.

When I go home the thing I hear most often from my constituents is a statement that goes something like this: With all of the terribly important problems facing this country, with the terrible economic problems here at home, with the dangers that confront us in the world, why cannot you people in Washington stop playing party politics, partisan politics, personal politics, quarreling like a group of children, and get down to really do the work of the country and concentrate on not who gets the credit or the blame but doing what is right for the country.

I think that they are absolutely right in making that point. I think that that is the perception. It is not exactly an incorrect perception. It is my hope that today we will prove to our constituents that we can do something for a change, not because it has a political content but because it is right, it is right for their national security interests, it is right in terms of protecting them and the next generation of Americans that we hope will not have to involve themselves in an arms race or a cold war with another hostile superpower.

So I would say to my colleague I Understand his frustration, the frustration that I read between the lines of his questions. This is a frustration that I share. It is a frustration I know my colleague from Maine shares because he has conducted himself time and time again in a bipartisan fashion on this floor. I would simply say this is an opportunity for all of us to simply do what is right for the national interests of this country, step forward and do it.

I do not have any doubt but what the President would utilize that authority if we put it in place. I think he would. I have no doubt but what those on the receiving end, be it in the Russian Republic or other Republics of what was the Soviet Union would be readily agreeable to accepting-in fact, pleading to accept-whatever would be required in terms of permissions for it to be delivered because we really do have the safety and stability of the government at stake which controls these weapons of mass destruction. We do not want them to fall in the wrong hands. We have heard all the discussion before about the dangers-if there is a collapse of political authority, people simply taking weapons to some other location in other countries, selling this technology. There are all sorts of things that can happen when order breaks down and when people are desperate. I think for the sake of our own people and the security of the whole world, we simply do not want to allow that to happen if we have any way to prevent it.

Mr. COHEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. COHEN. Let me make one other point.

I think what has changed has been the tone and the attitude, certainly, here on Capitol Hill in the last several weeks. Two weeks ago, it was quite different and there was legitimate fear, I might say, on the part of the White House and Members on this side of the aisle that this was something of a Trojan horse that was being wheeled into the White House. That $1 billion the number that was being contemplated at that time, was a substantial amount of money certainly, but in terms of the scope of the problems facing the disintegrating Soviet Union and all of the health problems associated with it as well, it was not going to make a very significant dent in those problems. And that there was some calculation, or at least perceived calculation that they were giving the President the authority to use up to $1 billion to deal with these problems. It was not nearly enough to cope with them. And then if he decided to do something and failed, he would be accused of not being aggressive enough; if he did not use it at all, he would be accused of failing to have recognized the handwriting on the wall, that it was not a forgery.

So there was apprehension, given the tone that existed up here a couple weeks ago. That has changed. As a result of that change, I think you will see a corresponding change at the White House itself and among the Members on this side of the aisle.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, if I could reclaim my time, I thank my colleagues from Oklahoma and Maine for their responses to the questions. I commend them as well for fashioning and putting together this proposal, Mr. President. I say that in all sincerity. I think it is an extremely worthwhile effort.

I guess I am just lamenting a bit, Mr. President, in the sense that I wish we could achieve sort of the same sense of bipartisanship on some of these other issues we face around here that involve our own economic difficulties.

There are those who want to demagog on these issues and suggest somehow that these dollars could end up being better used here at home, and one could make the case I suppose of where the authority here of the $200 million could be applied-I assume, as I look around the Chamber here, Georgia, Oklahoma, Maine, or any other State for that matter, and that argument could always be made.

I guess the frustration people sometimes feel is that when you see us go through a 4-month debate about unemployment benefits-granted, it involved more money than this, substantially more than this-we end up sort of in a gridlock and yet often a matter like this where obviously it is extremely important, things seem to move much more smoothly. And there is I think the fear-it may be unwarranted but nonetheless the fear people express that when it comes to trying to resolve some of the questions that affect the economic condition domestically, we seem to be incapable of getting out of our own way.

Yet when it comes to sometimes dealing with the legitimate foreign policy crises-this is certainly one-it would be a great historical tragedy if at the exact moment in history when communism fell and Marxism collapsed and there was the opportunity to nurture the tender roots of democracy from what remains in the Soviet Union, and we failed to step up. I agree with those who are making that case.

So I am just using this opportunity as a suggestion that there are additionally some pretty serious problems at home, without stating the obvious. My hope is this message of comity we are reaching in a foreign policy matter might spread out on other issues as well and an effort would be made to achieve some sense of comity as we try to address some of these other issues.

I would also feel much more comfortable with the administration for them to at least indicate their support for this particular effort. It seems to me not a great deal to ask for them to support, at least conceptually, what we are trying to do, what the Senator from Georgia has crafted, and others. I hope that will be forthcoming. I suspect it may be.

The Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Maine are correct. It may be because of a feeling some tenderness about the accusations that have been leveled in terms of the administration's failure to focus at least as much attention.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD. Let me finish my thought, and then I will yield.

My perception is not that people object to something like this. They really do not. It is that sense that sometimes they are not given the same amount of consideration and effort and time.

That is I think what grates on some people's nerves-that they do not understand the importance of trying to help out, and play an active leadership role when it comes to the plight of people around the globe that are suffering.

That is something that I find Americans are generally supportive of. It is not their opposition to that. It is the failure to understand why we are not doing more in these other areas.

I do not want to belabor this point. It is a well-crafted amendment. I think it does what its authors designed it to try to achieve. Again, I hope the President will step up and join with us in this effort because clearly that will really be supportive, as I stated to my colleague from Georgia, as I raised the point earlier.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I just would like to thank the Senator for supporting this very important provision, and I am delighted the Senator from Oklahoma and Senator from Maine have taken a lead on this amendment. I vigorously support it. I will make a statement in a moment giving the reasons that I do support it.

But I also will say I share the frustration of the Senator from Connecticut that there has been no White House leadership on this matter or on the earlier amendment.

As I said in the earlier debate, someone asked if I believe the White House was going to support this, and I said once we passed it overwhelmingly I think they will. But it is a little late. Because if we had waited on the White House, there would not be this kind of a decision, and I think that is regrettable.

I think the message at least goes to the White House that we need leadership in foreign policy. I am not one of those who believes that it is either domestic policy or foreign policy that the White House has to lead on, that Congress has to lead on. It is both. They are interrelated.

I think it is a bad mistake for people in the Democratic Party, while legitimately criticizing the White House for inactivity on the domestic side-I think it is a mistake to frame the debate so it appears that when the President does take a leadership position on foreign policy it is automatically criticized. I do not agree with that.

I think we have to get across the point that the President has to lead on both foreign and domestic policy. Domestic issues are critical now. There is no doubt about that. Unemployment-the need to take initiatives, short-term, and fundamentally to address the long-term economic issues.

On all of those we have not seen the leadership that we desire from the White House. But it is not going to cure those problems for the White House to also sit on its hands on foreign policy. That is not going to help anybody. I am afraid that is what is going on now

It seems to me that on the Democratic side we need to make it clear that what we want is the President to lead the country on critical matters of the economy, and domestic policy, but we also want him to lead on foreign policy. He has done that until recently. But I have dealt with the administration on this amendment for the last 3 weeks, and we have a traumatized situation, to put it mildly.

Everyone I have talked to in the administration-and I have talked to many of them-basically is in favor of this initiative individually, but collectively the best they have been able to muster is they do not oppose it. That is really not leadership.

We have managed to reach a consensus here in the Senate which has been demonstrated I think on that last vote, after a great deal of struggle and some leadership on both sides of the aisle. The Senator from Maine, the Senator from Indiana-there are many Republicans who join in this and many Democrats who join in.

But we did not pass it because the White House was involved. We passed it with a very inactive and inert White House. And I hope by passing both of these measures today we will be sending a signal to the White House that in spite of the fact we are going into an election season, in spite of the fact there is going to be inevitable criticism on the domestic side, that does not mean we do not trust the President to lead our country as he has done in so many cases in foreign policy so well. We want him to continue to be vigorous in foreign policy. We would like to have vigorous domestic leadership as well.

I hope that is the message we can get across because it is not one or the other. It is both. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for making that point.

Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD. I am glad to yield.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I find we are in an interesting situation. I first would say while the Senator is on the floor, I commend him, and the Senator from Oklahoma, the Senator from Maine, the Senator from Indiana, the Senator from Georgia, and others who are working on this issue.

But I find the present situation both extraordinary and in some ways troubling. By troubling, I mean the colloquies I heard back and forth. We have yet to hear from the White House that this is really what they want.

I hope we are not being led down the primrose path. We will do what we feel is necessary to lower the threat of nuclear weapons on the soil of the Soviet Republics, and show the humanitarian side of the United States to try to keep people from going hungry.

But I look at the price tags of these initiatives. It is strange to me that on an issue where you are talking about several hundred millions of dollars to remove nuclear warheads and reduce the nuclear threat, that we have to take the extraordinary step, we collectively in the Congress, to do that. But yet with the stroke of the pen the administration has sent $4 billion in foreign aid to the Soviet Union in the form of agricultural credits that will never be repaid, to buy food, much of which, as the New York Times and others pointed out yesterday, will lay rotting on the docks or will go on the black market. It will never reach the people that it is intended to help.

I recall being criticized by a Member on the other side of the aisle when I was asking for minor amounts for the agricultural program on the supplemental. The issue was raised that I support foreign aid. I happen to be the chairman of the subcommittee that must handle all the money for foreign aid. My colleague blasted back that I was offering a dairy amendment and I support foreign aid. I note, however, that he is one of the people who cosponsored this amendment.

Are we being led down a primrose path here? What I am saying, Mr. President, on a matter so critically important that it might involve starving people on the one hand and nuclear weapons on the other, that maybe there should be a postcard from the White House saying it is a good idea.

I ask unanimous consent that an op-ed piece by Leslie Gelb in Sunday's New York Times be printed in the RECORD at this point.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From The New York Times, Nov. 24, 1991]

THE U.S.: A PATHETIC NATION?

(By Leslie H. Gelb)

With the trillions spent to win the cold war, it will be pathetic if the U.S. fails to find $1 billion to combat famine and the danger of nuclear chaos in the Soviet Union.

Famine in Soviet cities this winter could kill the Soviet democratic experiment, and there is only one way to prevent starvation. That is by loading up U.S. military aircraft with food, flying to cities and overseeing the distribution. But aside from a few Democratic Representatives such as Les Aspin and Lee Hamilton, Washington sits on its hands.

The spread of Soviet nuclear weapons could present the greatest threat to world peace, and there is only one way to guard against their misuse, theft or sale. That is a crash joint effort by U.S. and Soviet specialists to secure them. But apart from an encouraging bipartisan group of senators joined by Mr. Aspin and Mr. Hamilton, Washington shows no urgency.

The risks of inaction and delay are clear and grave. Yet legislators, fearful of being accused of helping Soviets at the expense of Americans, shrink from doing what they know is right. And President Bush, who above all understands what must be done, is also frozen by such accusations and remains inexcusably silent.

The one thing Mr. Bush has done-his now $4 billion "food aid" program-raises serious questions about his competence and motives. Senator Patrick Leahy is not alone in charging that the President "is playing a deceptive game with American taxpayers."

The Bush $4 billion plan sounds good. It provides U.S. credit guarantees for the Soviets to borrow money from banks to purchase American grain. Marlin Fitzwater, the White House spokesman, said the program "is aimed at alleviating food shortages and other dire humanitarian consequences ... this winter."

But much of the grain won't even reach Soviet seaports in time to make a difference this winter. Much of what does arrive is bound to rot on the docks or find its way into the black market, if past experience with Soviet distribution is any guide. Most of the cargo is feed grain, destined for farms and animals, not people. This grain will help sustain livestock. But it will do very little to alleviate hunger in Soviet cities now.

This is no secret. Which is why Mr. Leahy and many others see the $4 billion as aimed more at raising American farm incomes than at helping needy Soviets.

Mr. Leahy is also rankled by what he sees as Mr. Bush's budgetary sleight of hand. The President is not asking Congress to appropriate $4 billion, and says the Soviet Union is creditworthy and will pay its bills. Mr. Leahy argues that there is little chance the Soviets will find the cash, and that the American taxpayer will eventually have to pick up the tab. The Senator is by all odds correct.

Here another fundamental issue is joined. If the $4 billion is essentially a gift to the Soviet Union and mainly a boon to American farmers, and if it won't do much to relieve famine this winter, why spend it at all? Or why not use the money to provide emergency relief for needy Americans?

Put this way, the Leahy stance is not frivolous or isolationist. Politicians could say in honesty that they would rather use the funds for America's emergencies than make a grand, but largely ineffectual gesture abroad.

But the choice should not be between a questionable food aid effort and American domestic priorities. It ought to be between those priorities and a food relief program that can work.

Mr. Aspin has put together a list of already-bought and ready-to-go foodstuffs, including $165 million in free food already allocated by Mr. Bush, and tons of food leftover from the Persian Gulf war. Europe is also loaded with excess stocks.

What is needed is transportation and reliable distribution inside the Soviet Union. U.S. forces fed the Kurds after the gulf war and could do it again on a much larger scale. They are also ready to help their counterparts gather and destroy Soviet nuclear weapons. The $1 billion needed for these vital talks would come from existing Pentagon funds, not new money.

A nation loses its soul and spirit if it cannot act to protect its most basic interests and values. Soulless and spiritless we will enter our future if we fail to do what we can to forestall new dangers and dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Mr. LEAHY. That article expresses many of my views, Mr. President. We have done one extraordinary thing this afternoon by a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. We have, in effect, taken a supplemental appropriations bill already approved by the Senate and amended it while it is floating somewhere down the corridor toward a conference committee.

We just approved a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to amend it. It is extraordinary. I wish we had thought of it before. We ought to probably do that more often. It certainly does away with a sense of finality when something goes out of here.

My second point is whether we are going to get into a position where if the President wants to do something in foreign aid, he is going to be criticized by Democrats.

I happen to be one Democrat who stood out here, in a very lonely fashion with a very major issue, supporting the administration on foreign aid. I have done this over and over again. The President would not have passed any of these foreign aid issues without very substantial Democratic support. We have stood up for him time and time again, and helped him on some very difficult issues where sometimes even Members of his own party abandoned him.

I am also concerned that we can find money immediately for the Soviet Union, or what is left of it, and at times, we are told there is no money for much smaller but equally significant programs here in the United States. When sponsors of domestic assistance such as diary are criticized, for even supporting the President's budget on foreign aid, we are getting ourselves tied into some political knots that may take a long time to unsnarl, Mr. President.

I just warn my colleagues. We saw it last week when I offered the dairy legislation. I was criticized for supporting the President's budget on foreign aid. But yet, here, the same people come forward with amendments like this. I may vote for this amendment. But we need a plan before spending millions in the Soviet Union.

The President just approved $4 billion in foreign aid to the Soviet Union in the form of agricultural credits. I say it is foreign aid because nobody really thinks they have the creditworthiness to pay this money back. We sent it in a sort of a "shovel it over there in a hurry, because you do not have to vote on it" attitude. There was no plan about where it is going to go, who gets it, or what is done in return. There are no market reforms, distribution reforms, and the expertise along with it.

A number of commentators, Republican and Democrat alike, have pointed out that it means there will be a lot of food wasted, a lot of U.S. taxpayer money wasted, without accomplishing significant goals.

Again, I commend the sponsors of this. I know they are concerned with stability, world peace, and humanitarian reasons. I commend them for doing the work.

But let us hope that, in the weeks between the time we go out of here and the time we come back, the administration will seek the same kind of bipartisan help they have sought before and received from this body. We need to work out a plan to see where our tax money is going to be spent, we must ensure that it is spent in the best way to achieve world peace and humanitarian purposes.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to address the issue being discussed here. The Senator from Connecticut and I stood on this floor together to fight for the extension of unemployment insurance benefits. We pointed out at that time that the President had found it in his perspective to define emergencies overseas in order to provide assistance, to meet these critical situations, but he could not declare an emergency here at home in order to help unemployed Americans.

We said the time that we supported the President when he came to us earlier in the year and said: There is an emergency overseas, and we need to provide some help.

So it was not a question of our not recognizing the emergency overseas and the need to respond to the emergency. The problem was the President's refusal to recognize an emergency at home. Can we only deal with one problem on the agenda at a time?

The Senator from Georgia is absolutely right. This administration is traumatized in recognizing what serves the national interests. Clearly, if we can bring down the level of nuclear weaponry in the Soviet Union, we are serving the national interest. The question is, does the President have the capacity to bring a vision that recognizes both-the need to deal with a rapidly changing world and the economic needs of our own citizens.

At the time that we fought for the extension of unemployment insurance benefits to millions of deserving Americans it was not my position that the President should not have found an emergency overseas in order to provide some needed assistance. It was my position that, having done that, having been supported by the Congress in doing that, he ought to have the vision to recognize that there was an emergency here at home, and he needed to provide some assistance here as well.

Frankly, the problem here at home, in terms of the economy, is that we have a President and a national administration who will not even recognize that there is a problem. Everyone says, what is the administration's proposal? They say to the Democrats: What is your proposal? Well, the majority leader has put out an economic growth package and enunciated a proposal. But, in my own view, the first proposal that we should have, the first hurdle that has to be crossed, is for the President of the United States and the administration to recognize that there is a serious economic problem in this country. How are you going to deal with a problem if you will not even recognize that there is one?

On September 22, Budget Director Richard Darman stated on national television: "I think the economy turned in May."

He continued to maintain that position throughout the summer and fall. On October 30, he told the Washington Post that the economy was recovering. He said: "I think it will stay up. It is not coming up as strongly as we would want."

On November 1, the initial claims for unemployment dipped slightly. The Secretary of Labor said in a statement that the new data were "a positive sign that the country's economic recovery continues to move ahead."

Last week, the initial unemployment claims were the highest they have been since last spring, almost 500,000. It is anticipated that they will drop back down a little bit in the coming week. On November 8th the President said: "I am not prepared to say we are in a recession."

The Secretary of the Treasury stated much the same thing, saying that. "We are coming out of a recession."

Meanwhile, the people out in the country know far better what is the reality. They know they are facing a recession. When Secretary Brady was asked on a recent news program, about what kind of measures the administration had, he responded:

I am not going to jump start the President's State of the Union legislation, but it will be dynamic. It will portray change, and it will address the problems before the country at the time.

The State of the Union Message is coming at the end of January. That prompted David Broder to say, "If there is a need for a stimulus package next January or February why isn't there a need for one now?"

The question is not whether we should do something of the sort that has been proposed here today by the very able Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Oklahoma, which clearly serves our national interest, or whether to address these pressing problems at home. The question is do we have the capacity to do both of these things when our national interest is at stake? Why will not the administration come forward and say, "We think this is a good idea; we need to move on this"? That is what one would call leadership. Yet they are not even able, once this initiative had been proposed, to support it publicly.

On November 20, the President told a group of businessmen the following:

Some fundamental points to a good recovery. We ought to get it in perspective. Inflation is down, interest rates are way down, personal debt is down, inventories are down, quality is up, and exports are up.

First of all, inventories are not down. Inventories are up over recent months. They are down from what they used to be, but they are going back up. The rate of export growth has slowed from the beginning of this year. Personal debt is up, even though the rate of growth has declined substantially.

We had an article this morning on Michael Boskin, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. A friend of his says his philosophy on economic policy is: "Don't just do something; stand there."

That is what we are up against here. I do not make any apologies. I came out on the floor and was strongly critical of the administration because they would not declare an emergency to pay unemployment insurance benefits. I said at the time that I had supported the President earlier in the year when he came to the Congress and asked for an emergency declaration in order to send some help overseas because I thought the case warranted our doing so.

But, at least let us treat Americans equally. That is really the issue. Let us at least treat them equally. I think we have an opportunity here to serve our national interests very important national interest. Our fundamental national security interests are going to be served by this proposal. I do not make any apologies for supporting this proposal and at the same time saying there is something missing with the national administration that not only has not submitted an economic package but will not even recognize that there is an economic problem.

To the credit of the Republican leader, whom I see on the floor, he recognized the unemployment insurance benefit problem back in the summer. My perception of it, and maybe I am wrong, is that the Republican leader, Senator DOLE, of Kansas, was trying all along to drag the administration along to recognize a problem which he perceived. The administration kept saying, no, there is no problem. it is like you saying to someone, "You have to do something about this. What is it you are going to do?" They say, "Oh no, no problem,"

Mr. President, there is a problem. There is a problem in the Soviet Union with respect to dismantling these nuclear weapons which the Senator is trying to address by his amendment. But also there is a problem here at home with respect to the economy, which the administration ought to address. In fact, in this situation they are not addressing either one of them-the problem in the Soviet Union and our domestic problem at home. Talk about being traumatized. They are not addressing either one of them. They do not have the capacity to come to us on the nuclear weapons problem in the Soviet Union and say, "Yes, this is a real opportunity to do something," and they do not have the perception to recognize a problem here at home and try to do something about the economy. All the President says is, "The economy is recovering." Meanwhile people out on the street say, "What planet is he living on? Does he realize what is happening here at home? Why doesn't he address this problem here at home?"

So I want to commend the Senator for offering his amendment. I support his amendment, and I do so while at the same time saying to the President he needs to recognize the problems here at home as well. He is not recognizing either one of these problems. As I understand it, the administration's position on these amendments is, "We do not oppose them." That is about it Is that correct? I do not think they can get beyond that. Their position essentially on the economy here at home is that there is not a problem, we are coming out of this recession. Bear with us because at January, we are going to give you some kind of economic package.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I could reclaim the time, and I will yield the floor here. I know others want to speak on this matter.

I thank my colleague from Maryland. I will just say, in conclusion, Mr. President, I hope that we might even before this discussion ends, which I presume it will in the next few minutes or so, we might hear from the administration there would be an effort. Obviously, it will not happen. We have to take leadership and decide to do this. If that is the case, I will support it. But nonetheless--

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DODD. I wish to finish a thought and I will yield the floor. I have been standing here for an hour.

There is a need here, it seems to me, and the authors of this amendment have done a good job, I say to my colleagues from Maine and Oklahoma, and others, who are sponsors of this amendment. It would, I think, make a lot more sense to have some indication of support. Maybe that will be forthcoming after the amendment is adopted, but certainly it will be vitally helpful to achieve that.

I just say, in conclusion, that there is a concern out there that we are not addressing aggressively enough, Mr. President, the concerns of people in this country, and I think you need to do both. As the Senator from Maryland indicated, that leadership requires that you pay attention to both if you are going to be truly a great nation.

So I commend again the authors of the amendment. My intention is to support it, with the regret that the administration is being silent on this, and I hope that silence does not continue for long. Leadership is required in this matter as well.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Boren-Cohen amendment.

Congressman ASPIN and I had hoped to put a similar provision before the Senate, in connection with the conference report on the Defense authorization bill. I felt then, and I continue to feel, that it is in our national security interests to help avert social instability in a nuclear superpower that is crisscrossed with fault lines of potential domestic crisis.

I do not favor using Department of Defense funds to purchase food and medicine. Other Government and private programs exist for that purpose. I do favor authorizing the administration to use Department of Defense funds for the transportation and distribution of emergency humanitarian assistance to the Soviet people, should the President find this to be in our national interests.

As it ably demonstrated during Operation Provide Comfort on behalf of the Kurds in northern Iraq, the Department of Defense has unique logistic capabilities. Our military services have excellent commanders and well-trained, highly motivated men and women who can do the job well.

The provision we are now considering would provide the clear authority, and adequate funding, to make possible the transportation of emergency humanitarian assistance to the peoples of the former Soviet Union. Some related authorities and funding exist in current law. But I believe it wise to give the President unambiguous authority and adequate discretionary funds specifically for this purpose.

I believe it is wise because throughout the territory of the former Soviet Union-a country undergoing political, economic and ethnic strife-sit tens of thousands of nuclear weapons and tons of chemical weapons. Throughout the territory of the former Soviet Union are military units filled with disaffected, poorly paid, and poorly housed officers and soldiers.

Ethnic tensions have produced a swelling number of refugees from areas of ethnic strife. Heightened unrest caused by widening shortages of food and medicine is a real possibility, particularly during the coming winter months. Such shortages could spark civil turmoil and even armed violence. They could lead to weakened control and physical security of the 30,000 nuclear weapons and the tons of chemical weapons on the territory of the former Soviet Union. They could bring to power nationalistic, authoritarian, militaristic leaders for whom such weapons are symbols of power and prestige.

The Boren-Cohen amendment affords us the opportunity to diminish this danger by getting humanitarian assistance where it is most needed in the former Soviet Union in a timely fashion. The failed coup of August 1991 improved the prospects for democracy, economic transformation, and a less threatening Soviet defense policy. However, without Western assistance, there is a real possibility that these prospects could disintegrate into a heightened threat to Western national security interests.

The amendment gives the administration flexibility to respond effectively to an emergency Soviet need for humanitarian aid. It amounts to prudent insurance against a serious risk that could put into question the security of nuclear and chemical weapons. This amendment is in the national security interests of the United States and our allies. It merits our support, and I urge its adoption.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I know others want to speak. I believe this has been cleared by the leadership on both sides of the aisle.

I ask unanimous consent that the vote on or in relationship to the Boren-Cohen amendment occur immediately on completion of the debate on the Dole amendment, which will begin just momentarily, with no second-degree amendments in order to the Boren-Cohen amendment, and that, upon disposition of the Boren-Cohen amendment, the Senate without any intervening action or debate, vote on or in relation to the Dodd-Bradley et al. amendment, and, further, that the vote on or in relation to the Boren amendment occur at 5 O'clock today.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. DOLE. I am not certain how much debate the Boren amendment had, an hour and half. I think Senator LEVIN would like a few minutes. It is his original idea, and I am happy to join as cosponsor.

Mr. BOREN. Five-thirty. I think it can be terminated briefly.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a unanimous-consent request from the Senator from Oklahoma. Is there objection?

Mr. DOLE. If I could reserve 15 minutes on that Levin-Dole amendment, I do not think it will take much time. I think Senator LEVIN did want to make remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? The Republican leader has suggested that 15 minutes should be reserved for the Dole-Levin amendment

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. BIDEN. Is there unanimous consent before the body?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a request from the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. BIDEN. Would the Senator mind restating the request?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma can apparently modify his request if he could restate that.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote, as I mentioned before, on or in relation to the Boren-Cohen amendment occur immediately upon completion of the debate on the Dole amendment; that there be not be exceed-well, let me just say with no second-degree amendments in order to the Boren-Cohen amendment; that, upon disposition of the Boren-Cohen amendment, the Senate, without any intervening action or debate, vote on or in relation to the Dole-Levin-Bradly amendment; further, that the vote in relation to the Boren amendment occur no later than 5:15.

Mr. BIDEN. I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I think there are others seeking recognition on the debate. So I will just withdraw the request and, hopefully, be able to renew when I understand the reason for the objection.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.

Mr. BOREN. I simply would conclude the debate. As far as I know, on our amendment, I do not know others wishing to speak on this amendment.

Mr. President, I understand the comments and frustrations that have been expressed on both sides. Certainly, this Senator understands the need to take care of the domestic agenda and the need for us urgently to come together in a bipartisan way to work on serious problems that confront us. As I said during the debate on the unemployment bill, which I consistently supported since it has been several times through this Chamber, I am acutely aware of the problems we face at home. Even in my own small home community in Oklahoma, two or three weekends ago, when I was there, I saw people standing out in the ice and snow, which occurred earlier than any other year since 1911 in my State this year, begging for an opportunity to work for food and shelter for their families. We need to work on all these problems, and we need to come together in a bipartisan way to do it. We need leadership from the White House and bipartisan leadership from the Congress. The problems are serious, and we need to set aside politics even in an election year to deal with them.

Mr. President, I simply say that the issue here that we are dealing with is one of grave importance to this Nation, as I said in the beginning. It is a national security issue. This amendment does not transfer any funds out of domestic programs or programs to take care of domestic need.

This amendment would authorize, if the President declares an emergency, if he joins the Congress in declaring an emergency, it would authorize the President of the United States to deal with an emergency inside those areas that have previously been called the Soviet Union, if it is necessary to do so to preserve social and political stability there.

If we were to have a breakdown of order because of a dire shortage of food and medical supplies or other necessities, we could have a collapse of the political structure as well very shortly thereafter. We have been told that by observers in our own Government. We have been told that by those whose opinion we respect within the Soviet Union. We have been told that by our intelligence community.

I need only remind my colleagues that those governments now in power which are seeking a new cooperative, constructive, friendly relationship with the United States, seeking to join with us in ending the arms race, in the destruction of nuclear weapons, I need only warn my colleagues and say to them again that if the wrong people came to power in those localities, they would then assume control of those weapons of mass destruction.

This is simply a threat that we cannot ignore. The American people understand it. The American people would rightfully hold us accountable if we did not have an emergency plan in place to prevent that kind of political collapse from occurring which would lead again to that kind of military threat.

So, Mr. President, I would urge that the amendment be agreed to.

I see the distinguished minority leader on the floor. I think he is prepared to offer his amendment.

I would simply ask unanimous consent that the vote on the Boren-Cohen amendment occur immediately upon the conclusion of the debate on the Dole-Levin, et al, amendment, and that the vote on the Boren-Cohen amendment occur upon completion of the debate on the Dole amendment without intervening motions or amendments, and that the vote on the Dole-Levin, et al, amendment would then occur immediately following the vote on the Boren-Cohen amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise as an original cosponsor of the resolution to be offered by Senators DOLE, LEVIN, myself and others. Mr. President, imagine a country split apart by tumultuous political upheaval, fracturing into new, uniformed entities, without capital, without the means to generate it, and without the institutions to absorb and multiply it.

This country needs help. If its parts yearn to be democratic and free, they deserve the help of those who can give it. Such aid would be of benefit to both the giver and the recipient, for democratic nations fuel each others' freedoms and perpetuate peace and stability far beyond the sum of their individual contributions.

So stand the former Soviet Union and the United States. The collapse of Soviet communism, one of the most significant political developments of this century, has created untold opportunity for both the United States and for the people of the former empire. These opportunities, however, are not only being missed at this time, they are being substituted for by polices which may do more harm than if nothing were done at all.

The administration's approval of new grain credits to the Soviet Union defies logic. President Bush wants to guarantee loans to a country that does not exist, to be repaid by banks that do not exist, so that food can be distributed by a distribution system that does not exist. Of course, these loans would be backed by American taxpayer dollars. But they also do not exist.

Mr. President, the emerging republics of the Soviet Union need help. But even they do not really exist yet. And therein lies the challenge for our Government. If the United States is to respond to the collapse of communism, it must be guided by the realization that we are in the business of creating, not fine tuning. The Soviet republics, fractured, poor, unformed, most need what America can best offer, our expertise in the formation and growth of political economies.

Helping to create and sustain political economies in the republics will require a multilateral effort, channeled through existing international institutions-the IMF, World Bank, and the like. It will require scores of international experts working directly with the Nascent republics to facilitate the emergence of market economies through the creation of trade, banking, taxation, legal, and other systems. It will require multilateral loans, aiming not at American agribusiness profit margins but at the establishment of vital currency stabilization funds. It will require whatever technical assistance can be delivered to those Republics that commit themselves to market economies, minimal barriers to interrepublic trade. and full integration to the world economic and political community.

And, yes, it will require humanitarian assistance, especially, when necessary. We have to be prepared to prevent a catastrophe in the short term, this winter, with food and medicine directed to the areas of greatest need. But we will invite a catastrophe in the long term if the range of our vision is as narrow and ill-conceived as the administration's embrace of grain credits. We can help the people in the republics without dumping billions of American dollars on their former repressive government.

This resolution, the resolution to be introduced by Senators DOLE, MITCHELL, LEVIN, BOREN, COHEN, myself and others, is, in my view, a plan to do that. But, above all else, it represents our call for the long-term vision that is needed to grasp the historic opportunities that are before us. It is imperative that President Bush formulate the plan called for in this resolution.

Several Senators address the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.

AMENDMENT NO. 1443

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the
President should promptly consult with Congress for the
purpose of preparing a comprehensive plan entitled
"International Investment for Democracy" that would assist
the Soviet Republics to avoid social chaos and achieve
economic and political stability)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on my behalf, along with Senators MITCHELL, DOLE, BRADLEY, LUGAR, NUNN, DOMENICI, BOREN, and LIEBERMAN, and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. LEVIN], for himself, Mr. MITCHELL, Mr. DOLE, Mr. BRADLEY, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. NUNN, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. BOREN, and Mr. LIEBERMAN, proposes an amendment numbered 1443.

At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new section:

SEC.. POLICY TOWARD THE FORMER SOVIET UNION.

(a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds that-

(1) the Soviet Union is undergoing a transformation which opens the possibility of democracy, the development of free markets, new individual freedoms, and integrating the former Soviet republics into the global economy;

(2) if that transformation is not successful, there is a real threat of economic and social collapse, the emergence of totalitarian, security-threatening states, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, components, and weapons technology;

(3) the national security interests of the United States are best served by stable, democratic societies and free markets in these republics;

(4) the economic interests of the United States are best served by the full integration of the Soviet republics, either individually or collectively, into world markets;

(4) the transformation into working democracies with open market economies is mostly the responsibility of these republics themselves, but the rest of the world can make significant contributions to this effort. linking those contributions to a well-planned reform program; and

(6) the success of structural reforms can best be facilitated by the immediate, coordinated actions of the United States, other nations, and international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (also known as the "World Bank"), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the United Nations which have the skills and resources to assist that transformation without increasing the direct exposure of the United States Government to the debt of Soviet republics.

(b) POLICY.-It is the sense of the Congress that-

(1) it should be the goal of the United States policy toward the former Soviet Union to help the Soviet republics to avoid social chaos and achieve economic and political stability;

(2) that goal can best be achieved by facilitating the transformation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics into stable democratic states with free market economies and clearly defined economic and constitutional relationships with each other, binding agreements to minimize tariffs and other barriers of inter-republic trade, full integration into the world economic and political community, and manageable debt burdens;

(3) the President immediately should begin consultation with Congress and should promptly prepare and transmit to Congress a comprehensive plan entitled "International Investment for Democracy" that would assist the Soviet republics to avoid social chaos and achieve economic and political stability by articulating step-by-step actions that should be taken by such republics, acting together or individually, and the supporting actions that should be taken in response by the United States and other nations through international institutions:

(4) the International Investment for Democracy plan should include expeditious action-

(A) to provide prompt humanitarian assistance when necessary to prevent life-threatening shortages of food and urgently needed medical supplies;

(B) to combat the proliferation of nuclear weapons, components, and weapons technology, and to facilitate safe control, storage, and dismantlement of nuclear weapons;

(C) to provide technical assistance to facilitate the emergence of a market economy;

(D) to facilitate a dramatically increased number and intensity of contacts between Americans in the private sector and citizens of the Soviet Union;

(E) to help Russia and other Soviet republics to draft laws, establish political and legal structures, and build institutions that facilitate open, democratic, market societies; and

(F) to articulate clear conditions under which a currency stabilization fund could be used to facilitate the goals in paragraph (1), and, at the appropriate time, encourage international institutions to establish such a fund with contributions from leading industrial nations;

(5) assistance should be provided to republics that are establishing viable political, legal, and economic structures, including free and open markets, that agree to minimize barriers to inter-republic trade and that, individually or collectively, agree to participate in macroeconomic stabilization programs designed by international institutions and the delivery of such assistance must be fully consistent with the sovereignty, laws, and independence of participating republics;

(6) bilateral programs within this plan should efficiently pursue the goals of paragraph (1) and minimize the cost to the taxpayer and the debt exposure of the United States Government; and

(7) where currency and debt stabilization programs further the goals in paragraph (1), they should be provided through existing international financial institutions, rather than through direct United States Government assistance.

Mr. LEVIN Mr. President, first, let me thank the cosponsors of this amendment. We have a very broad bipartisan coalition that supports this amendment, and I think that support is a very significant portion of the amendment. as well as the language that is in it.

Those cosponsors include Senator MITCHELL, Senator DOLE, Senator BRADLEY, Senator LUGAR, Senator NUNN, Senator BOREN, Senator LIEBERMAN, and Senator LEAHY.

I particularly want to express my gratitude to Senator BRADLEY who has spoken a little earlier this afternoon on this amendment, who has worked so hard on this issue for so many months. Our offices, together with a number of other offices of Senators I have mentioned, have been able, now, to put together an amendment which represents a broad, bipartisan approach to an issue very critical to American security.

What we seek here is urgent action to protect American security through a comprehensive, coordinated plan, crafted by the President and Congress together to help preserve democracy in the Republics of the former Soviet Union.

It has been 3 months since the August coup in the Soviet Union. When that coup failed, we all hailed the victory of Democrats over the forces who wanted to turn back to Central State control instead of open markets, and to repression instead of freedom.

But the failed coup was part of a chain of events that could lead to a larger failure. Chaos is on the rise in the fledgling Republics of the former Soviet Union. Food shortages, hyperinflation, ethnic unrest, violent nationalism-all in a land where 30,000 nuclear weapons are still located.

It is time to work together to do what we reasonably can do to help stem that chaos and the security threat it poses for the people of the United States.

This amendment says the goal of United States policy toward the former Soviet Union is that the Republics avoid social chaos and achieve economic and political stability. The people of those Republics must do the lion's share of the work, just as they are doing the suffering. But we and our allies can help them avoid new dictatorships which would threaten us. We can help those Republics transform into stable democratic states with free market economies, and clearly defined economic and constitutional relationships with each other.

Our amendment urges the President to promptly consult with Congress to prepare a comprehensive plan for achieving this goal, an "International Investment for Democracy" that would lay out step-by-step actions the Republics could take and the supporting actions that the United States and other nations would take in response.

Some elements of the plan can be bilateral: humanitarian assistance to prevent life-threatening shortages of food and urgently needed medical supplies; technical assistance to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation and facilitate safe control, storage, and dismantlement of those weapons; and expertise in establishing political, legal, and economic structures.

Other elements should be multilateral, with the majority of contributions from other nations, and coordinated by the international expertise and experience.

For instance, this amendment says the comprehensive plan should articulate clear conditions under which a currency stabilization fund could be established with contributions from leading industrial nations, and the conditions a Republic must meet in order to use such a fund. The potential for such a currency stabilization arrangement could provide a powerful incentive for Republics to institute economic reforms and survive the transition from a Communist state to a free economy.

The amendment is a statement about the importance of bipartisanship in this critical area of policy.

The amendment is a bipartisan attempt to take real action and prevent chaos in the Soviet Republics, before it is too late. It is not a giveaway. And it is not an attempt to divert attention from serious problems at home.

This action and the plan which it urges be put into place is truly in America's own interest. And to act in our own self-interest does not mean we need to be self-centered. Yes, it is long overdue that we put our own house in order. I believe that deeply, and it has been neglected. But putting our house in order does not mean building a fence, or pulling down the blinds to shut out the world. We have to be engaged in the world to enhance our own security.

The American people understand how important it is for our own security that we prevent a return to totalitarian dictatorships in the former Soviet Republics. Many of us have donned a soldier's uniform to protect this country's freedom-some bear the scars of battles fought to stop dictators. As taxpayers, we have spent trillions of dollars to fight the cold war. Now we can certainly muster a tiny fraction of those resources to participate in an international investment for democracy that protects the gains freedom has made in the land of our former adversary so it does not collapse into a new dictatorship.

We are not talking about giveaways. We are talking about an investment in our own security. And, in some important areas, we really can do a lot with very little. Programs to promote bilateral trade, investment, and business between American companies and enterprises in the Soviet Republics can be initiated efficiently and inexpensively-but they can yield great results.

Peace Corps volunteers can help people help themselves. A volunteer managers corps can share the expertise of American businesses directly with a new generation of entrepreneurs in the former Soviet Republics. Let us get judges and lawyers over there to help set up property laws and fair judicial systems. Let us get our technicians and laboratory scientists over there to actually take apart the nuclear warheads that have been pointed at us. Let us get our Commerce Department to analyze Soviet enterprises the way they do in other countries, so American companies can identify joint venture opportunities.

But let us not just watch and hope that this all happens. We need a comprehensive plan, a coordinated effort designed by the administration and Congress together, and we need it urgently. We do not need a Marshall Plan in terms of dollars. We do need the breadth of vision that the Marshall plan reflected.

The odds are tragically against democracy surviving in the Soviet Republics through this winter and beyond. Our own ambassador to the Soviet Union, Robert Strauss, is warning us about the surge of popular discontent. "There's an awful lot of people who'd like to swap what they have now and go back to the security of knowing what two rubles would buy-knowing all they have to give up would be a little freedom of speech. * * * out of that kind of climate, demagogues are made." Ambassador Strauss added that without some kind of help we could "end up looking at a real fascist-type situation."

A recent KGB report said that emerging social conditions are ripe for "a fascist coup."

Newly reinstalled Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze warned that dictatorship may return, and he is the one who accurately predicted the August coup. You can hear the conditions that breed fascism in the voices of the Soviet people:

A woman standing in line for boots in the snow says "My optimism is running out. It is down to zero *** I have no future."

A woman and her child waiting in line for food says: "My kitchen is empty, my kids are hungry." She wonders aloud about the new leaders of her country, "have we made a mistake?" We all ought to be haunted by those words. We should tell her strongly, as strongly as we can, that whatever contribution we can reasonably make that will be efficiently and effectively delivered, "You have not made a mistake."

A 63-year-old man, waiting in the snow to buy bread says, "We are not living *** we are dying from within."

A Moscow engineer says, "We just want to live our normal lives ***."

Let us remember what normal lives were in the Soviet Union and how that normalcy threatened the West.

Yet we go to the stores and we see that the shelves are empty. People at my job say the government gave us freedom of speech and took away the food."

In yesterday's Washington Post, we read the assessment of Ella Yudrina, the deputy head of a Moscow city district organization responsible for food supplies. She says:

There is a time factor. The people who made the coup are still sitting out there and waiting, waiting until things get bad.

Mr. President, let us heed those kinds of warnings from our Ambassador, from Eduard Shevardnodze, and others. We should end the mischaracterizations when it is our future security that is the issue. We should end the arguing about jurisdiction between congressional committees and end the competition between the Departments of State and Defense and others about who should be in charge of this effort. We should come together, now, and assemble a comprehensive plan to help preserve the Soviet Republics as democracies, and foster them as allies and peaceful members of the family of nations, and to prevent them from falling back into the hands of repressive dictators who will threaten our security, and cost us trillions more.

If we squander the opportunity-if we fail to join together and take action now-we will never forgive ourselves.

Let us pass this amendment; let us get to work immediately with the President on this plan. It is an essential element of the larger task of getting our own house in order and keeping our own house in order.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, said recently that it is in our national security interest to see that democracy prevails in the former Soviet Union and that the causes of civil unrest be addressed.

The new NATO doctine-this is a formally adopted doctrine now by NATO, our own alliance-says that the biggest risks for the alliance now come "from the adverse consequences of instabilities that may arise from the serious economic, social and political difficulties, including ethnic rivalries and territorial disputes," in the Soviet Union.

We have a window of opportunity we never expected this quickly. but it can close as quickly as it opened.

These events may take place a long way from here. But they affect us drastically, as drastically as Hitler affected us when he burned down the German parliament, and as drastically as Stalin affected us when he signed a pact with Hitler. Those events took place thousands of miles away also, but what seems a long distance away sometimes can affect us very fundamentally and manifested at home.

There are tens of thousands of nuclear weapons at stake which could be scattered around the world, from Libya to North Korea, if Soviet collapse and chaos lead to nuclear proliferation. The American people understand that, and we should not be so blinded by fear of political attacks that we cannot see what they see.

Mr. President, let me close by again thanking the cosponsors of this amendment for all the help that they have provided in crafting it, for bringing it to the floor; again, particularly, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. BRADLEY. I want to thank the Democratic leader, Mr. MITCHELL, for cosponsoring this; Mr. DOLE, Mr. LUGAR, and all the other cosponsors of this.

It has been a long process in drafting this amendment. I do hope the amendment can be adopted and we can then, on a bipartisan basis, get on with adopting a bipartisan plan in America's interest.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, before I get into my statement on the amendment, which will take only a few moments, I want to say that I am a bit disappointed by the last moments of debate on the Boren amendment.

We started this morning with an effort to forge a bipartisan approach to some important foreign policy issues. Senator NUNN, who was the author of the first amendment we dealt with; and Senator BOREN, who authored the amendment we just debated-made that point.

I made it, too, in a statement I put in the RECORD on those two amendments.

And I thank those Senators for their good faith effort at bipartisanship.

But now-even as we debate these bipartisan initiatives-we have had to sit through a series of new potshots on President Bush. That is just not the way those of us who have entered into this effort envisioned that it would go.

The ground rules for some seem to be-Republicans join us, and hold their partisan fire; but we are free to keep throwing the bombs at President Bush.

Well, that is not the way the game is played. We are not going to play it very much longer that way. We will find out whether we are going to have partisanship or whether we are going to settle down and do the business of the Senate.

So I hope all of us, on both sides of the aisle, can get back to the spirit that we claimed to be embracing when we started this debate. We are either going to have bilateral rhetorical disarmament or we are going to continue a partisan rhetorical arms race.

We are either going to be bipartisan-or we are not. And we cannot be selective.

People were jumping up this morning saying this is not an aid program, so I am going to vote for this, but I am not going to take anything away from anybody in America.

Well, nobody wants to take away anything from anyone in America. But I have said on this floor time and time again, the Soviet Union, or former Soviet Union, is pretty important to all Americans, and if there is a collapse, or if there is another coup, or if there are riots, or if somebody brings up and causes a lot of problems, the $2, $3, $4, $5 billion we may invest now may save us $10, $20, $30, $40, $50 billion later on next year.

I know some of us who come from farm States are accused, well, they vote for that because that helps the price of rice, or the price of wheat, or the price of something. I must tell you that many farmers in the United States share the same views of a majority of other Americans. We want to be paid back. We have extended credit guarantees to the Soviet Union. What does that mean? That means if they do not pay back their loans on the first $2 billion we are going to pay about 98 cents on the dollar, and the last $2 billion of export credit guarantees we are going to pay 100 cents on the dollar, we the taxpayers. So we want to be paid back. And I think we have made that clear.

So I just suggest that when I hear statements, or read statements, or watch TV, and somebody says, "If you live in America, President Bush doesn't care about you. But if you live anywhere else in the world just call him up, he will send you a check, or he will send you anything he wants," that we can play that game for so long. But it is not responsible.

I am hoping now we are getting back on a bipartisan track and we are addressing this concern because it does affect the interests of every American. I suggest that we are doing the responsible thing, and I hope we will continue.

IN AMERICA'S INTEREST

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator LEVIN as an original sponsor of this important amendment.

As I noted in our discussion of earlier amendments to this bill, the issue of aid to the so-called former Soviet Union has been obscured by a blizzard of political rhetoric.

In a pell-mell pursuit of partisan advantage, the national interest has been left far behind. Now we are trying to regain it. And I commend those who are doing that.

Tragically, in the process, we have run the risk of losing a historic opportunity to advance the national interest of the United States.

Just a few short weeks ago, free men everywhere rejoiced as a revolution of freedom swept across the Soviet Union.

Here in this country, we celebrated not only because freedom won, and tyranny lost-though that, in itself, is cause for celebration.

But we celebrated, too, because the new reality in the former Soviet Union brought so many important concrete and potential benefits to the United States, and to the American people: A reduced threat of Soviet aggression; improved prospects for even further arms reductions; slashing of Soviet support for Kremlin clients such as Castro's Cuba; enhanced Soviet cooperation in managing regional crises; and dramatically expanded prospects for mutually beneficial investment and trade relations.

But, even as the celebrations continued in Moscow, here in Washington, and around the world-harsh reality also began to set in.

The fact is, we cannot take for granted that the experiments in freedom and free markets in the former Soviet Union will succeed.

We cannot take for granted that Boris Yeltsin's government in the Russian Republic, or any of the other fledgling democratic governments, will survive and prosper.

We cannot take for granted that we in the United States will enjoy any of the substantial benefits I have just outlined, over the long haul.

Freedom has won its first "battles" in the Soviet Union; but a hard winter of ongoing struggle lies ahead.

And-while the outcome of the struggle will largely be up to the people of Russia and the other Republics to decide-there is a big American stake, and a potential American role, in determining the outcome.

It is very important to us how this game comes out, and we cannot afford to just stand on the sidelines and hope for the best.

We should do what we can to bolster the forces of freedom, to help them survive and prosper, for one very simple reason-it is in our interest, the American interest, to do so.

From that perspective, those things we can do to help represent not only "aid," in the traditional sense, but an "investment," in a very real sense-an investment in America's security, economic opportunities, and overall national interest.

That is why this bill calls for a program of "international investment in democracy." Because modest, well-thought out, and well-managed programs of support for freedom and free markets in the former Soviet Union are the best and most cost-effective long-term investment we can make in America's well-being.

Now, do not get me wrong, and do not misread this resolution. Since August, I have been debunking the notion advanced by some that we ought to start writing out "big bucks" checks to anyone in the former Soviet Union. We can not afford to do that, and it would not make much sense.

That is not what we are talking about in this amendment.

This resolution does not-repeat not-call for some kind of new multibillion dollar "Marshall plan for Moscow."

Instead, it mandates the formulation of a six-part package of low-cost/high-impact programs, aimed at real and urgent needs; and tied to concrete, identifiable benefits to the United States.

Specifically, the package would include:

First, of course, is urgent humanitarian assistance, of this kind envisioned in the Boren-Cohen amendment we will deal with soon; and in the President's proposed food credit guarantee package announced last week.

Second, support to dismantle nuclear weapons and missiles, such as we have mandated in the Nunn-Lugar amendment. We have had that vote earlier today.

Third, technical assistance to help develop free markets.

Fourth, support for expanded contacts between the private sectors and people of the United States and the Republics of the former Soviet Union.

Fifth, advisory assistance in developing democratic institutions and legal systems.

And, sixth, an analysis of the Soviet financial situation, aimed at producing a gameplan for the establishment, and utilization of any currency stabilization support deemed effective and affordable.

The amendment also makes it clear that any of this aid would be conditioned on a continuation of progress toward democracy and free market economies.

The amendment mandates an American strategy coordinated with our allies, and depending on them to bear their fair share of any costs.

Finally, the amendment strives to take this whole issue beyond the partisan pot-shotting that so many have been engaged in. It urges the President to engage in prompt, quiet, comprehensive dialog with the Congress-aimed at formulating a national strategy, in the national interest, on this very important issue.

Mr. President, this amendment says a lot in a relatively few words.

More important, it says the right things-in a clear and straightforward way.

It outlines a very comprehensive, solid, and sensible strategy.

It is a strategy I believe the President will welcome, in important part because it represents support for just the kind of approach he has already been pursuing.

So I commend the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senator LEVIN, for his leadership on this issue. I commend his colleague from New Jersey, Senator BRADLEY, who has made important contributions to this amendment.

And I urge all Senators to join us in passing the amendment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the Senator from Michigan for this initiative. What he has done is recognize we are indeed at a historical moment in history. I do not know if this is the most important event of this century in terms of developments in the Soviet Union, but it certainly is the most important series of events we have seen in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe since World War II.

When one considers, the chemical weapon component, the nuclear weapon component, the opportunity for destruction of weapons of mass destruction is before us, and also the unprecedented danger of proliferation, a greater danger of proliferation than ever faced before in the history of mankind.

Our role in the Senate is to start a process in this country, and hopefully the Western world, to recognize both the opportunity and the dangers and to basically take advantage of the opportunity and diminish the dangers.

The Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Kansas and others who have sponsored this amendment have basically come up with an amendment which urges the President to understand the historical nature of where we are, and to come up with a comprehensive plan to deal with this situation.

We started on that today. But it has a long way to go, and it is going to be a matter of years; it is not going to be a matter of weeks or months.

I congratulate the Senator from Michigan for his leadership in this respect. I am a cosponsor, I believe, of the amendment. I believe it is a very important message to the President, as we said a few minutes ago, that we really need leadership from the White House. We need leadership and we need a comprehensive approach to it which we can begin to address as a Nation, and hopefully to join together with our allies in the world.

Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am going to yield the floor. If I could just thank our friend from Georgia before the manager is recognized.

His amendment today, I believe, was a courageous step. It was the first step, critical step, in addressing what is really an opportunity we never thought we could have this quickly, and now we have to take full advantage of that opportunity. The tenacity and courage of the Senator from Georgia is pressing forward his amendment is an important step on this road. I thank him again for his efforts and for his remarks.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware [Mr. BIDEN], is recognized.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator as well for urging this plan. But I must tell you, I am frustrated. The Foreign Relations Committee 2 years ago suggested this. The Foreign Relations Committee 2 years ago held extensive hearings. It was suggested that no one could expect this a year ago. We did expect it a year ago, and we drafted legislation a year ago called SEED 11. It did and does authorize the President to be able to do everything that is mentioned here and more: exchange programs of all kinds, technical assistance constituting Westem-style financial systems between bank and stock markets, advice on creating an agricultural extension service, agricultural distribution system, business centers to promote United States business in the Soviet republics, promotion of sister institution activities between United States colleges, United States libraries, and other institutions.

The reason I am frustrated, Mr. President, is because it is as if we all of a sudden discovered this. My criticism is, with all due respect to this administration. it has no foreign policy. We are behind the curve on everything.

Mr. DOLE. Gulf crisis.

Mr. BIDEN. The Senator said the gulf crisis. We still have a crisis. The guy named Saddam Hussein is still there, so obviously we have a continuing crisis.

The point I want to make here is that we are in a circumstance whereby the authority the President needs to be able to do all we say we want him to do we have already passed out of this body. But there is continued resistance to giving the President that authority.

I would respectfully suggest that the one way we are going to get a plan out of the President is when, in fact, the President knows he is authorized to do everything that has been asked for and more. And then he cannot fail to come up with a plan, because he cannot suggest that he does not have the authority to do the things we are all saying need to be done.

And lastly, if my friend from Kansas, the minority leader, will listen to this, I believe it will satisfy him a bit. I think it is time the Democrats also stop talking about whether or not the President should be involved in these foreign policy matters. What we should be discussing is the foreign policy matters. What we should be discussing is the point Senator SARBANES made. There is much to be done abroad, much to be done that is not being done, much in which the administration should take the lead. However, there is much to be done a home.

So I ask unanimous consent that at this moment, at the end of my comments, the entire SEED II bill be printed in the RECORD.

I will cease and desist discussing this any longer, except to say it has been frustrating. For 2 years-2 years now-I have been meeting with the administration. Secretary Eagleburger signed off a year ago on all this. We agreed on it. Several of my colleagues delayed progress on it. Then, finally, our colleagues agree upon it. And then the administration was responsible for the delay. At last our colleagues and the administration agree upon it. Now we act as though we have discovered something new today.

This needs to be acted upon and needs to be acted upon urgently. I hope that we finally will get all of our colleagues, the administration, and the House on board to do what everyone is acknowledging needs to be done, because the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Michigan are absolutely right: Time is of the essence. And it does not lend itself to us suggesting that there is any benefit or lack thereof in one party or another suggesting what ought to be done.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to HR3595, the Medicaid moratorium bill, occur at a time today or tomorrow to be determined by the majority leader after consultation with the Republican leader.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, that will be the order.

Mr. DOLE. I was going to ask the majority leader if he might give us some indication, if we could wrap this measure up fairly soon, what might happen the next few hours?

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President and Members of the Senate, I remind Senators that we are here on the day before we expect to adjourn for the year. It is imperative that we complete action on this measure, on which we have now spent most of the day, and I would hope that the votes which are scheduled, I believe on two amendments, can occur promptly.

I will be meeting with the Speaker, the majority leader, and the minority leader of the House, along with the distinguished Republican leader of the Senate, in approximately an hour in an effort to assess the progress we have made and to determine what steps are necessary to complete action on the several important measures before us to adjourn by Wednesday morning.

We have made a good bit of progress, but we have a number of items that we are right on the verge of completing but we have to get done.

I hope very much that we will be able to complete action quite promptly on this bill. This bill has been debated all day. Senators have been acting as though this is the second day of the session rather than the next-to-the-last day of the session.

We do have to have a period of debate on the Medicaid moratorium bill; 45 minutes are scheduled.

A lot of Senators are interested in that. That is a critical matter on which we must act, and we want to try to act, if possible, this evening on the unemployment insurance bill and on the Soviet MFN; perhaps later this evening vote on the cloture motion on the motions to proceed to the Medicaid moratorium bill, or tomorrow under the authority just granted to me following consultation with the Republican leader.

Mr. DOLE. That would still leave, just so nobody thinks tomorrow is a piece of cake, the highway bill, the crime bill, the RTC, and the banking bill, just to name four major ones.

Mr. BUMPERS. And a supplemental appropriations.

Mr. DOLE. And a supplemental appropriations, which may or may not survive.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, that is correct. It is going to be extremely difficult, under the best of circumstances, for us to complete action on all the measures that we have and adjourn prior to Thanksgiving. It will become impossible if we have to debate every measure for a full day. There are just too many measures and not enough days.

So I urge my colleagues, unaccustomed as we may be on brevity, to attempt to do so, attempt to exercise self-restraint during this period so we can get all of these measures done beforehand and are able to leave by Thanksgiving.

Mr. DOLE. If I could just mention one other matter, I think once we get to the Medicaid problem, it could take several hours. So I do not want to leave anybody under the impression that it will be just 45 minutes; it is going to take several hours unless we can reach some accommodation. The sooner we can dispose of this matter, which is very important-I want to congratulate everyone for their contributions-it will take some time once we get to Medicaid.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I do not want to leave the impression that by mentioning several things here the distinguished Republican leader or I have established an exclusive list and that nothing else will be considered. There may well be other things. The Finance Committee reported out legislation to extend the expiring tax provisions, and there may be other things.

So I do not want to create an incorrect impression that by mentioning several important things we intended to establish that as an exclusive list.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we have also been notified by the Labor Department that unless we complete action on the unemployment bill tonight, there are about 200,000 unemployed people in 18 States who are going to have great difficulty getting their reachback. So it is very important that we complete action on that tonight. I think that can be done by a voice vote. I do not know of any objection.

But I just say to all of my colleagues, some who represent one of those 18 States, we hope to do that this evening.

Mr. MITCHELL. I want to yield to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I just want to ask the majority leader if he previously sought a time agreement on this amendment.

Mr. MITCHELL. I have not. But is there any problem with proceeding to a vote right now? I think this would be the best time.

Mr. BUMPERS. As soon as I get my 10 minutes, I am ready to vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. I need 2 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. Senator WOFFORD wanted a minute; DOMENICI wanted 2; BUMPERS wanted 7 or 8. About 15 minutes should do it, equally divided.

Mr. DOMENICI. I do not need 2.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 15 minutes more debate on this amendment, with the time equally divided under the control of Senator LEVIN or Senator DOLE and Senator BIDEN; that the time be equally divided and controlled by Senators DOLE and LEVIN.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I just a moment ago said I would like to have about 6 or 7 minutes. The time is going to be controlled by Senator DOLE and Senator BIDEN? No objection.

Mr. DOLE. I reserve 3 minutes on this side and 12 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There being no objection, without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I expect we will have a vote in 15 minutes on this, and then that will be followed by a vote immediately on the-Boren will be first and then this amendment, and I hope we do not need a vote on final passage, that no Senator will request it, so we get moving on these other things.

I want to repeat. We have to pass this unemployment insurance bill. We have to get to that. That is a matter that is of critical importance to hundreds of thousands of people all over this country. We have to get that done.

I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I support the motion to proceed.

The interim final regulation that is now on the books and will take effect on the 1st of January, cannot be allowed to go forth.

Many States, including Tennessee, have severe problems in financing their Medicaid programs. If this regulation is not blocked, there will be fiscal chaos in Tennessee and many other States. State legislatures will be thrown into disarray as they seek to revise their Medicaid matching programs in very short order.

The fiscal situation in my own State of Tennessee is instructive. Tennessee now maintains a $2.3 billion Medicaid Program. Yet, if the current regulations are allowed to go into effect on January 1, 1992, Federal Medicaid payments to Tennessee could be cut by some $380 million in the first 6 months of 1992. This would mean that the State legislature would have to come up with a $380 million tax plan levied on Medicaid providers, taxpayers in general, or both.

The Tennessee Legislature and other legislatures around the country should not be put under the gun to rush forward with new tax legislation which they may not well be able to afford.

Moreover, thousands of low-income women, pregnant women, and children would likely lose their eligibility for Medicaid and see their services cut. Many hospitals may revise their Medicaid admissions procedures, further curtailing access to Medicaid services. Therefore, taxpayers, Medicaid beneficiaries, and Medicaid providers all have a major stake in not permitting these final regulations to go into effect.

Mr. President, States are now trying very hard to find an equitable solution to this problem. They are looking for alternative funding means to finance their Medicaid programs.

States are making an effort, but they are under tremendous fiscal pressure. To date State governments have raised taxes by some $25 billion in 1990 and 1991, and they still have had to cut State spending by some $7 billion in 1991. Clearly State fiscal coffers are bare and they have very little leeway to raise additional taxes to support a higher proportion of medical spending, a good deal of which has been mandated by Federal law.

We simply cannot solve this problem by regulation. The remedy to this Medicaid financing dispute must be through the legislative process.

But we need more time to arrive at that legislative solution. And we cannot put States at such fiscal risk during that process.

Mr. President, we have all heard that a legislative solution may be at hand. The National Governors Association and the administration believes that they have found a solution. But a number of States have still said they want to take a look at the detailed legislative language of this compromise before they sign on, hence the need for a legislative moratorium.

It may take a little longer to bring everyone on board, but in the meantime we need to proceed with this legislation. We have to give the States, the administration, and the Congress, a chance to work things out.

Mr. President, I want to make it clear that the National Governor's Association compromise seems to have many constructive elements. The Governor of Tennessee, the Honorable Ned Ray McWherter, has indicated that he supports such a compromise in this broad outlines. But most of us have only seen that compromise in draft form and I think we all need a little more time to digest it.

We may be able to carefully study the Governor's compromise later-maybe even before we adjourn. It may be even possible to legislate the compromise in very short order. But only if we move forward with this motion to proceed.

I urge all my colleagues to vote for the motion to proceed. We need to get this issue solved before we recess in order to avert fiscal chaos in the Medicaid Program beginning in January 1992.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. BIDEN. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished floor manager very much.

First, I want to say this is really not a debate. This has been a time for Senators to make statements, which in my opinion have been extremely eloquent, extremely well reasoned. I can remember during the debate in January on Desert Storm, I thought that was the best debate I had ever heard in the Senate, and, whether you were for going to war immediately or not, most of the American people, even those who disagreed, for example, the people on my side, found that debate to be edifying and in the highest traditions of the U.S. Senate.

Here we have an issue that I just heard Senator LEVIN and Senator NUNN discuss with what I thought was acute perception about what we are really doing here.

Bear in mind those who may have some fear of their own rhetoric or especially the rhetoric of others or those who are terrified by the prospects of a 30-second spot, that what we are doing here is calling on the President, if you seek cover, to submit a proposal to the Congress using all the financial resources of various world organizations and possibly the resources of the United States to make certain that what is a very distinct possibility does not occur. To call on George Santayana, once more-as has been done thousands of times on this floor-that is, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. This is a classic case. Do you not remember studying that Hitler came to power in 1932 as a result of economic chaos in Germany, where it took a wheelbarrow full of German marks to buy a loaf of bread? Do you not remember a dictatorship flying of the hammer and sickle in 1917 capitalized on the tremendous economic disparity in what had been or became the Soviet Union, then Russia?

Mr. President, what we are saying here is that this is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution and we ought to support it unanimously. There are some people who simply cannot acclimate themselves to the end of the cold war. I said on the Senate floor many years ago that, if the Soviet Union were to agree to unilaterally disarm and let the New York Times editorial board watch the whole thing, there would be a lot of people in this body voting no.

The Senator from Georgia has already offered an extremely meaningful proposition for us to help the Soviet Union dismantle their war machine, particularly their nuclear weapons. He was in a meeting with me the other day with a high-ranking Soviet official. This is what they want more than anything else. Even they are frightened of the proliferation of their own weapons because of the volatility and the instability of the republics of the Soviet Union.

For every nuclear weapon we can help them dismantle, you think about what we have done for ourselves. If I were to offer the Members of this body, Mr. President, an opportunity to make a $5 investment and tell them that this is a little bit dicey, but it holds the possibility of returning $100, $200 on the investment in a few years, there are not many people here who would not take advantage of that. And consider the fact that in 12 years we have spent $3 trillion on the cold war, and it is over-the most monumental event of this century, and maybe ever, has occurred, and here we are having a very difficult time acclimating ourselves to that reality.

Mr. President, we have an opportunity to make an investment with an unbelievable return. The Senator from Michigan has appropriately said trillions. Incidentally, the Soviet Union bankrupted themselves staying up with us-I hesitate to use the word "bankruptcy" for us, but we do have a $3.5 trillion debt to show for a lot of things, not the least of which is the cold war.

Those who do not seize the moment deserve their fate.

So not to take advantage of the chance of a century, and maybe forever, would be the height of irresponsibility. It may be, as one Senator said to me a moment ago, that ethnic strife is too deep in the Soviet Union, they cannot make it.

Look at Yugoslavia. Most people never realized the ethnic differences that were so deep and so pervasive in Yugoslavia, and now that country is being literally destroyed before our eyes because of it.

Maybe that is what will happen to the Soviet Union. Maybe the Russians will be fighting the Ukrainians, or the Kazakhstanis will be fighting the Uzbeks.

I think that is the big danger in that part of the world. It may be that they may not make it, and it may be that if we put a few billion in, or if the President comes with us on a very bold initiative on our part to try to make certain that the Soviet Union heads into a free market, into a democracy, into a viable economic entity that will in fast be buying our goods a few years from now, that will be allowing American entrepreneurs to assist them. Think about the unprecedented opportunities that present themselves.

Make no mistake about it, there are certainly dangers. The danger is, as our Ambassador to the Soviet Union points out, no matter what we do, he said he feared a fascist future for the Soviet Union.

We all know there is always some charlatan coming down the pike looking for this kind of opportunity-you see it happening in a few States in this country-seizing on the discontent and the malaise of the people. And that certainly can happen there.

Mr. President, I just wanted to say to my colleagues, and I think this is going to pass with a very healthy margin, but there is one thing for sure. If we can get together with the President to do the things this resolution calls for, and the Soviet Union still does not make it, you will have the satisfaction as a U.S. Senator of knowing you did everything you knew to do; that you were rational, thoughtful, and you tried to prevent it. If you do nothing for this country, historians have a right to hold you responsible.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. DOMENICI. I think we have 3 minutes. I yield myself 3 minutes out of what Senator DOLE has reserved.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Conventional Force in Europe Treaty and its implementing legislation.

As we look back over the past decade we see concrete signs that the world is steadily moving toward democracy. Around the globe, people are resisting and peacefully overthrowing repressionist governments. Nowhere has this revolution, this surge toward democracy, been more dramatic than in Europe. We have witnessed Germany's joy as the Berlin Wall fell, and that divided country reunited in a commitment to democratic principles. We are witnessing the courage reunited in a commitment to democracy and a free market economy. We are witnessing the countries of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Albania make the same transition.

The United States is offering aid to these transitional countries. While technical advice and monetary aid is of great assistance, nothing can facilitate the rush toward democracy more than the ratification of and adherence to the Conventional Forces in Europe [CFE] Treaty. This treaty ends the military standoff that has existed in Europe for the last 40 years. At the height of the cold war over 80,000 tanks and 5 million ground troops faced off against each other. With the CFE Treaty, the tanks are reduced to 20,000 each.

There have been many unilateral gestures to reduce the tensions in Europe. The Soviet Union has withdrawn its forces from Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and has agreed to withdraw from Germany by the end of 1994. The United States has announced its plans to withdraw 50,000 air and ground troops from Europe, The CFE Treaty codifies these withdrawals and provides each side with tremendous insight into the other's military structure and composition. The transparency of forces has been unheard of till now.

As we vote today on the CFR Treaty, we are shadowed by the horrors of ethnic strife-some call it a new thirty years war-that is spreading throughout the lands of the country we know as Yugoslavia. We cannot take too much pride the CFR Treaty as we recall the ongoing atrocities of Vukovar and Dubrovnik.

Nothing in his treaty will heal the million families that include persons of mixed Croatian, Serbian ancestry. When one parent has to choose between remaining with spouse and child to face almost certain death or abandoning his or her family to seek refuge with fellow nationals, the surviving members of that family will never be the same. That is what is happening now in the nation we once called Yugoslavia. And there is nothing in this treaty that will necessarily end the use of conventional forces in Europe in civil war.

Implementation of the CFE Treaty may reduce the number of European tanks, artillery, planes, and warships that could be used against fellow Europeans. It could discourage the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Armenia, the Czech and Slovak Federated Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, and the Central Asian republics from following the terrible path of civil war undertaken by Serbia and Croatia. Those would be unanticipated benefits of this treaty, for it was negotiated in a bygone era.

This CFE Treaty, like the once famous Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, addresses yesterday's problems. Just as that treaty could not anticipate the aircraft carriers that dominated the Second World War, this CFE treaty does not address the use of conventional forces-much less nuclear forces-within nation states that are breaking apart. Ethnic strife, more than anything else, is today's security threat to Europe and, less directly, to the United States

This treaty will not contribute to a significant reduction in the United States defense budget. CFE compliance and verification costs, could range from $25 to $75 million per year, and will be absorbed within the defense budget. The equipment reductions we need to make in compliance with the CFE Treaty are relatively minor. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the treaty will yield no direct savings in addition to those resulting from NATO restructuring and United States unilateral withdrawals from Europe.

However, we all would agree that the significance of the CFE Treaty is not its budget impact. This treaty does not lead us into the end of the cold war. It is a symbol-a gravestone marking the end of the superpower standoff This treaty cannot ensure stability within countries facing ethnic unrest. This treaty cannot do much to alleviate the unemployment and poverty that threaten Eastern Europe as it wrestles with the harsh realities of a free market economy. Ratification of this treaty, does not solve these immense problems. It is just a legal instrument assuring adherence to weapons reduction already underway.

Mr. President, I spoke on the Senator floor last Tuesday in support of what Senator NUNN was then saying. At that point in time, there were few people supporting his Soviet aid proposal. I was very pleased to join him then. I am proud to be a co-sponsor today.

I do not think that because we have problems at home, we ought to be paralyzed.

We have some weaknesses with reference to our social fiber and perhaps, as some would say, with reference to our economy, the production of goods and services and wealth for our people.

We have some weaknesses with reference to our social fiber and perhaps, as some would say, with reference to our economy, the production of goods and services and wealth for our people. Nevertheless I do not think we ought to hide from the reality that in winning the cold war, we have taken on a special responsibility. Instead of hiding, we ought to be glad to undertake a program of support for democracy and free market economies in Russia and the other former Soviet republics.

Just think how much better the world is today than when we began serious disarmament across the board. Just think of today's world as compared with 10

years ago, as compared with the months and years after the Cuban missile crisis when Khrushchev decided to match us, and we got into an incredible nuclear armament competition. And even though America and the Soviet Union never used them, we greatly weakened each country in terms of our fiber and capability for the future, because we spent untold amounts of money on that cold war.

Obviously, the world then was at a crossroads. We could have gone their way and all lost our freedom, or we could have forced others to go our way and expected the world to share our freedoms. All of a sudden, out of the blue, it fell our way. Now we understand that that was not an accident. That occurred because the American people, the taxpayers, average citizens, and a few leaders, decided we were going to peacefully, and sometimes not so peacefully, meet and contain Marxist-Leninism.

Truman is a good example. He was the first American President to put out the challenge. He spent a lot of money, when we had the Berlin blockade, and he had to deliver food and fuel to Berlin in American airplanes. Think of every one since then. Those were tough decisions, loaded with danger.

What do we have today? Several choices: whether or not we want to put something together to help Russia, Ukraine, and the others with our tremendous capabilities. A decision to organize, put something together with the other free countries, to help meet some-not all, but some-of the needs of the Soviet peoples. Decisions about how to balance a Soviet government with new republican governments as they move toward freedom and toward completely different styles of living than they have lived under since they had their first revolution in 1917-18.

Frankly, I never did hide from the Nunn proposal, so I am not worried about what my constituents will say. I have been suggesting to my friends in little old New Mexico for 6 or 7 months that America had a real opportunity, and we better not shrink from it.

Frankly, we ought to have more American presence in the Soviet Union right now, because they look up to Americans. Sure, you can send the Japanese in, but right now they are saying we want to know what the Americans are going to do.

They are not asking for billions of dollars. Why would we not do what Senator NUNN proposed? I say to my good friend from Georgia, who came to the Senate with me 19 years ago, we will have the most ludicrous situation in our 19 years if we hide from the Russian opportunity. We will have had a chance to befriend the Soviet Union and help their people. If we don't they will end up our enemies, because we in Washington dropped the ball and decided that we better come home now-home to America. Two weeks ago we were ready to hide out and had decided we really cannot afford to help Russia and the others. If we had taken that route, we would have demonstrated that we do not have the leadership capability. That would have been absurd.

This resolution says to our President, you start down that path on working with the former Soviet Union, and, if I read it right, we will be with you, and we will help you. It says the President and the legislative branch together will begin to move in the direction of leading the free world to begin to help the ex-Soviets in discrete but compatible ways. I think we need a major American presence, so that Russians, Americans, Turkamen, et cetera know we are there. We can keep better tab on things outside of Moscow, and understand events. The expanded presence can assist Americans who want to join. They can tell us where things are going and where things are needed. In that regard, I think the sooner the President exercises some of these authorities the better.

I yield the floor.

Mr. WOFFORD addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware controls the remaining time.

Mr. BIDEN. I yield the Senator from Pennsylvania 1 minute.

Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, I salute the Senator from Michigan, not just for his eloquence and wisdom, but for his practical and thoughtful initiative along with that of the Senators from Kansas, Georgia, and Oklahoma, and the other cosponsors of this resolution.

I hope we will pass this resolution from a comprehensive bipartisan response to the challenge of a historic change in the Soviet Union. How to respond to that challenge is one of the great problems facing this country. So today let us take this initiative, and tonight, and tomorrow, and the days ahead, let us show the same kind of initiative and comprehensive bipartisan response to the critical problems of our domestic economy which also call for action.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. BIDEN. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, when my father was 17 years old, he left Russia, a Jewish immigrant, because of the Czar's suppression. Then there was a revolution. And he thought he would go back. And his family told him never to come back because the Bolsheviks took over. He never saw his family again. We know that part of history.

And then there was a cold war. I love languages, but I do not speak Russian, because my father was terrified to speak Russian in our home during the McCarthy era.

Then there was all of the money spent on the weapons of death and destruction. We have a chance now-a real chance-to end that.

What is happening in the Soviet Union, or what used to be the Soviet Union, I will say one more time on the floor of the Senate today, crucially defines the quality or lack of quality of the lives of our children and grandchildren, and I think all of God's children.

I believe that the Senator from Michigan, Senator LEVIN, and Senator DOLE's sense-of-the-Senate resolution is so important.

And I want to just finish up by echoing the words of Senator LEVIN.

It is not a question of a Marshall plan. We may not have the resources for a Marshall plan. It is a question of the spirit, the breadth, and the vision of a Marshall plan. There are so many steps that we can take that can make a huge difference. This sense-of-the-Senate resolution points in that direction.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has 2 minutes and 21 seconds remaining.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BIDEN. I yield.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators BUMPERS, SIMPSON, and COHEN be added as cosponsors.

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, this outpouring of support is heartening because I think the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from New Mexico who just spoke made very clear what is at stake. I would hope, having listened to all of this, when we return in February and we come forward with specific legislation, not a resolution, authorizing and seeking appropriations for implementing what we say we believe, I hope at that time there will be equally as much enthusiasm for doing what clearly must be done in the naked self-interest of the people of Delaware, of Michigan, of Connecticut, of this entire Nation.

I compliment my friend from Michigan on his initiative, and I yield back the remainder of the time, but before I do that, I yield to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have one other unanimous consent. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator WELLSTONE be added as a cosponsor.

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

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Delaware for his support, and if I may say in 30 seconds, I believe this kind of coming together in a bipartisan way is a critical step toward what the Senator from Delaware has just outlined, which is the fact that we must go and should go in our own interest. I thank him for his support.

Mr. BIDEN. I yield back the remainder of time and am ready to vote.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will return now to the amendment offered by the Senators from Oklahoma and Georgia.

The question is on agreeing to the amendment. On that question the yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. AKAKA], the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIXON], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HARKIN], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. KERREY], and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. PRYOR] are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. AKAKA] would vote "aye."

Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. HELMS] is necessarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. KOHL). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

The result was announced-yeas 87, nays 7, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 275 Leg.]

YEAS-87

Adams Biden Boren Brown Burdick Chafee Cohen Cranston Daschle Dole Exon Garn Graham Hatfield Inouye Kassebaum Kohl Levin Lugar McConnell Mitchell Nickles Pell Riegle Rudman Sasser Simpson Symms Wellstone

Baucus Bingaman Bradley Bryan Burns Coats Conrad D'Amato DeConcini Domenici Ford Gore Gramm Heflin Jeffords Kennedy Lautenberg Lieberman Mack Metzenbaum Moynihan Nunn Pressler Robb Sanford Shelby Specter Wallop Wirth

Bentsen Bond Breaux Bumpers Byrd Cochran Craig Danforth Dodd Durenberger Fowler Gorton Hatch Hollings Johnston Kerry Leahy Lott McCain Mikulski Murkowski Packwood Reid Rockefeller Sarbanes Simon Stevens Warner Wofford

NAYS-7

Glenn Roth Thurmond

Grassley Seymour

Kasten Smith

NOT VOTING-6

Akaka Helms

Dixon Harkin

Kerrey Pryor

So the amendment (No. 1441) was agreed to.

Mr. BOREN. 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.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Michigan.

The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk called the roll.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. AKAKA], the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIXON], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HARKIN], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. KERREY], and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. PRYOR] are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. AKAKA] would vote "aye."

Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. HELMS] is necessarily absent.

The result was announced-yeas 87, nays 7, as follows:

So the amendment (No. 1443) was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MITCHELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Georgia [Mr. NUNN] and the Senator from Indiana [Mr. LUGAR] for putting together the bipartisan initiative to help the Gorbachev government bring about the destruction of the Soviet nuclear weapons arsenal.

Banishing the threat of nuclear devastation has been one of the most overriding goals of my entire public career.

The dramatic changes in the Soviet Union in the past year have, for the first time, made this a real possibility.

One of the most pressing problems that faces us now is how to make sure the weapons already in existence-particularly in the Soviet Union-are eliminated.

Tragically, just as we are politically on the threshold of ending the nuclear arms race, the economic problems besetting the Soviet Union could well impede the actual elimination of nuclear weapons the Soviets have already agreed to render useless.

For the past several months, I have been working on proposals to help assure that economic barriers do not stand in the way of finally eliminating the nuclear threat which has hung over us for so many decades. In addition, I am troubled by the prospect of dangerous and growing stockpiles of weapons-usable fissile materials which might be reused or sold on an uncontrolled world market.

Last week, the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PELL], who is on the floor to my right, and I introduced legislation, the Nuclear Warhead Security and Plowshares Act of 1991, designed to address this problem.

This legislation which I am now introducing in amendment form would provide a way for the United States and Soviets to work together to gather, dismantle, and safeguard the materials in nuclear weapons that have been rendered surplus by the START Agreement and recent unilateral arms reduction efforts.

(Purpose: To eliminate a critical threat to nuclear
nonproliferation efforts by safeguarding dangerous weapons
usable materials from United States and Soviet warheads)

Mr. CRANSTON. Before saying more, Mr. President, I send to the desk this amendment I am discussing on behalf of myself, the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PELL], the Senator from Washington [Mr. ADAMS], and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. WELLSTONE].

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.

The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mr. CRANSTON] for himself, Mr. PELL, Mr. ADAMS, and Mr. WELLSTONE, proposes an amendment numbered 1444.

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with,

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

The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new Title:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This title maybe referred to as the "Nuclear Weapons Security and Plowshares Act of 1991

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are:

(1) to strengthen United States agricultural interests while meeting urgent food needs in the Soviet Union;

(2) to help to consolidate democratic and free market reform in the Soviet Union; and

(3) to eliminate a critical threat to nuclear nonproliferation efforts by safeguarding dangerous weapons-usable materials from United States and Soviet warheads.

SEC. POLICIES TO REINFORCE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION.

(a) DETERMINATION OF PURCHASE PRICE OF SOVIET FISSILE MATERIALS.-The Congress urges the President, in consultation with concerned allies, to determine a fair and equitable price for the purchase of diluted uranium equivalent to the volume of Soviet fissile materials which have been made redundant through unilateral reductions and arms control agreements.

(b) COLLECTION, DILUTION, AND SAFEGUARDING OF SOVIET FISSILE MATERIALS.-The Congress further urges the President to consult with the leadership of the Soviet Union for the purposes of establishing a procedure for the collection, dilution, and safeguarding of fissile materials from dismantled weapons.

(c) MUTUAL REDUCTION IN INVENTORIES AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SAFEGUARDS.-It is the sense of the Congress that it should be the policy of the United States Government that any reduction of the Soviet stockpile of fissile material for weapons should be accompanied by a parallel decrease in the United States' own inventories of fissile materials used in nuclear weapons, and by implementation of appropriate safeguards on such materials.

(d) PROPOSED AGREEMENT WITH IAEA.-IT is the sense of the Congress that the President should initiate talks with the President of the Soviet Union and the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to seek agreement that the mutual and verifiable destruction and storage of nuclear warheads, including on-site and challenge inspections, will be subject to mutually agreeable and comprehensive verification;

(2) to discuss the advisability and feasibility of an agreement to place all civilian fissile materials possessed by the United States and the Soviet Union under IAEA or equivalent bilateral safeguards, including such materials that have been permanently transferred from weapons uses.

SEC. 4. PROVISION OF AGRICULTURAL AND OTHER ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES FOR SOVIET FISSILE MATERIALS.

(a) EXCHANGE OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES FOR SOVIET FISSILE MATERIALS.-The President shall provide to the Soviet Union-

(1) surplus agricultural commodities owned or controlled by the Commodity Credit Corporation which are available for disposition under section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, or

(2) agricultural commodities or other essential commodities purchased at market prices.

in exchange for Soviet fissile materials of equivalent value.

(b) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR SOVIET DEVELOPMENT BANKS.-In addition to the commodities provided under subsection (a), the President shall provide 25 percent of the monetary value of the Soviet fissile materials acquired under such subsection to the Soviet republics in the form of financial assistance which shall be available only for the establishment of regional and local development banks.

(c) REIMBURSEMENT OF COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION.-The President shall reimburse appropriations for the Commodity Credit Corporation for commodities provided under subsection (a).

(d) SUPERSEDING EXISTING LAW.-Any agricultural commodity or financial assistance provided under this section to the Soviet Union or to any Soviet republic shall be provided notwithstanding any other provision of law.

(a) REPORTS.-Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, with respect to paragraphs (1) and (2), and not later than one year after such date, with respect to paragraph (3), the Secretary of Energy shall submit a report to the Congress setting forth-

(1) a plan for the safeguarded storage and dilution of enriched uranium acquired under this Act;

(2) a plan for the safeguarding of plutonium in facilities in the Soviet Union and in the United States; and

(3) the findings of the study conducted under subsection (b):

(b) STUDY ON PLUTONIUM STOCKS.-The Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall conduct a study on United States and Soviet Union plutonium stocks and safe and effective means to store and ultimately dispose of such inventories and the plutonium accumulating in spent civilian-power reactor fuel.

It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of State should explore with the Soviet Union an agreement not to produce highly enriched uranium of separated plutonium.

The Secretary of Defense shall transfer to the President out of such accounts of the Departments of Defense as he may designate during fiscal years 1992 through 1996 such funds as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of section 4:

For purposes of this Act-

(1) the term "agricultural commodity" includes any edible agricultural commodity grown in the United States;

(2) the term "nuclear weapon state" has the same meaning given to such term by Article IX (3) of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, signed at Washington, London, and Moscow on July 1, 1968;

(3) the term "safeguards" means the safeguards set forth in an agreement between a country and the International Atomic Energy Agency, as authorized by Article III(A) (5) of the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency, done at the Headquarters of the United Nations on October 26, 1956;

(4) the term "Soviet Union" included all successor states to the Soviet Union; and

(5) the term "weapons-usable nuclear material" means (a) any uranium that is enriched to more than 20 percent in U-235 or U-233, or both, or (3) (B) any mixture of plutonium isotopes containing less than 88 percent Pu-238.

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I believe that our amendment is entirely complementary to the purposes pursued by the Senators from Georgia and Indiana with their approach. By adopting this proposal, the first four of the five concerns raised by the exclusion section of the Nunn-Lugar amendment would be taken care of.

Adoption of this amendment would give the cash strapped Soviet Union the possibility of investing its own resources to dismantle or destroy its weapons of mass destruction.

Our amendment would also substantially reduce any modernization program designed to replace or upgrade nuclear weapons, rendering their warheads useless and available only for peaceful purposes.

It would also ensure that the fissionable and other components of destroyed nuclear weapons would not reappear in new nuclear weapons-a key issue left open by the Nunn-Lugar proposal.

And finally, it would go a long way to assure Soviet compliance with relevant arms control agreements, providing as it does for mutually verifiable compliance under international safeguards.

I was pleased to give my strong support to the Nunn-Lugar initiative, but I also want to make it clear that enactment of this initiative should not be the end of our efforts in this area.

I believe that much more will need to be done, not only to ensure the dismantlement of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, but to ensure that nuclear weapons-grade material does not make its way into the black market for potential reuse by outlaw nations or renegade terrorist groups.

Our amendment would make the uranium harmless by requiring the mixing of the 90 percent enriched uranium with normal uranium. Both the uranium and plutonium would be placed under safeguards.

The second key part of the amendment is that the Soviet Union and the Republics would receive United States agricultural commodities in return for accepting this plan.

If enacted, this legislation could provide a needed next step to current arms reduction agreements that call for the elimination of some nuclear delivery systems but do not require the dismantling of warheads or safeguarding of nuclear weapons materials.

Actions by Western governments to offer trade credits for purchases of food based on the commercial value of Soviet weapons-grade uranium diluted to civilian reactor-grade could eliminate a critical threat to nonproliferation efforts and consolidate democratic and free-market reform.

Mr. President, this proposal allows the United States to use the commercial value of uranium derived from Soviet weapons to offset the cost of sending food to the people of the former Soviet Union, but also includes an incentive for the Soviet Republics, which have made it clear that they, too, want a say in nuclear weapons policy.

An additional 25 percent of the commercial monetary value of Soviet fissile materials acquired under the provisions of this bill would be given to the Republics in the form of financial aid. These moneys would be earmarked for the creation of regional and local development banks.

This amendment also expresses the sense of Congress that reductions in the Soviet weapons-usable fissile stockpile should be accompanied by a parallel decrease in our own inventories, and by implementation of bilateral, multilateral, or international safeguards on these materials.

It is the intention of this amendment to help stabilize the transfer of Soviet weapons uranium to civilian use through the United States Department of Energy, and also to focus attention and provide resources for safely storing and ultimately disposing of plutonium inventories.

Funds for carrying out the provisions of the amendment would come from unobligated Department of Defense moneys.

As we are well aware, the Soviet Union is in desperate need of food aid. The centralized economy has fallen apart and no new system has emerged to replace it.

The Republics are facing a grave economic depression characterized by food shortages, declining exports and lack of foreign currency.

Further, the small size of the middle class, the lack of autonomous civil and economic institutions, and the existence of a parasitic administrative caste makes reform in the Soviet Union a difficult challenge.

It is definitely in the United States' best interest to help speed reform along and to promote stability in a country that still controls half the world's nuclear potential.

Last week, when we introduced our bill, Senator PELL noted the chilling words of Dr. Valeri Davydov, of the Soviet Institute of U.S. and Canada Studies, as he described one recent near-tragedy involving the Soviet nuclear arsenal;

There was at least one incident, in Azerbaijan in which a band of rebels briefly broke into an installation at which nukes were stored. That is why a majority of experts underlined the necessity to destroy the tactical nukes and welcome the new Bush proposals on arms control.

As our own envoy to Moscow, Ambassador Robert Strauss, has just remarked, "I'd rather risk a couple of billion bucks out here for our country *** than fail to risk a couple of billion bucks and end up looking at a real fascist type situation,"

Mr. President, this amendment provides for both United States security and economic interests, while at the same time helping the former Soviet Union on its path to democracy and the benefits of the free market.

I yield the floor at this point.

Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of the Nuclear Warhead Security and Plowshares Act of 1991, and congratulate the Senator from California, Mr. CRANSTON, for his initiative in introducing this legislation, and thank him, all of us, for the initiatives he has taken over the years in arms control matters, and the leadership he has shown in that field.

What we are talking about today is to avoid a recurrence of history. Let's think back to the time of the original Russian revolution, the Kerensky, Menshevik revolution, which at that time was ignored and frozen out by the rest of the world. By not helping and ignoring the first stage of that revolution, the rest of the world opened the doors for the second stage, the Lenin-Bolshevik revolution of the early 1920's. If we ignore what is going on in the Soviet Union today, we could see the same thing happen. A harder, tougher, and more a forbidding group could take over Russia; whereas if we helped this present Russian Government, helped them in what they are doing, we would be better off in the long run,

The Soviet Union today faces a very real challenge that this bill addresses. I cosponsored the Nunn-Lugar bill amendment because of the present uncertainties in the Soviet Union. It is clear we should assist the destruction of the weapons because it is in our interest and their interest to disable them

However, the Cranston bill goes further. It would help ensure that the highly enriched uranium and the plutonium these weapons contain would not be placed on the international market or otherwise be diverted. After the CFE Treaty has passed the Senate today, the administration submitted the START Treaty to the Senate. It has just arrived and the unprinted START Treaty and the section-by-section analysis are about 2 feet thick, and the printed treaty is about 300 pages long. So we can see a busy month or two ahead.

If ratified, START would lead to the elimination of several thousand warheads. The START Treaty, taken together with the unilateral decisions of Presidents Bush and Gorbachev to eliminate many tactical nuclear warheads will lead to the elimination of additional thousands of warheads, possibly as many as 10,000 or so.

These warheads contain 200 tons of highly enriched uranium and 50 tons of highly toxic plutonium. Because of the uncertain relationship between the Soviet Union's Central Government, the remaining 12 Republics and various ethnic groups, there is a significant possibility that these weapons or the nuclear materials could become items of commerce on the black market. If these nuclear weapons fall into the hands of dictators or terrorists, the world could be held hostage to criminals.

This bill would make the uranium harmless by requiring the mixing of the 90-percent enriched uranium with normal uranium. Both uranium and plutonium would be placed under safeguards. Soviet officials have stated that the Soviets will not be able to dismantle their weapons, at best, before the turn of this century. A decade or more is too long a time for the vast amounts of material to be in an uncertain state.

The second key part of this bill is that the Soviet Union and the Republics would receive American agricultural commodities in return for accepting this plan. This makes a lot of sense to me, and it tremendously benefits all involved.

I repeat, by way of background, to think back in history as Santayana said, "Those who ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them."

In 1919-20, we ignored what was going on in Russia that precipitated from the Menshevik origins of that revolution to the Bolshevik revolution a few years later, which have taken 70 years before it could rot away.

I also would thank the Senator from Delaware, Mr. BIDEN, for taking on the load of managing the CFE Treaty and the subsequent cascade legislation, and compliment him on his skillful handling. I much appreciate his help, and look forward to continuing to benefit from it, working together through the years.

I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would like to speak very briefly to the Cranston amendment and suggest at least two things about the amendment.

First of all, the Cranston-Pell amendment is an extremely innovative notion dealing with an area and a concern that is critical to the interests not only of the United States but of the world.

I can assure the Senator, because the chairman of the full committee is a cosponsor of this, that I do not have the slightest doubt in my mind that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will give this its full and urgent attention if, in fact, it is withdrawn upon our return to the Senate.

The Senator has touched upon a concern of grave concern, of significant interest, to this Nation and has offered an approach that is truly innovative. But I would respectfully suggest that it would be better handled with the committee directing its attention to this issue upon our return and, possibly, if the chairman of the full committee wished to, prior to us returning, reconvening the Senate.

Mr. PELL. I think I prefer to wait until we reconvene.

Mr. BIDEN. In whatever manner the chairman of the full committee would like to proceed, I am just merely chair of one of the subcommittees as the Senator from California is. But I participate and I will be involved in any way that the chair would like me to be, but I think it is an extremely innovative idea, addressing the concern of no greater consequence to this country at the moment, and I compliment him for raising this issue.

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill for his kind words and for his recognition of the importance of this approach, for his commitment to working with the chairman of the full committee, Senator PELL, and myself, to bring this idea to fruition as early as possible in the next session of Congress.

I think, therefore, that we should withdraw the amendment,pursuant to that advise, but keep it before the body as a freestanding bill and endeavor to work it over, make whatever changes are in order, and bring it before the full Senate as early as possible in the next session of Congress.

Time cannot be wasted on this important matter. I understand also that the Budget Committee wants to be involved in the consideration of the measure, and we will be consulting with it, as well as the Foreign Relations Committee, as we prepare for action early next year.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for his partnership in this effort and, with his help and that of the Senator from Delaware, I am very confident that we can move this along in the next session.

For those reasons, I will now withdraw the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.

The amendment (No. 1444) was withdrawn.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I look forward to working with the Senator from California with this project and once again thank him for his leadership of many years on matters of disarmament and arms control.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will take only 30 more seconds. We mentioned innovation. And in the context of the Senator from California, in arms control there has been no Member of the Senate who has been as effective, as persistent, and prescient when it came to issues relating to arms control, and what was likely to happen than the Senator from California. I think it is appropriate at the moment that I recognize that fact. I look forward to continuing to work with him.

Mr. CRANSTON. I thank the Senator from Delaware very much, and I also thank the Senator from Rhode Island very much.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I said prescient. I meant the Senator knew what he was doing for a long time.

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of HR3807, the CFE implementing legislation, that the Senate then proceed to Calendar No. 347, House Joint Resolution 346, on which there be 30 minutes of debate with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators BENTSEN and PACKWOOD; that when the time is used or yielded back, the joint resolution to be temporarily laid aside, and that the Senate then proceed to the consideration of HR 1 724, the MFN-unemployment insurance supplemental conference report, with 30 minutes to debate on that conference report, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators BENTSEN and PACKWOOD; that when all the time is used or yielded back on HRI724, the Senate without intervening action or debate proceed to vote on adoption of the conference report on HR 1 724; that upon disposition of the conference report, the Senate without intervening action or debate proceed to vote on House Joint Resolution 346; and that upon disposition of House Joint Resolution 346, the Senate companion joint resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 215 be indefinitely postponed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, we have had no request for rollcall votes on either of these two measures. If there is not a request for rollcall vote, it is my intention that they will be adopted by voice vote.

Furthermore, I understand from the staff-and I ask the managers, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee-whether I am correct, that there is no request for a rollcall vote on final passage of the pending matter, HR3807. the CFE implementing legislation.

Mr. BIDEN. That is my understanding, Mr. President. I know of no one who has thus far asked for, and I hope they will not ask for, a vote on final passage.

Mr. MITCHELL. I inquire of the distinguished Republican leader whether he has any requested rollcall votes on any of the three measures to which I have referred?

Mr. DOLE. No requests on this side at this time. Somebody might drop in, but I do not know of anyone. We hope we can voice vote these. We have a number of members on both sides busily engaged in conferences, others are on official business, and it would certainly expedite the evening if we could voice vote these three measures.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, in whatever form they are disposed of, it is my intention upon the disposition of all three matters which I now hope will occur within approximately an hour, to then proceed to the debate on the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the Medicaid Moratorium Act; that under the order now in effect there will be 45 minutes for debate on that measure; and the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, has authority to set the time for that cloture vote at any time today or tomorrow.

The distinguished Republican leader and I will be meeting during the next hour with the House leadership to assess where we are with respect to the progress toward adjournment prior to Thanksgiving.

I hope to be in a position to announce the decision on the Medicaid cloture vote at approximately the time that these measures are disposed of and the Medicaid debate beginning which I expect to be sometime in about an hour or perhaps a little later.

But in any event, we will go to the Medicaid moratorium debate following the disposition of the three matters to which I have referred-the pending bill, the CFE implementing legislation, the unemployment insurance/MFN legislation to which I earlier referred, and the House joint resolution which also will be disposed of. The distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee will be managing both of those matters.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there further amendments to the bill?

The question is on the engrossment of the amendments and third reading of the bill,

The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time.

The bill was read a third time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the question is, "Shall the bill pass?"

So the bill (HR3807), as amended, was passed.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BIDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.

Mr. BRADLEY. Later this evening, we will be considering the trade agreement to provide most-favored-nation status for the Soviet Union. That agreement was signed in June 1990 when the country was called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Since then, we have witnessed the decentralization of economic and political power to the republics. In fact, it is no longer possible to speak of the Soviet Union. The nation no longer exists.

Yet, we are ratifying a trade agreement with the soviet Union as if nothing has happened. In fact, much has changed. The Baltic States are independent nations and will have their own separate MFN. Many Republics have declared their independence. In Ukraine, there will be a referendum on December 1, 1991, and I anticipate that the vote will overwhelmingly be in favor of independence. President Gorbachev has said that without Ukraine, there can be no union; yet, we are voting on a trade agreement with that union.

It is clear that in this case, the granting of MFN has more political than economic implications. When he had hearings on this issue in September, the witnesses said that our trade with the Soviet Union was not likely to grow far beyond the $4 billion level where it was last year in the short-term. But they emphasized that the agreement was an important step toward the normalization of the relations with the Soviet Union and thus had positive political consequences.

What are those consequences? As I see them, they are validation of the existence of a center, validation of something that no longer exists. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Curtis Kamman, told the Finance Committee in September that "We believe that this agreement, others like it concluded by the Soviet Union, will be an element encouraging the Soviet Republics, whatever their ultimate political relationship may be, to cooperate on economic issues. This, we believe, is in the interest of the Soviet Republics and their peoples as well as of the United States and United States business."

Well, Mr. President, I believe that it is in the interest of the United States, United States business and, most importantly, the people of the United States that the Soviet Union complete its transformation into a stable, democratic, free market-the Soviet Union being not the former Soviet Union, but the Republics that used to compose that Soviet Union. I believe that the economic changes that are necessary are much more likely to take place in the Republics than the center.

Mr. President, I find it very ironic that we are now granting MFN to the Soviet Union, because in July, just before the failed coup, I introduced legislation that would have granted the Baltic States MFN status separately from the Soviet Union. This action was intended to ensure that establishing an economic relationship with the Soviet Union would not damage the Baltic States' struggle for independence.

The administration, in response to this effort on my part, refused to assert the Baltic States' rights to a separate MFN, even though there were existing in-force MFN treaties between each of the Baltic States and the United States, and even though we never recognized the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union.

The administration said that the Baltic States could not have MFN because they did not control their borders and could not regulate trade within their customs territory. They were de jure states under American and international law, but not de facto ones, the administration argued, and we could not grant MFN status to a de jure state.

Mr. President, I am, of course, very glad that with the recognition of Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian independence, those nations will soon be granted MFN, and that this agreement with the Soviet Union will have no validity on their territories.

In other words, we are granting MFN to the Soviet Union and, at the same time, granting MFN to the Baltic states. Only one MFN will apply to each territory. The Baltic State's MFN will apply on the Baltic's territory.

Mr. President, only a few months later-after this episode, after being told you could not grant MFN status to the Baltic States, because it was only a de jure state at the time, and laying out the criteria they laid out-we are being asked to approve a trade agreement with something called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

It seems to me that the argument the administration used to deny MFN to the Baltic States now applies to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is a de jure state, not a de facto state. The Soviet Union that is being granted MFN cannot, for example, effectively determine its borders. Does the customs territory of the Soviet Union include Ukraine, Moldavia, Georgia, Armenia? Will goods shipped out of the port of Odessa, in a country called Ukraine, be subject to the MFN tariffs? Unanswered.

The Soviet Union cannot effectively determine trade laws. Economic decisions are being made at the republic level. Both Ukraine and Russia have, in recent weeks, outlined plans to privatize the economy, establish sound convertible currencies, and regulate external economic relations. It is not even clear what Soviet political institution will ratify this agreement.In September, Mr. Kamman told the Finance Committee that "the Soviet of the Republics, or upper chamber of the newly created Supreme Soviet, is now charged with ratifying international treaties of the U.S.S.R. I would anticipate that this body would be responsible for ratification of the trade agreement." That was in September, when there was a theoretical possibility that this body would have some real authority in the future. As we approach December, it has become clear that not only is there no real power vested in the Soviet of the Republics, there is not even full representation, since many Republics did not send delegates to participate in this body.

So, Mr. President, I voted against this trade agreement in the Finance Committee, and, although I will not ask for a rollcall vote today, I cannot support a trade agreement whose most significant immediate impact is to encourage the existence of a potemkin central government in the Soviet Union. I cannot support an agreement between the United States and a nation that only exists in the minds of a handful of economists and politicians in Moscow. I cannot support a trade agreement that is based on the notion of a central structure that no longer exists. I cannot support an agreement that ignores the Republics. I cannot support a trade agreement that is not in the interests of the American people, who deserve to see the transformation of the former Soviet Union completed.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. WIRTH). The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

2 of 4 items

CQ's WASHINGTON ALERT 11/25/96

CONVENTIONAL FORCES IN EUROPE TREATY IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 1991
*Senate proceedings*
(CRTEXT 11/25/91 p.SI8001; 2265 lines.)
Item Key: 32592
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

[pS18001]
CONVENTIONAL FORCES IN EUROPE TREATY IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 1991

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The business before the Senate is HR3807, the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty Implementation Act of 1991.

Mr. BIDEN. Thank you very much.

Mr. President, first, I will make a few comments on the underlying bill-the so-called cascading legislation. And then I would like to turn promptly to the key issue of the Nunn-Lugar amendment, pertaining to legislative authorization which I regard as critically important.

Mr. President, we are acting on the underlying bill at the behest of Secretary of Defense Cheney and the Bush administration.

This implementing legislation for the CFE Treaty is designed to minimize the impact of the treaty on United States equipment in Europe. If we pass this legislation, the United States will not be required to destroy any tanks or other equipment as a result of the treaty.

I repeat, if we pass the bill, the CFE Treaty will not require the United States to destroy any equipment, of course, we will reduce our forces, but by choice, not by legal requirement.

Without this legislation, the United States would be required to dismantle according to treaty procedures about 2,000 battle tanks, 400 armored vehicles, and 100 artillery pieces.

Instead, with the authority contained in the legislation, the United States can transfer to allies on the flanks-Turkey, Greece, Spain, and Portugal-all the equipment we would have to destroy and more.

Improving the military capability of the flank countries has been a long-standing goal of the United States. In testimony before the committee, General Galvin, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander urged us to pass this legislation in order that the flank countries modernize their equipment in

the way that General Galvin has been seeking for some time. Mr. President, some of my colleagues may wonder whether our NATO allies will pay for this equipment. The answer is no, but I hope my colleagues will appreciate that if these countries don't agree to take this equipment we will have to destroy the equipment. Since Greece, Portugal, Spain, and other know that it is cheaper for us to give them this equipment, I darsay they are smart enough to avoid paying for it, and it would cost $40 million for us to destroy this equipment according to treaty procedures.

In other words, Mr. President, without this legislation, the United States will be flushing $40 million down the drain, while foregoing a chance to modernize NATO'S, military forces in a way that General Galvin has been urging.

I trust my colleagues will join me in urging the passage of this legislation, lest we forego an important military modernization and waste $40 million.

Mr. President, the so-called cascading legislation will provide the authorities necessary to facilitate timely U.S. implementation of the CFE Treaty. It is itself noncontroversial.

The key issue for the Senate today is whether we will add a further authorization-the Nunn-Lugar amendment-under which the President could reallocate one-sixth of 1 percent of the Defense budget to provide technical assistance in the former Soviet Union.

But let us be clear: Assistance is a misnomer.

This authority would target U.S. defense resources at the prompt, safe dismantlement of nuclear and chemical weapons in the Soviet arsenal. And if that can be done successfully, it would constitute nothing less than the most cost-effective national security expenditure in American history.

I commend the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and this is not a passing courtesy. He has preserved to ensure that the United States meets the opportunity and challenge now before us.

I have been-and will continue-working with him in that regard, for the purpose is compelling.

We suddenly find ourselves in the historical transformation to a world without communism, a goal for which the American people labored and sacrificed for a half century. The policy of containment worked, but the transition-from communism to what follows it-will be uncertain and profoundly perilous.

We need a new American policy-based on new precepts to see us through that transition. We need a policy geared to promote a safe and orderly destruction of the very military juggernaut we successfully contained.

A long-standing defense policy of threat containment must be replaced by an active policy of treat reduction.

The Nunn-Lugar amendment is the first step in the creation of that new policy.

There should be no doubt about the urgent need for this amendment. The collapse of the Soviet Empire has unleashed long-suppressed forces of ethnic rivalry and nationalism across the length and breadth of that vast domain.

Amidst these unpredictable forces, the disintegrating Soviet Empire is bequeathing a dangerously perverse legacy: A vast nuclear arsenal-some 27,000 nuclear weapons-centered in Russia but dispersed among three other major constituent Republics-Ukraine, Byelorussia, and Kazakhstan-which may or may not choose to remain affiliated with the Russian Republic.

A major focus of uncertainty is the Ukrainian Republic. On December 1, 6 days from now, the Ukrainian people will vote in a referendum that will surely register overwhelming support for independence.

Regardless of that vote and others, we can predict with no confidence whatsoever the political, economic, and military relationships that will develop among the former constituent Republics once they have expressed and confirmed their own separate sovereignties.

In Ukraine as elsewhere, the outcome will emerge from a mix of conflicting forces: Centrifugal forces of nationalism, fed by pride and bitterness over past wrongs, and centripetal forces pulling the Republics back together in a confederation that could yield practical benefits of trade and cooperation among regional neighbors.

The outcome is unknowable. What we do know is that amid this jumble of forces are thousands of nuclear weapons, and also highly lethal chemical weapons, which are far from isolated or immune from the political strife now underway.

Just 5 days ago, the Soviet Defense Ministry in Moscow felt it necessary to issue a formal warning that the Union Army will defend its equipment and installations-by force, if necessary, against attacks by independence-minded groups and Republic governments.

Making clear that such episodes have already occurred, the Soviet Defense Ministry declared that these attempts "cannot be tolerated any longer."

"In certain areas," according to the defense ministry "military equipment and property of army units have been stolen. Only the restraint of army officers has made it possible to avoid bloodshed and numerous victims."

Mr. President, we in this body may not instinctively sympathize with those in Moscow who are struggling to hold the former Soviet Union or its army together, far from it.

But we must also face squarely the likely consequences of a wholesale disintegration of the Soviet Armed Forces. The clear likelihood is civil war.

We cannot know if that will occur. I pray it will not, but until all elements of the Soviet arsenal are dismantled or brought under rigid and reliable controls, the menace created by Soviet communism will not have been laid to rest and the world will remain at risk.

The severity of this risk is compounded by the large cadre of scientific experts-literally thousands of scientists-who have built and serviced the Soviet nuclear arsenal.

With Soviet state employees being fired in droves, these scientific skills, unless they are quickly engaged in constructive activity, could become available to the highest bidder at home or abroad.

The resultant danger presents a specter we have feared since the first atomic blast at Alamogordo, a specter we simply cannot ignore: a nuclear weapons capability in the hands of a group or a government-within the former Soviet Union or outside it-that is willing to use that capability.

I can easily empathize with the Senator from Georgia when he complains of the misrepresentations he experienced concerning his initiative on the DOD authorization. I empathize because of my own experience in promoting so-called seed legislation over the last 18 months, in an effort to help convert the Soviet Empire to free-market democracy.

Winston Churchill counseled magnanimity in victory. What I have been advocating in the seed legislation and what Senators NUNN, LUGAR, and others of us are advocating today is nothing so grand as magnanimity.

What we are seeking is the continued, purposeful pursuit of American national security interests.

Indeed, if I had a criticism of the Nunn-Lugar language, it would be to say that I find it illogical to create a list of what are called exclusions-reasons that could disqualify the Soviet side from receiving this misleadingly labeled assistance.

My view is that if we have an opportunity to dismantle the Soviet nuclear arsenal, we should seize it, regardless of any issues that might arise about human rights violations, or arms control treaty violations, and anything similar.

We are not assisting the Soviet Union. We are assisting ourselves. History would mark it as one of mankind's most tragic follies if, at this juncture-this ironic coincidence of victory and danger-we failed to act decisively to help eliminate the Soviet nuclear arsenal that has for so long threatened our very survival.

Officials in what remains of the Soviet Central Govemment-and officials in the Republics-are now literally begging for American help in beginning the dismantlement process.

They too sense the danger. And they know they lack the skill and resources to deal with the problem.

It is a remarkable feature of the cold war, in which both superpowers expended hundreds of billions to develop and deploy nuclear arms of incredible complexity and sophistication, that neither superpower acquired a substantial body of expertise in how to dismantle and safely dispose of nuclear weapons, once created.

But this gap in knowledge is even greater on the Soviet side. And the gap is compounded by the enormous expenditures that would be involved in such wholesale conduct of a highly complicated technological process.

Indeed, a high-ranking aide to President Gorbachev recently told United States authorities that, given their existing capabilities, the Soviet military would require 40 years to dismantle the Soviet nuclear arsenal.

Some might reasonably ask, will the Soviets disarm unilaterally? The answer is that beyond a certain point they will not.

At some stage in the arms reduction process, new bilateral agreements between Washington and Moscow, or multilateral agreements involving other powers such as Britain, France, and China-would almost surely be necessary.

But such agreements are not the first order of business. The first priority is to get the arms reduction process started, focusing on weapons the elimination of which has already been negotiated or unilaterally pledged.

President Gorbachev has already declared a unilateral action under which the Soviet military will destroy all its nuclear artillery shells, nuclear mines, and nuclear warheads for tactical surface-to-surface missiles, as well as a large percentage of its nuclear anti-aircraft missile warheads, tactical nuclear weapons on ships, and gravity bombs carried by land-based naval aircraft.

Additionally, President Gorbachev declared that the Soviet reductions under the newly signed START treaty, covering strategic-range weapons, would be carried, by unilateral action, to a level 1,000 weapons below the START-mandated ceilings.

Thus, through decisions and agreements already reached, Moscow has on its immediate agenda the destruction of fully one-half of its current nuclear arsenal.

Moreover, President Gorbachev has called for early negotiation of a START 2 treaty that would cut the current START levels sharply, so that the reductions begun under START 1 would continue without interruption to just a few thousand at most, the precise level to be determined by negotiation.

We have an important longer range task to negotiate those lower levels, but our urgent task is to help the Soviet Union get the reduction started and to accelerate the process of actual weapons elimination.

Mr. President, the question before the Senate-the question put to the Senate by the Nunn-Lugar amendment-is whether, having won the cold war, we will now join with our former adversary to eliminate the armageddon arsenals to which the cold war gave genesis. Or do we do nothing, hoping the Soviet arsenal will somehow safely disappear without our involvement?

To defeat the Nunn-Lugar amendment would, in my very strong belief, be a reckless gamble with history.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the order entered on Saturday, November 23, only the following first-degree amendments are in order:

A Nunn-Lugar-Boren authorizing amendment, subject to appropriations, regarding $500 million for dismantling nuclear weapons in the Soviet Union, and subject to verification;

A Boren-Cohen, et al., amendment regarding emergency military airlift to Soviet Union for humanitarian purposes;

A Cranston-Pell amendment regarding nuclear weapons security;

A Dole-Levin-Lugar, et al. sense-of-the-Senate amendment regarding enhancing United States security through the promotion of democracy in the Soviet Union,

A Danforth amendment regarding TWA [PBGC].

No motion to recommit is in order, and the only relevant second-degree amendments in order will be those that are in order to the Nunn-Lugar-Boren amendment and the Boren-Cohen, et al. amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia [Mr. NUNN] is recognized.

Mr. NUNN. I thank the Chair for the explanation.

Mr. President, I rise today to propose an amendment. I understand from the Chair this amendment is in order on behalf of myself and Senator LUGAR.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is in order.

AMENDMENT NO. 1439

(Purpose: To provide for the use of Department of Defense resources for destroying Soviet nuclear and other weapons)

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of myself, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. BOREN, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. PELL, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. HELMS, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. CRANSTON, Mrs. KASSEBAUM, Mr. EXON, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. GORE, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. WIRTH, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. MACK, Mr. DOLE, Mr. KERRY, Mr. GORTON, and Mr. MCCONNELL.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the amendment.

The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Georgia (Mr. NUNN), for himself, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. BOREN, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. PELL, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. HELMS, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. CRANSTON, Mrs. KASSEBAUM, Mr. EXON, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. GORE, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. WIRTH, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. MACK, Mr. DOLE, Mr. KERRY, Mr. GORTON, and Mr. MCCONNELL, proposes an amendment numbered 1439.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 7, below line 6, insert the following:

TITLE II-SOVIET WEAPONS DESTRUCTION

PART A-SHORT TITLE

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the "Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 1991".

PART B-FINDINGS AND PROGRAM AUTHORITY

SEC. 21 1. NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SOVIET WEAPONS DESTRUCTION.

(A) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds-

(1) that Soviet President Gorbachev has requested Western help in dismantling nuclear weapons, and President Bush has proposed United States cooperation on the storage, transportation, dismantling, and destruction of nuclear weapons;

(2) that the profound changes underway in the Soviet Union pose three types of danger to nuclear safety and stability, as follows: (A) ultimate disposition of nuclear weapons among emerging political structures of the territory of the former Soviet Union that is not conducive to weapons safety or to international stability; (B) seizure, theft, sale, or use of nuclear weapons or components; and (C) transfers of weapons, weapons components, or weapons know how outside of the territory of the former Soviet Union that contribute to worldwide proliferation; and

(3) that it is in the national security interests of the United States (A) to facilitate on a priority basis the transportation, storage, safeguarding, and destruction of nuclear and other weapons in the Soviet Union and its former and present republics, and (B) to assist in the prevention of weapons proliferation.

(b) EXCLUSIONS.-United States assistance in destroying nuclear and other weapons under this title may not be provided to any nation, Soviet republic, or former Soviet republic unless the President first certifies to the Congress that the potential recipient is committed to-

(1) making a substantial investment of its resources for dismantling or destroying such weapons;

(2) forgoing any military modernization program that exceeds legitimate defense requirements or is designed to replace destroyed weapons of mass destruction;

(3) forgoing any use of fissionable and other components of destroyed nuclear weapons in new nuclear weapons;

(4) facilitating United States verification of weapons destruction carried out under section 212;

(5) complying with all relevant arms control agreements; and

(6) observing internationally recognized human rights, including the protection of minorities.

SEC. 212. AUTHORITY FOR PROGRAM TO FACILITATE SOVIET WEAPONS DESTRUCTION.

(a) IN GENERAL.-Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President, consistent with the findings stated in the preceding section, may establish a program as authorized in subsection (b) to assist Soviet weapons destruction. Funds for carrying out this program shall be provided as specified in part C using funds appropriated for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1992.

(b) TYPE OF PROGRAM.-The program under this section shall be limited to cooperation among the United States, the Soviet Union and its republics (including those which may gain independence after the enactment of this Act) to (1) destroy nuclear weapons, (2) transport, store, and safeguard weapons in connection with their destruction, and (3) establish verifiable safeguards against the proliferation of such weapons. Such cooperation may involve assistance in planning and in resolving technical problems associated with weapons destruction and proliferation. Such cooperation may also involve the funding of critical short-term requirements related to weapons destruction and should, to the extent feasible, draw upon Untied States technology and United States technicians.

PART C-ADMINISTRATIVE AND FUNDING AUTHORITIES

SEC. 22 1. ADMINISTRATION OF NUCLEAR THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAMS.

(a) FUNDING.-(I) The President may, to the extent provided in appropriations Acts, transfer from amounts appropriated to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1992 for operation and maintenance or from balances in working capital accounts established under section 2208 of title 10, United States Code, such amounts as may be provided in appropriations Acts, not to exceed $500,000,000, for reducing the Soviet nuclear threat under part B.

(2) Amounts for transfers under paragraph (1) may not be derived from amounts appropriated for any activity of the Department of Defense that the Secretary of Defense determines essential for the readiness of the Armed Forces, including amounts for-

(A) training activities; and

(B) depot maintenance activities.

(b) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.-Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Department of Defense shall serve as the executive agent for any program established under part B.

(c) REIMBURSEMENT OF OTHER AGENCIES.-The Secretary of Defense may reimburse other departments and agencies of the United States under this subsection for costs of participation, as directed by the President, only in a program established under part B.

(d) CHARGES AGAINST FUNDS.-The value of assistance from existing stocks and inventories of the Department of Defense or any other Federal department or agency may not be charged against funds available pursuant to subsection (a) to the extent that the material contributed is directed by the President to be contributed without subsequent replacement.

(e) DETERMINATION BY DIRECTOR OF OMB.-NO amount may be obligated for the program under part B unless expenditures for that program have been determined by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to be counted against the defense category of the discretionary spending limits for fiscal year 1992 (as defined in section 60 1 (a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) for purposes of part C of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

PART D-REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

SEC. 23 . PRIOR NOTICE OF OBLIGATIONS TO CONGRESS

Not less than 15 days before obligating any funds for a program under part B, the President shall transmit to Congress a report on the proposed obligation. Each report shall specify-

(1) the account, budget activity, and particular program or programs from which the funds proposed to be obligated are to be derived and the amount of the proposed obligation; and

(2) the activities and forms of assistance under part B for which the President plans to obligate such funds.

SEC. 232. QUARTERLY REPORTS ON PROGRAM.

Not later than 30 days after the end of each quarter of fiscal years 1992 and 1993, the President shall transmit to Congress a report on the activities to reduce the Soviet nuclear threat carried out under part B. Each such report shall set forth, for the preceding quarter and cumulatively, the following:

(1) Amounts spent for such activities and the purposes for which spent.

(2) The source of the funds obligated for such activities, stated specifically by program.

(3) A description of the participation of departments and agencies other than the Department of Defense in such activities.

(4) A description of the activities carried out under part B and the forms of assistance provided under part B

(5) Such other information as the President considers appropriate to fully inform the Congress concerning the operation of the program under part B.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, Senator LUGAR and I are on the floor today to offer an amendment that will provide for the use of Department of Defense resources to assist the Soviet Union and its republics to destroy nuclear weapons, chemical and other weapons. No one would have imagined 2 years ago, 3 years ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago that Soviet authorities would ask the United States to give our assistance in helping them transport, store safety, and then destroy on the order of 15,000 nuclear weapons over the next several years.

That includes, as the Senator from Delaware has already said so articu lately, all Soviet nuclear artillery shells, all Soviet nuclear mines, all nuclear warheads for Soviet tactical ballistic short-range missiles, hundreds of Soviet nuclear warheads for surface-to-air missiles, hundreds of Soviet tactical nuclear weapons based at sea, hundreds of nuclear gravity bombs carried by Soviet land-based naval aircraft, several thousand Soviet strategic nuclear weapons whose destruction is required by START, 1,000 Soviet strategic nuclear weapons that President Gorbachev has pledged to destroy beyond those whose destruction is required by START.

Mr. President, I am convinced that we are at a critical moment in history. The Senate from Delaware has done a splendid job of guiding through the Senate the CFE Treaty, which I anticipate will pass with a resounding vote sometime today. This is major legislation. I consider this amendment that we have just sent to the desk a very important amendment, perhaps, as the Senator from Delaware has said, one of the most important amendments in terms of our national security, indeed the security of the world, that has been before this body in many years.

The reason I say that is that we are given an opportunity now to help not only destroy specific weapons but to help engage Soviet technicians and scientists who are going to be working on this project themselves in something constructive. We are on the verge of either having the greatest destruction of nuclear weapons in the history of the world or the greatest proliferation of nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, and scientific know-how on how to make these weapons, as well as chemical weapons, ballistic missiles, even biological weapons the world has ever seen.

Our duty, as I see it, and our opportunity is to do everything we can to make sure that we take advantage of this opportunity and do everything we can to discourage the proliferation danger that we may be engaged in at the moment and that will grow in the months and years ahead unless we do something constructive now.

This legislation embodies a new approach to enhancing our national security, an approach which fits a dramatically new national security environment. This amendment proposes to use a small part of our $291 billion defense budget-in fact, considerably less than one-half of I percent of the overall budget-for a cooperative program with the Soviet Union and its republics to reduce the Soviet military threat at its source, within the Soviet Union itself.

Mr. President, Senator LUGAR and I believe that the basic premise of the amendment is that the former Soviet Union, still a nuclear superpower, is coming apart at the seams. The danger of proliferation of existing weapons, weapons materials and weapons know-how is growing as both the Soviet economy and traditional Soviet control mechanisms lose effectiveness. Soviet leaders are anxious to destroy nuclear and chemical weapons and have asked our help. We should act now, and this amendment will allow us to do so.

The amendment I am proposing is the product of extensive consultations with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It provides discretionary authority and funding for a program to assist the Soviets to transport, store, safeguard and destroy nuclear, chemical and other weapons. It would also authorize assistance in establishing verifiable safeguards against weapons proliferation. This assistance could involve planning and resolving technical programs associated with weapons destruction and proliferation. It could also involve funding for critical short-term requirements related to weapons destruction. In that regard, the amendment specifies that such assistance should to the extent feasible utilize U.S. firms and U.S. technicians.

Funds for this program would come from transfers from existing Department of Defense accounts.

The actual expenditure, which would be capped at $500 million, would be totally discretionary. Similarly, all program activities would be totally discretionary.

And I know we have occupying the Chair today the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I make it abundantly clear to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Chair at the moment that this is subject to appropriations and would have to be appropriated by the Appropriations Committee also, and we certainly hope that that would be done in the closing hours of the Congress.

In short, Mr. President, this provision gives the administration the authority and the funding to protect our most basic security interests by helping the Soviets to destroy some 15,000 tactical nuclear weapons and tons of chemical weapons. Cooperation with Soviet authorities on destroying nuclear and chemical weapons should not be postponed. The benefits of responding are too great, the dangers of inaction too severe.

The program foreseen by this amendment cannot completely eliminate the dangers posed by Soviet weapons and weapons know-how. It can, however, provide focus and priority to the destruction of a large part of these weapons. It can also, most importantly, engage Soviet weapons experts and underscore the importance of preventing the export of weapons and weapons expertise to the Saddam Husseins and the Mu'ammar Gadhafis of the Third World.

The dangers of inaction, Mr. President, are both real and immediate. I recently entered into the RECORD the conclusions of a just-published study by the Harvard University Center for Science and International Affairs on "Control of the Nuclear Arsenal in a Disintegrating Soviet Union." Let me just highlight the key conclusion of the study, which is that the profound changes underway in the Soviet Union pose three types of dangers:

First, the ultimate disposition of nuclear weapons among emerging political structures on the territory of the former Soviet Union may not be conducive to weapons safety or to international stability;

Second, there is a danger of seizure, theft, sale or use of nuclear weapons or components; and

Third, there is a danger that any weakening of control over weapons or components could result in transfers outside of the territory of the former Soviet Union, fueling nuclear proliferation worldwide.

If these dangers seem abstract, just imagine the depth of international concern if Yugoslavia, also plagued with domestic turmoil, had thousands of nuclear weapons and tons of chemical weapons located throughout its territory. Mr. President, we should consider carefully the recent declaration of a Russian nationalist leader who received 6 million votes in last June's Presidential elections in Russia and from all reports probably would do even better today. He recently told a Western news correspondent that he would be President of Russia in 6 months, after the failure of Yeltsin's economic reform plan. As this Russian nationalist leader put it:

I will-then-introduce an economic blockade to force the Baltic region to return to Russia. I would use military means to solve the problem of Kazakhstan. Against the Ukraine I would use some military means and some economic measures.

While the dangers are real, so is the opportunity for the greatest reduction of weapons of mass destruction in history. Nonetheless, United States assistance to the former Soviet Union in this amendment is not a blank check. With this in mind, the amendment specifies that no assistance be provided unless the President first certifies to Congress that the potential recipient is committed to do the following:

Making a substantial investment of its own resources to dismantle or destroy nuclear, chemical, and other weapons;

Foregoing any military modernization program that exceeds legitimate defense requirements or is designed to replace destroyed weapons of mass destruction;

Foregoing any use of fissionable and other components of destroyed nuclear weapons in new nuclear weapons;

Facilitating U.S. verification of weapons destruction carried out under this provision.

I think this is an important addition that has been suggested by the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. HELMS] which is now a part of our amendment.

Complying with all relevant arms control agreements, including START, CFE, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty; and

Observing internationally recognized human rights, including the protection of minorities.

Mr. President, some criticized an earlier version of this legislation as ill-considered because, allegedly, according to the critics, it would help a potential adversary and, allegedly, according to the critics, they said it was ill-timed because it would use U.S. taxpayer money that should be applied to more pressing problems here at home. Mr. President, let me make it clear this is money from the Defense Department, not from domestic sources. I believe both criticisms are without merit.

This amendment would help a still dangerous former adversary to become significantly less dangerous and less adversarial to us and to our allies. It is far from a blank check. To me it is not foreign aid, it is self-defense.

The criticism that the funds for assisting Soviet weapons destruction would be better spent at home in my view seriously underestimates the wisdom of the American people. The American people will understand that by making a limited, carefully conditioned investment today, we will clear the way for much larger reductions in defense spending tomorrow. After all, our multibillion-dollar defense budget exists primarily to deter the very threat that this amendment will enable us to reduce, not only in the Soviet Union but most important, Mr. President, to avoid proliferation of these systems throughout the world.

I cannot think of a better way to help the American people than reducing the potential military threat that we will have to face in the years ahead-not just in the former Soviet Union but potentially around the world.

As the auto mechanic on television used to tell us, holding a new oil filter in one hand and a huge bill for engine overhaul in the other, we can pay now for modest preventative measures, or we can pay later for major, expensive defense and deterrence programs.

Mr. President, the American people, I believe, will understand that if we let this historic opportunity pass, we may soon confront new threats from an unprecedented proliferation of weapons and weapons know-how. This is an opportunity squarely in our vital interests. This is an opportunity we must not miss.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator JOHN KERRY of Massachusetts be added as an original cosponsor.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend from Indiana for his leadership on this amendment. His vigorous support of this concept has brought a great deal of support to the concept from both sides of the aisle. And I am delighted he is a cosponsor.

Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana [Mr. LUGAR] is recognized.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. It has been a real pleasure to work with him and to work with our colleagues to fashion a very strong bipartisan amendment that he has proposed in our behalf this morning.

Mr. President, great dangers are posed to nuclear safety and stability in the Soviet Union by the profound changes in that disintegrating entity, as Senator NUNN has so accurately described.

Our amendment represents one effort to come to grips, on an emergency basis, with a problem whose severity and lethal consequences can only grow.

These dangers are threefold and very clear:

First, the process of devolution of political authority that is taking place in the Soviet Union creates the danger that the ultimate disposition of nuclear weapons in the new political system will not be conducive to their safety or to international stability.

Second, there is a danger of seizure, theft, sale, or use of nuclear weapons or components during the period of transition, particularly if a widespread disintegration of the custodial system should occur.

Third, there is a danger that any weakening of control over weapons and components could spill outside the territory of the former Soviet Union, fueling nuclear proliferation worldwide.

All three of these dangers warrant immediate consideration of the sources of United States influence to achieve preferred outcomes as the Soviet Empire dissolves and its nuclear weapons complex devolves to the successor states.

Nonstrategic nuclear weapons within the former Soviet Union are a source of major concern because of their great number and variety and because they are more widely dispersed among the republics than strategic weapons. Moreover, the system of procedural and technical safeguards that has prevented unauthorized seizure or use of these weapons for over 40 years offers no guarantees in the face of widespread social disorder of the kind on the horizon in the Soviet Union. Thus, removal of these weapons to central storage and ultimately destroying them is of critical importance.

Leaders of the Soviet Union and of individual republics have stated a willingness to destroy thousands of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons that fall outside existing or prospective arms control regimes. President Gorbachev has announced that the Soviet Union would destroy its nuclear artillery shells and mines, its nuclear warheads for tactical surface-to-surface missiles, as well as part of its stockpiles of nuclear antiaircraft missile warheads, tactical nuclear weapons on board ships, and nuclear bombs carried by land-based naval aircraft.

At the republic level, Ukrainian officials have called for the destruction in place of strategic nuclear weapons that otherwise could be retained, and the Russian President has urged the central authorities to eliminate strategic weapons permitted under START as opposed to transporting them to Russian soil.

In recent conversations here in Washington, Soviet officials have pointed to nearly 15,000 nuclear weapons that they would like to destroy with our help. In response to Gorbachev's proposal for joint activities involving "technologies and procedures for the dismantling of nuclear explosive devices," President Bush suggested that the two countries explore cooperative ventures designed to implement the storage, transportation, dismantling, and destruction of nuclear weapons and to enhance existing arrangements for the physical security and safety of nuclear weapons.

The chairman of the Armed Services Committees in both Houses made an effort to address the issue. The reactions in both Houses were such that provisions dealing with the problem were stripped from the conference report. But that political response to a growing strategic danger does not absolve the Congress from its responsibilities. The problem will not wait until January of next year.

Soviet and republic leaders have come to recognize that these nuclear weapons are a greater threat to them than to any potential external adversary.

But nuclear weapons do not simply fade away; they must be disabled, they must be dismantled, they must be destroyed. But as the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee pointed out on the floor last week and today, the dismantling and destruction of nuclear weapons require two things currently unavailable to Soviet and republican leaders-technology and resources. In addition to technical know-how, the Soviets desperately need centralized nuclear storage facilities. transportation networks, dismantling plants.

We can either seize the opportunity for cooperative efforts in this field now or witness a quantum leap in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the next few years. The time to establish an antiproliferation regime is now and an appropriate place to start again is with the former Soviet Union and its republics, seemingly willing partners in destroying weapons before they can proliferate.

The United States is not in a position to call the shots either as to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and eventual forms of successor states, or as to the devolution or dispersal of Soviet nuclear forces among them. But the United States does have some important leverage if its preferences and influences are identified early and acted upon quickly and coherently.

Mr. President, Senator NUNN and I hosted a breakfast last Thursday morning involving 16 Members of the Senate on this issue. There was a remarkable consensus that we needed to rise above the so-called 30-second sound bite mentality and work to initiate emergency legislation to deal with the nuclear dangers associated with the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

The amendment before the Senate this morning represents the product of the labors of some 20 Senators. It was encouraging to witness such a group pool its efforts to produce this legislation.

Mr. President, this amendment is narrow in its focus. It contains appropriate conditions that must be met and Senator NUNN has outlined those in his address this morning, before our assistance in this matter will be forthcoming. It addresses a specific and pressing matter-the need to assist in the dismantling and destruction of Soviet nuclear weaponry before political and economic circumstances undermine further the Soviet nuclear command and control system. It covers not only the nuclear weapons themselves but associated issues involving storage of materials and transportation of nuclear weapons.

And last, Mr. President, I want to emphasize two points:

This is not foreign aid; our amendment is part of a national security package.

This amendment provides discretionary authority to the President to utilize appropriate funds to implement this program.

Mr. President, I understand that a delegation headed by the Soviet Deputy Minister of Atomic Power and Industry will be in Washington this week for consultations. This ministry has responsibility for both production and dismantlement of nuclear weapons. Passage of this amendment would constitute a major agenda item for that delegation in its talks, and discussions concerning implementation of the amendment could commence immediately.

Mr. President, the danger of a form of nuclear meltdown exists inside the former Soviet Union, as the Soviet nuclear command and control system is subjected to the stresses and strains of political, economic, and social disintegration. Combined with an equally ominous Soviet "nuclear fire sale," designed to replenish Soviet coffers with hard cash from the highest bidders on the open market, without adequate safeguards, these tendencies and trends only heighten concerns regarding the consequences of instability inside the U.S.S.R.

The obvious advantage of substantial Soviet denuclearization is that it would eliminate a major portion of the nuclear threat to United States security and survival, as well as that of its allies. The nuclear problem in the Soviet Union is one without precedent and therefore without settled guidance. It calls for the initiation of specific auction now.

Soviet officials have recognized the problem and they have asked for help. The question is: Will we recognize the problem and respond accordingly.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment and to answer the question in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. LEVIN].

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.

First, Mr. President, I want to extend my gratitude to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator NUNN, for the persistence he has shown. The wisdom of this amendment is, I believe, manifestly clear. But it took a tremendous amount of persistence on the part of our chairman to put together a bipartisan coalition in support of this amendment. I felt so badly about the fact that it was dropped from the defense authorization bill that I decided I would vote against that bill principally for that reason, that a similar amendment to this one was dropped because it did not have adequate support at that time.

Our chairman has been extraordinary in his persistence. We always is. It is reflected in this amendment as well as any effort that he has made. I also want to thank, of course, our friend from Indiana, Senator LUGAR, for his work on this amendment. It makes this a bipartisan amendment and that is critical to its adoption and critical to its support by the American people.

Mr. President, this is obviously a step which is taken in America's security interest. It is a step to respond to Soviet appeals for technical assistance in securin their nuclear warheads and to assist them in storing and dismantling those warheads.

These are revolutionary times around the world, and we just cannot allow ourselves to hold onto old, outmoded notions about what makes us more secure. It is time for a little new thinking in this body as to how to prevent security threats to our country before they develop.

This amendment attempts to prevent the wholesale proliferation of nuclear weapons and weapons technology to more parties within the former Soviet Union and to countries outside of that region who would pay dearly to get their hands on these weapons. What could be more clearly in America's security interest? This is not a handout to the Soviet Union. It is America using a strong hand to prevent nuclear proliferation which could threaten us, our people here in America.

After the billions of taxpayers' dollars that we have spent and are still spending to buy nuclear weapons to counter Soviet nuclear weapons, this investment, at the discretion of the Appropriations Committee and the discretion of the President, directly helps to control and dismantle Soviet weapons. That is a modestly targeted, cautious investment in America's security.

Our people understand that renewal at home will not happen if we have to face a newly aggressive military adversary with nuclear weapons in one or more of the former Soviet republics or if we have to face an Iran or an Iraq that has bought nuclear weapons from the Soviets. Our people understand; they know this is not a foreign aid package. This is an American security package targeted toward the security of our own people. I hope the Senate will give this a very strong bipartisan vote. It deserves it.

Mr. President, I have spoken out for their approach repeatedly over the past few months. It is time now to pass this measure and to make this very modest crucial investment for Soviet nuclear disarmament and against nuclear proliferation.

Again, I want to thank our chairman and Senator LUGAR, both, for the energy that they have displayed, for their creativity that they have shown in putting together an amendment which I now believe is going to command broad bipartisan support in the Senate.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington [Mr. GORTON].

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I wish to join with my three previous colleagues in supporting and lauding this amendment. Since 1945, this Nation has spent some $4 trillion on its national security, primarily in providing for a strong national defense. In the view of this Senator, Mr. President, that money has been wisely and well spent. The dividends which it has paid are evident not only in the growth and security of this Nation during that more than 45-year period, but in the fact that it succeeded in its most significant goal, which was the prevention of a nuclear conflict, of a nuclear holocaust.

In addition, that tremendous expenditure on the part of the United States has so broken the back of the Soviet Union and of its form of societal and economic organization that union can now no longer properly be called a union and is in a free fall, a disintegration not only in economics but in social cohesion and in the control over its defense forces.

So what was a concern a relatively few years ago for possible massive Soviet attack, either on Western Europe or perhaps even a nuclear war, now has resolved itself into overwhelming concerns over who controls the tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in the Soviet Union; can they be seized by splinter groups or by terrorists; can they be sold in order to meet some of the desperate crises in the Soviet Union?

To the credit of the leaders of both the Soviet Union and its principal republics, that group is as concerned with these potentialities as we are and is crying out for help in gaining control over its own nuclear weapons and, most particularly, over its destruction.

For 1992, the United States will be spending something over $250 million on its national security through the Department of Defense. This amendment represents less than one-fifth of 1 percent of that amount in return for which we will come far closer to the destruction of literally thousands of those nuclear weapons in the Soviet Union than we can in any other fashion.

Mr. President, this amendment is not one which ignores our domestic needs. It is not foreign aid. It is a true grand bargain and is perhaps as effective a way to spend a share of our budget for national defense as any which could possibly be adopted.

I wish to join my other colleagues in congratulating the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and my friend, the senior Senator from Indiana, for their persistence in pursuing this goal and their persistence in putting together a broad cross-section of Republicans and Democrats in this body for an imaginative and constructive idea which will contribute significantly to the national security of this Nation as well as to the potential of a future, more peaceful Soviet Union or set of successor States.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield just for a brief comment?

Mr. GORTON. I will be delighted to.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Washington for his very valuable support on this amendment. He told me last week he is in favor of this. He helped our colleagues in working this on both sides of the aisle. I thank him for his support.

I also want to thank the Senator from Michigan for his support. He has been invaluable and absolutely superb from the very beginning. He has been very much a part of it. I thank both my friends.

Mr. GORTON. I appreciate the comments of my distinguished colleague, and I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The junior Senator from Minnesota [Mr. WELLSTONE] is recognized.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I am quite sure that in the months to come, it is kind of like the winds and the tides. The focus in our country will be, to be sure, on domestic issues, domestic needs, domestic problems, economic recovery and jobs, education, and health care: A new American order, if you will. But I want to argue today on the floor of the Senate that what happens in what used to be called the Soviet Union, whether or not the forces for democracy triumph in that part of the world or not, is going to crucially affect the lives, the quality of the lives or lack of the quality of the lives of our children and grandchildren as anything that is happening in the world.

So I rise for just a minute or two to commend Senator NUNN and Senator LUGAR for their leadership on this amendment. I cannot think of anything that we could do that would be more important than enabling the Soviet Union to dismantle their nuclear weaponry. I think it is a national security issue. I think it is so important that we not sit on the sidelines and I hope that, above and beyond this amendment, there will be other amendments agreed to today and that we will be moving forward in the months to come to establish a positive working relationship with the country.

It is all very much up in the air right now, Mr. President. Cold winter sets in in what was my father's country, what used to be called the Soviet Union. This could be such a better world if the forces for democracy are able to triumph. There are so many good people there to support, and this amendment is an important step in the right direction, and I am very proud to support it.

I think there are some other amendments that are going to be very important as well and, as I said before, I look forward to the time when we help this country dismantle its nuclear weaponry. That is first and foremost, when we establish a relationship of economic assistance where we think about human talent and the kind of cross-fertilization that we can have of Americans going to that country, to the different republics and vice versa.

Right now we have a prohibition on the Peace Corps being active in what used to be called the Soviet Union. I hope, next session, to offer an amendment or introduce a bill to make sure we can send the Peace Corps to that part of the world. It is fine to focus on our own country, but I say to my colleagues, Senator NUNN and Senator LUGAR, that they have done a great service for both our parties, for the Congress and for the people in the country.

I thank the Senators for this amendment. I am so pleased it is now before the floor of the Senate and very proud to support it.

Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from Maryland [Mr. SARBANES] is recognized.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of this amendment. I congratulate Senators NUNN and LUGAR for developing it and for pressing forward with it.

I ask unanimous consent I be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SARBARNES. Mr. President, this issue is not really a question of helping somebody overseas as opposed to helping our own people. This is helping ourselves. I cannot think of a clearer instance where we have the opportunity to advance our own fundamental interests than with this proposal that is before us.

What this proposal seeks to accomplish is in effect to speed up the dismantlement of Soviet weaponry. In other words, to assist them in stepping down their level of nuclear weaponry.

What could be more in America's interests or to our advantage-not only our interest and advantage, but the whole world's interest and advantage-than accomplishing this objective. This is a very carefully worked out amendment, and I commend the authors of this proposal, Senators NUNN and LUGAR, for the skill which they have shown.

First of all, they have indicated the types of dangers about which we are concerned as far as nuclear safety and stability are concerned. These include

the disposition of this weaponry amongst the various political structures in the territory of the Soviet Union, the possible danger of seizure, theft, sale, or the use of these nuclear weapons or components, or the transfer of such weapons outside the territory of the Soviet Union.

There is one other danger that is possible, and that is what we saw in August; we had coup and the possibility of a reversion, then-at least we were apprehensive about such a prospect-to the old Soviet Union, so to speak. That danger has not been totally and completely removed. So another danger, of course, is that something of that sort, a radical reversion to the past, could take place, and then this weaponry would still be in their arsenal. It clearly is in our interests to get this weaponry out of the arsenal of the Soviet Union, and to do it as quickly as possible.

Another condition being proposed here, which I think is very important, is that before we provide any assistance in destroying nuclear and other weapons, the President has to certify to the Congress that certain a Soviet Republic, or former Soviet Republic has to make a substantial investment of its own resources for these purposes. In response, we are going to take some of the money from our defense budget, in effect, to reduce the weaponry of the other side-we are going to take some of that money, and very directly help in reducing the weaponry of the other side. This means that then we can look to a future where we do not have to make the same kind of investment in weaponry on our side.

We are going to bring their level of nuclear and other weaponry down. One of the reflections of the care of this amendment is that the President, before he can move ahead to use this authority-and it is a discretionary authority-must certify to the Congress that the potential recipient is committed, one, to making a substantial investment of its own resources for dismantling or destroying. So it is not going to be in lieu of the recipient providing resources.

The Soviets and the republics have limited resources; but we want them to move more quickly. We want to accomplish this objective as soon as is humanly possible, but they must make a substantial investment of their own resources. They must forgo any military modernization program that exceeds legitimate defense requirements or is designed to replace destroyed weapons of mass destruction. Think about it. What a significant condition that is in terms of assuring ourselves that there is not going to be some other commensurate buildup in military capability. The recipient must forgo any use of fissionable or any other components of destroyed nuclear weapons, in new nuclear weapons.

In addition, they must facilitate our verification of weapons destruction. They must comply with all relevant arms control agreements and they must observe internationally recognized human rights, including the protection of minorities.

Mr. President, I think this is an enormously and positively constructive amendment. It has been very carefully developed. It gives us an opportunity to take a very significant step to speed up the timetable that this weaponry will be destroyed.

I think it is a very wise commitment of the limited amount of money that is called for in this bill-which is money that is in the defense budget, as I understand it. It is money in the defense budget that would be used for the purpose of assisting the adversary or the potential adversary destroy their own weaponry. It is a very imaginative proposal, and I am very strongly in support of it.

I urge my colleagues to support this very significant proposition.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Maryland, not only for his remarks this morning, but also because when this proposal was under a great deal of fire, the Senator from Maryland personally told me that we should continue the fight. He has been a leader in this area, and I am very grateful to him for his remarks.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for his kind statements. I must say that he has been interested in this for a long time as has Senator LUGAR and Senator BIDEN, who has chaired a number of hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee on this subject and who is managing the CFE Treaty. We are all in agreement that this represents a major step in helping to achieve a very important result.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware [Mr. BIDEN].

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I was going to stand to see if anyone was going to seek recognition on the issue. I see our friend from Wyoming is here, so I will refrain and yield the floor.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. WALLOP],

Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. If I could, I would like to engage either the Senator from Georgia or the Senator from Indiana in a series of questions about this amendment.

I begin by saying, Mr. President, that I do not know anybody who is not interested in finding a way to eliminate any proliferation of nuclear weapons, to eliminate any unnecessary threat, or do any of the sort of noble deeds that are contemplated by this amendment. What I am curious to determine is if anybody can determine if that is going to be the result of it.

I think you begin by an understanding of the basic economic fact that money is fungible, that money provided for an act here relieves the obligation for money from some other place to perform the requirements of that act.

The Soviets, to the extent that they exist anymore, have undertaken these obligations to destroy their weapons. I understand the whole series of findings, that President Gorbachev has requested Western help in dismantling nuclear weapons and that there are changes underway. We, of course, would have had to have been dead for the last couple of years not to understand that.

And the third is that it is in the national security interests of the United States. Those are all givens and obvious and acceptable.

The exclusions-this is where I would like to direct some questions, through the Chair, to the Senator from Indiana. It says:

The United States' assistance in destroying nuclear and other weapons under this title may not be provided to any nation, Soviet Republic, or former Soviet Republic unless the President first certifies to the Congress that the potential recipient is committed to, (1) making a substantial investment of its resources to dismantle or destroy such weapons,

Could the Senator explain who defines "substantial" and who otherwise might be able to question whether it is substantial or not?

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I respond to the distinguished Senator from Wyoming by saying that the President of the United States will have to make this determination. My presumption is the President of the United States will certify that substantial investment resources have been made.

The purpose of the exclusion is an obvious one, and that is, although we believe it to be in the best interest of the United States to see the weapons destroyed, in fact the Gorbachev-Bush understanding was that both of our countries would move in a very concerted way toward these destructions. And we believe that the Soviets, or the entities that may be their successors, ought to fulfill that idea. We will have to make a determination-at least I would say "we" and in behalf of the President. He can make the determination as to whether, in fact, the Soviet effort is a substantial one.

Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, may I ask either of the authors if they have a definition of what constitutes substantial? It is a vague word at best, and it has grave meaning when applied to something as serious as this.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, in response to that, on my own-the distinguished Senator from Georgia may have an additional thought-clearly, we have outlined that the problem is twofold, and that is that the Soviets lack the resources, and they lack sufficient expertise either in quantity or quality to do the job. As a result, the presumption of this amendment is that we will he to supply a good bit of both.

I simply go back to my earlier thought, and that is the President of the United States-in our interest, the United States' interest-will have to make a determination of what the term "substantial" means.

Mr. WALLOP. I say to my friend, we just have been through the Gates hearings, in which everybody was talking about politicizing intelligence judgments. I am suggesting that the inadvertent effect of this is we emphasis the word "substantial." Some will suggest that substantial has not been quite achieved and others will suggest that it is substantial; and why not let the President act?

It seems to me that the authors of the amendment might be able to provide us with at least their view of what constitutes substantial.

Mr. NUNN. I say to the Senator from Wyoming, if the Senator will yield-Mr. President, I will say that one of the things that is paradoxical is that one way of looking at it is that the Soviets continue to modernize their nuclear forces. That is, I am sure, a matter of concern to the Senator from Wyoming. It is a matter of concern to me.

I also have had enough conversations with a number of people in the Soviet Union coming from different aspects and a number of people in the Russian Republic, including democratic reformers, to conclude that one of the reasons they are continuing to do this, No. 1, is because they do not know anything else to do; No. 2, they have a view to the amount of employment involved; No. 3, they do not really know how to convert their military industry now; No. 4, the West has not been very assertive in going in and giving them advice on conversion, although I believe that effort is picking up.

It is my view, based on the conversations I have had, that, we are going to see by the spring of this next year a very large-and I mean by "substantial" the word "large". substantial, to me, is a synonym-a very large cutback in Soviet efforts on modernization of forces because, primarily, the republics are cutting off the money.

I believe that the President has to have discretion in this respect.

I do not believe that Congress can write a word in that is more meaningful than "substantial." We believe, those of us who authored this amendment, that it is manifestly in our interest to help destroy those tactical nuclear weapons and those that the Soviets are willing to destroy, even if there is some continued military production going on. But I hope that it will be on a down scale, and my definition on "substantial" would be a significant reduction from where we are now in terms of our intelligence analysis.

I believe that in January, or February, or March, or April of next year we should see-for the President to move forward in this area-significant reductions from the level of production activities going on now. I think the President will have to make that determination.

It is also my view, though, that it could vary from one republic to the other. The Senator I think would agree with the way this is constructed. It does not go through the Central Government necessarily, although that is not excluded. It could go to Kazakhstan if Kazakhstan were meeting those conditions and willing to have us help them, assist them in the storage and destruction.

It could go to the Ukraine. If the Ukraine decides, after voting and if they do declare themselves independent, if they decide they want to undertake at that moment to get rid of a lot of those weapons or most of them, it might go to the Ukraine.

So, there could be a discretion here for the President to distinguish between Russian republic, the Ukraine, Kazakhstan, or other republics that might have tactical nuclear weapons. So we do give the President discretion.

But my own definition, depending on the republic, would be that we would see some continued scaleback from the production activities we have seen in the last year or two. I believe that is going to happen. I think it is already happening.

I really do not believe that the intelligence has yet quite caught up with the resource allocation, because resources are being taken away from the center. The production committees in charge of production have been dismantled. There are hundreds of thousands of people who were in defense who are now out looking for jobs. There are a lot of other factories and plants there that are on the verge of closing down.

None of us know how this is going to all play out. But it is my view that if we wait until we get the intelligence community coming over and saying this production facility is down, this one is down, this one is down, and this one is down, they also might be telling us at the same time, "We have seen evidence of nuclear scientists going to Libya, we have seen evidence of nuclear material going to North Korea, we have seen intercepted shipments of nuclear material and chemical material going into Iraq."

I do not want that news to come at the same time. So it is my view we had better get out in front of this. This is one time when the Congress of the United States should have some faith and confidence in the President of the United States.

I believe the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense are not going to use their discretion in this respect unless they have received it and unless these general conditions have been met. I think that we should all have confidence in that respect. I do myself have confidence in that respect.

I say to my friend from Wyoming that this is a long answer. The way I view this-the Senator and I have worked together on the SDI issue this year-I view this as SDI up close. This is the ability to basically destroy an awful lot of weapons with a hammer, so to speak, rather than with an interceptor missile. This is a chance to really do something very positive in that respect. So that is the way I view it. That it my general approach to it.

Mr. WALLOP addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield, I want to make a point on the same point. I will take only 30 seconds. There is already a substantial cut, as the Senator knows. He sits on the Intelligence Committee. There is already a significant change in weapons production, from the year before, of tanks and nuclear material, et cetera. This is an inevitability. It is impossible to look down the road and see how anything, even the present level, can be sustained, let alone increased.

Mr. WALLOP addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. WALLOP. One of the things that worries the Senator from Wyoming is that, while it is improbable-improbable-I do not think it impossible to look down the road and see even sustaining the level, I do not want the taxpayers of the United States to subsidize that probability, which is one of the things that is worrying the Senator from Wyoming.

I say again that money is fungible, resources are fungible, that devoted to one thing relieves pressures on it from some other place. It is an obligation that this Nation has, which brings me to the second part of it.

The President certifies to the Congress the potential recipient is committed to forgoing any military modernization program that exceeds legitimate defense requirements.

Who is to determine what is a legitimate defense requirement? The President of the United States? Is it the Republic? Or is it the Soviet Union?

Mr. NUNN. The President of the United States would have the duty and discretion to make that determination.

Mr. WALLOP. I say again, Mr. President, that we have seen such a politicization of intelligence, just through the nomination and confirmation of the Director of Central Intelligence, that this worries me, because the President can be criticized for doing everything or nothing under the terms of this. And the second part of that clause is that the potential recipient is committed to forgoing, as I said, "any military modernization program that exceeds legitimate defense requirements ***," Mr. President, here is where it bothers the Senator from Wyoming: "***or is designed to replace destroyed weapons of mass destruction."

Why should we be willing to pay them to replace destroyed weapons of mass destruction?

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator that I think the way it is intended to be worded-and perhaps it can be sharpened-is that they are forgoing any kind of replacement of destroyed weapons.

If you read it, it says:

Forgoing any military modernization program that exceed legitimate defense requirements or is designed to replace destroyed weapons of mass destruction.

So the words "forgoing any military modernization program," that is designed to replace destroyed weapons of mass destruction. That is exactly the Senator's point, that things intended to get to.

Mr. WALLOP. I say, Mr. President, that it perhaps could use a little wordsmithing. It can be read in either direction. It would sound as though the taxpayer would be obliged to perhaps fund a legitimate defense requirement. That would include--

Mr. NUNN. I say to the Senator, would he feel better if we had this read: "Forgoing any military modernization program that exceeds legitimate defense requirements and foregoing the replacement of destroyed weapons of mass destruction?"

Mr. WALLOP. I think that is a stronger statement and less debatable.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask to so modify the amendment, and I send the modification to the desk.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is so modified.

The modification is as follows:

(3) that it is in the national security interests of the United States (A) to facilitate on a priority basis the transportation, storage, safeguarding, and destruction of nuclear and other weapons in the Soviet Union and its former and present republics, and (B) to assist in the prevention of weapons proliferation.

(b) EXCLUSIONS.-United States assistance in destroying nuclear and other weapons under this title may not be provided to any nation, Soviet republic, or former Soviet republic unless the President first certifies to the Congress that the potential recipient is committed to-

(1) making a substantial investment of its resources for dismantling or destroying such weapons;

(2) forgoing any military modernization program that exceeds legitimate defense requirements and foregoing the replacement of destroyed weapons of mass destruction;

(3) forgoing any use of fissionable and other components of destroyed nuclear weapons in new nuclear weapons;

(4) facilitating United States verification of weapons destruction carried out under section 212;

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator wish his modification to be read?

Mr. NUNN. Yes.

Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, perhaps that would be wise. I am sure it reflects what the Senator just said.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will read the modification.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

On page 3, line 19, after the words "defense requirements" on line 18, strike "or is designed to replace" and insert in lieu thereof, "and forgoing the replacement of destroyed weapons of mass destruction."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming has the floor.

Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I am still wandering through this area of the fundamentals of economics, and I say that I share the goals of the Senators. That is not a problem to me. But I wonder why, in this instance, through one, two, and perhaps three, we would not be paid to, rather than pay for this destruction.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, if I could respond by saying that the dilemma is clearly that the Soviet Union is committed to the destruction of these weapons. But the timetable in which the 15,000 weapons we mentioned are to be destroyed would be a matter of the fungibility. The question is, is it in the best interest of the United States to facilitate that destruction? In our judgment, it is.

Let me respond to the thought raised by the Senator in an earlier question by saying that the moneys must finally be identified by the President. He must determine the rates at which they are expended and, furthermore, as opposed to being fungible with the Soviet Union, it may be that the President will want to contract with the contractors of the United States for this destruction.

I understand the Senator's point, that the Soviet Union might finally get around to doing this, or its successors, over the course of the years, and therefore they might finally pay the money without our having to lift a finger. I simply say to the distinguished Senator that we believe it is in our interest to accelerate it. That is in the discretion of the President, too.

Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Indiana. I must say that I think there can be two views on that. I hold another, which is that the intelligence still indicates strong continued modernization of Soviet strategic weaponry, in particular, but no particular reduction of their efforts in conventional nuclear weapons.

So what worries me is that the taxpayer is being asked to foot a bill that ultimately will be directed, or could ultimately be directed against him. So when the whole purpose has been to relieve the taxpayer of that threat, the consequence may be the opposite. That is why I am trying to find some means by which the Senate, at least, could feel assured that this was going to be the case. I do not see it.

Mr. LUGAR. If the Senator will yield, Mr. President, I see no possibility that American taxpayers would be building armaments on behalf of the Soviet Union. The purpose of the amendment is clearly destruction of weapons. I understand the Senator's point that relief of this cost of destruction could lead, if there were funds in the central government or the republics, to the production of other weapons through the fungibility issue. I am simply--

Mr. WALLOP. If I may say, Mr. President, I am not suggesting that it would lead to it. I am suggesting that it relieves this necessity of stopping it. It is, today, going on. I am sure the Senator would agree with me that the intelligence indicates that there is a modernization program of substantial portions still going on in nuclear strategic weaponry.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the Senator from Georgia has affirmed that point in his comment. He made the point that observation also indicates that it is winding down in large part through lack of funds in the Soviet Union, either for destruction of what they have built in the past, or if they are building anything more. Clearly, the President has to be clear-eyed in observing that process.

Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, a third requirement is that they would be forgoing any use of fissionable or other components of destroyed nuclear weapons and new nuclear weapons.

May I ask either of the sponsors how we propose to determine that?

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I would simply indicate that our ability to be on the ground literally watching and participating in the destruction of Soviet nuclear weapons gives us a much better observation point historically for verification than we ever had before. That really has to be the way we make that determination.

Mr. WALLOP. Again, I would say that perhaps a particular way of doing this would be for the United States to acquire the fissionable material, take title to it, and remove it from the Soviet territory, and, in fact, oversee a relatively simple separation of parts of nuclear weapons. But the more important point is that it still is not an answer, that while we hope they will stop building or modernizing their strategic arsenal, they are not. Until they are absolutely not, I do not see that the taxpayer is really doing anything but, in fact, subsidizing that modernization.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will call to the attention of the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. WALLOP], the order of Saturday which requires that at the hour of 12 o'clock noon, HR3807 be temporarily laid aside for a 1 -hour debate on a motion to proceed to HR3595.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be able to continue this debate for another 30 minutes.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the request?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, the Senator from Nebraska has been waiting to speak on this very important matter. I think the extension is a good request. I wish to have put in the unanimous-consent request to include 5 minutes at a minimum set aside for the Senator from Nebraska.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?

Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do not, I think it shall depend upon how long the answers are to the questions I have yet to proffer whether we can get to that moment. I think they will not be that long but I have two more questions which I wish to address. If the Senator is willing to take his chances on that, I am certain that he will be obliged. I do not know how long Senators are going to take to respond.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have not had a response from the managers of the bill to the request of the Senator from Nebraska.

Could I be assured of 5 minutes before the vote on the measure presently pending?

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from Wyoming there is no time agreement, so there is no reason the Senator cannot have whatever time he desires either between now and 12:30 if the unanimous consent goes in effect, or if we do not dispose of the amendment by 12:30, the other matter will be disposed of before this matter.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, just an inquiry, and I shall not object.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator reserves the right to object.

Mr. SIMON. When we finish with the Medicaid situation will we then return to this amendment; is that the sequence?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate would then proceed to the consideration of the CFR Treaty.

Mr. SIMON. At what point will we return to this amendment, then?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is nothing included in the order that deals with that situation. The Chair will state, however, there are three rollcall votes scheduled back to back beginning at 2 o'clock, the last of which deals with the cloture. If cloture is invoked, of course, under the rule, then the Senate will remain on the matter of cloture to the exclusion of all other business until the time under the cloture rule has expired or the matter has been disposed of.

Mr. SIMON. With the cloture vote that does change the situation. I have no objection, Mr. President.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Delaware that there be 30 additional minutes? The Chair hears none.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Wyoming retains the floor.

Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I assure my friend from Nebraska I do not think we have a whole lot more. But one of the problems I have had on last Friday and last Saturday with the CFE Treaty is that before we are even about to enter into that, it is known that the Soviets are not in compliance with it. The Secretary of State has as much as confirmed it. Intelligence briefings have as much as confirmed it. The proponents of the treaty have as much as confirmed it.

Now I want to check with my distinguished friends from Georgia and Indiana as to how serious they are about the condition No. 5, which is complying with all relevant arms control agreements. It has not been the habit of this country to insist on compliance.

Are they talking, may I ask either of them, of full compliance or short of compliance, or compliance that is not threatening? What is the basic criteria which they wish to have attached to this commitment?

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I would say to my friend from Wyoming that if the language says the President first certifies to the Congress that the potential recipient is committed to-the key words "committed to"-complying with all relevant arms control agreements, I believe those words speak for themselves. The President would have to make that determination that the individual republic that is going to be engaged in this kind of cooperative effort to destroy weapons is committed to arms control agreements.

For instance, if the Ukraine becomes independent in December when they vote, then I think it is enormously important for the President to, basically, make it clear to them that not only is this particular section dependent on the Ukraine being willing to sign up with this treaty we have before us now, the CFE Treaty, but also even if the provision were not to pass the food aid that is already in the pipeline is subject to that. If we have people in the republics that are violating the arms control agreement or indicating they are not committed to them, then I think the President has an obligation here, under this section, to not cooperate with them in other programs. I hope he would apply that as a general principle in other areas.

I would say food aid we are sending over there now. The President announced another $1 - 1/2- billion the other day. As the Senator indicates that is fungible also.

Mr. WALLOP. I agree.

Mr. NUNN. That relieves them in certain other areas. I happen to agree with them. But the Senator's basic point on the food aid would also lie. So this is a discretion to the President of the United States as we often give the President in terms of arms control, and he would make this judgment, which will be a judgment based on intelligence assessment.

Mr. WALLOP. I thank the Senator from Georgia.

But I would say that according to the February 1991 Presidential Report on Soviet Noncompliance With Arms Control Treaties, that they remain in violation with the ABM Treaty, and the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention, and I am certain that this is a criteria. They are as well, though, they are not yet bound by this, in violation of the terms under the CFE Treaty.

The problem the Senator from Wyoming has now and has always had with arms control is that it is a matter of convenience for a democracy and a President, a Congress or no one else dares let convenience stand in the way of compliance.

I do not accuse anybody of any specific intention in this. I am only reciting that the history, Mr. President, of arms control is that it is very inconvenient when we find whoever we have these agreements with in violation of them and wish to do other business. Every time we wish to do other business, we set aside the very concerns over which we entered into these theoretically binding agreements in order to get on with the next little piece of convenience, more often than not, a matter of domestic political reaction rather than international security.

So, may I direct one final question to the Senator from Georgia through the Chair: The other arms control agreements are pretty serious but the one in particular is a violation of the 1972 Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention and we have determined that they have maintained an active offensive program since the thirties. But now we have determined an unclassified statement that they are in violation of that.

Does the Senator believe that being in violation of that or of the CFE Treaty would be sufficient to cause the President to pause in the delivery of this?

Mr. NUNN. I would say to my friend from Wyoming--

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will please address his responses through the Chair.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I would say to my friend from Wyoming that I hope the President would consider these matters and consider them very carefully. I also hope that perhaps some of the republics that may find they have certain plants going on and production going on, they may not fully be aware of that, they, the republics as opposed to the central government, may very well decide that they would like under this provision to cooperate with us in destroying some of that basic weaponry including possible biological. If that is the case, this provision may help cure the problems that the Senator from Wyoming is concerned about.

It would be a paradox if we had a republic take over and find that biological weapons were being produced in contravention of various agreements and treaties over the years and then basically did not have the wherewithal, the technology, to be able to get rid of those because we did not have the foresight to provide for the President having discretion for this kind of program.

I would also say the Krasnoyarsk radar, it is my understanding that that is being dismantled. It has not been completed. I think the Senator is correct on that. So the key words here are "committed to" and the key to this is the President himself would have the discretion under this, and we would expect him to consider all of those things the Senator from Wyoming has enumerated.

Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia. Let me conclude by saying that I understand what it is that they are trying to do and I think that the goal is laudable. It strikes the Senator from Wyoming it is a particular time for prudence. And the problem that we have in our democracies-and Lord knows we would not trade them for the systems against which we have been deployed since the end of World War II-that the words "committed to" and others are words of convenience for democracies dealing with domestic reactions at home. They are no binding words.

The words of this amendment are substantial and legitimate and designed to and committed to complying with relevant arms control agreements. And the problem is that each of those is peculiarly vulnerable to subjective judgments in the political arena. I say to my friend they are peculiarly vulnerable to subjective judgments in the political arena from both sides, the right as well as the left.

I mean, we have all seen it, saying you know that you were soft on the enemies or you are not soft enough. If you, in fact, read the op-ed pieces of the last several days, you see precisely whereof the Senator from Wyoming speaks.

I have heard that this is a time when we ought to take a risk for peace. Mr. President, I would conclude by saying the American public has taken their risk for peace and I think they have done it rather well and, in fact, circumstances that the world sees now are the direct results of the steadfastness of the United States of America and her allies arrayed and allied against the forces of communism. And we have not come so far yet, Mr. President, in the judgment of the Senator from Wyoming, that we ought to risk using American taxpayer dollars to subsidize Soviet behavior, which is in their interest as well as ours, while Soviet behavior which is only in their interest continues on even though it may be abated.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we are not asking the American public to take a risk for peace. We are asking the American public to avoid a risk. We are not taking any risk. If find the reasoning of my friend from Wyoming, which is always compelling, a bit confusing when he speaks about whether or not the Soviets will abide by the arms control agreement.

Let me reduce it to terms that people who do not deal in arms control, as we do all the time, I think would understand. It is a little like my saying: Look, you have got a gun pointed at my head. You may blow my brains out. And you do not know how to unload that gun. But I am not going to show you how to unload that gun. Do you know why? Because you promised me that you were going to get rid of that dynamite you had in your garage and you did not. So I am going to teach you a lesson. I am not going to help you unload that gun which you have pointed at my head.

Now is that not brilliant reasoning? My goodness, we get so caught up in this sort of lingering ideological conflict that no longer has much relevance that we sometimes suggest we act against our own interest.

Three is no risk here, Mr. President. Would any man or woman in the world not help a felon unload a gun pointed at them because the felon was going to continue to commit another crime or because the felon may come back with a new weapon the next day?

There is an immediate concern, as the Senator from Georgia has pointed out. They are going to do something with these weapons, Mr. President. They do not have the money to transport them. They do not have the money to put them in storage. They do not have the money to keep them out of the hands of people they are concerned about.

If only they could get the money, Mr. President, they could be transported. I am sure the Iraqis would pay to transport some of them. I am sure the Libyans would pay to transport some of them, as well.

But, Mr. President, we are not asking the American people to take a risk. We are asking them to avoid a risk. As we lawyers say, let us argue an alternative. Let us assume everything the Senator from Wyoming states is correct; that the Soviets continue to be bad guys; they do not abide by agreements; they are continuing their weapons programs. So, to teach them a lesson, we are not going to dismantle nuclear and chemical weapons that they either do not know how to dismantle or do not have the wherewithal to dismantle because we would rather spend money on producing exotic systems that would dismantle them in flight at much greater threat to the American people.

If the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Georgia succeed here-and it comes as no surprise to the Senator from Wyoming, I do not think we had to put any of these conditions in here. I did not do that. I am just a supporter of the legislation. I do not think we need any of the conditions at all.

We have a chance here, Mr. President, to help get rid of in excess of 10,000 nuclear warheads, whether they are nuclear mines or shells or beyond. And we are going to sit here and say: No, we are not going to do that. We are going to teach you a lesson. We will take our money and spend it other places. You dismantle them.

One other point I might add, even if they had the money, Mr. President, they do not have the technology. They do not know how to do it as well as we do.

And one last point, you have in these republics, Mr. President, a new awakening to their environmental fragility, and the environmental damage that is already done.

There is an old joke my grandfather used to tell. He used to say: Talk about an oxymoron-I am from the Federal Government, and I am here to help you.

Americans out there understand that, with the Federal Government not very much in vogue these days.

Can you imagine, you are living in the republics, and the central government leadership comes to you and says: Hey, we are going to destroy chemical weapons on your territory. Trust us; we know how to do it.

On the other hand, Mr. President, what we do know is, if the folks over there know that American technology and Americans are helping them, ironically enough in the Soviet Union and its constituent republics, our technicians and our environmental experts will have even greater credibility than they do here.

So, for all those reasons, I sincerely hope that the Senator from Wyoming, although some substantive elements of each of the individual arguments he makes have some merit, they fall under their own weight, in my humble opinion, when measured against the risk we are being asked to avoid-avoid-avoid-not take.

I see my friend from Nebraska is here. I know he has been seeking recognition.

Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the Nunn-Lugar amendment occur upon the return to legislative session, immediately following the disposition of the resolution of ratification of the CFE treaty.

Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, that has been cleared on the Republican side, without objection.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?

Mr. SIMON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President; I will not. I want to make sure I get 3 minutes in here to talk on the Nunn amendment briefly.

Mr. BIDEN. I promise the Senator, Mr. President, I promise the Senator he will get 3 minutes to talk on the Nunn amendment, and I will stay here and listen; and everyone else will, too, I am sure.

Mr. SIMON. That is a double pleasure, and I thank the Senator.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the request? Would the Senator from Delaware include the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. BYRD], in that request, for not to exceed 5 minutes?

Mr. BIDEN. Surely.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the request? The Chair hears no objection. It is so ordered.

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON].

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am going to be very brief in my remarks in support of what I think is a tremendously important amendment, probably best known as the Nunn amendment. I have attended several meetings in this regard. Out of those meetings has come the Nunn-Lugar amendment, which is before us.

While there are not a great number of Senators on the floor now, and even fewer members of the press in the press gallery, I think this is a tremendously important amendment that needs adoption. And I hope it will receive an overwhelming vote of approval.

I started out by saying what I have said in defense of this type of an amendment previously on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

While there are some legitimate concerns, and some legitimate concerns expressed here-and I think some good questions have been asked, and I hope satisfactorily answered-the fact of the matter, I think, is best summed up by a statement this Senator made on the Senate floor in this,regard way back on November 7, on page S 16184, where I said:

Mr. President, let me take a few moments, if I can, to try to put into some logical perspective what looks like a new firestorm breaking out in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives with regard to the defense authorization bill.

There was debate ongoing at that time with regard to a similar but not exact proposal that came out of the conference between the House and the Senate on the defense authorization bill. What we are doing here, and what we tried to do then, which was stripped out of the defense authorization bill, is merely to give the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, some tools that he can work with if he sees fit.

I think we have to trust the President of the United States, as I do, to use any money that he thinks should be expended, to spend it wisely, and to not spend it if he thinks it would not be wise or in the national security interests of the United States.

I have simply been astonished during the last 3 weeks at the views expressed on the Senate floor, which are extremely isolationist in nature. And I think probably it is the greatest understatement that I have ever made when I said that I felt rampant isolationism has emerged, and there is a lack of long-range view as to what really is in the national security interests of the United States. So much so that sometimes, in contemplating this, I wondered if some Members unthinkingly had been so much consumed with isolationism since the recent Pennsylvania elections, that maybe we could even consider going back to that old principle or theory that the world, indeed, is really flat instead of round.

The bill we have before us is one which allows the President to exercise some jurisdiction. Certainly, Mr. President, anyone who has been reading the widespread articles in the press of recent days, the television features and interviews that have shown very knowledgeable people, including our very distinguished Ambassador to the Soviet Union, should recognize that as of today, there is a major crisis of catastrophic proportion taking place in the Soviet Union.

I simply say that a hungry bear who has lost control of his nuclear devices is a very dangerous bear. I think the President knows that. I think those of us who look beyond the horizon and beyond political expediency know that.

Whatever we do here, it generally "costs the taxpayer" something. I feel that the national security interests of the United States and the taxpayer will be served very dramatically in the longrun if the President of the United States is given the authority and the tools to move speedily in a whole series of areas.

I once again salute Senator Nunn for bringing this up originally in the defense authorization bill. I salute him and Senator Lugar and others for their leadership now. I hope we have the wisdom to eliminate shortsightedness and political expediency, to pass the bill that is before us.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia [Mr. WARNER].

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia would like to make a unanimous-consent request to have no more than about 3 or 4 minutes, for purposes of having a colloquy with the Senator from Wyoming, relating to the amendment the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. SMITH], are going to bring up, in the hopes they could accept a recommendation from the Senator from Virginia. It is in the form of an amendment.

I ask unanimous consent now if I might proceed for no more than 4 minutes.

Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator withhold that for 30 seconds?

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Nebraska that I appreciate his comments and leadership. I noted a few moments ago, we are spending $4 billion on SDI, and I think we have a very important consensus on SDI.

The way I view this amendment now pending, it is SDI up close. It is SDI up close because we have an opportunity to destroy some 15,000 weapons in cooperation with the Soviet Union, plus a lot of chemical weapons.

I thank the Senator for his leadership. He has been a strong supporter and proponent of this from the very beginning. I thank him for his words of support. I thank the Senator from Virginia.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Virginia that there be 5 minutes during which he may engage in a colloquy with other Senators? The Chair, hearing no objection, the Senator is recognized for 5 minutes for that purpose.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair and thank all Members present.

First, I would like to associate myself with the amendment of the Senator from Georgia. I am a cosponsor. And I likewise associate myself with the Senator from Nebraska, [Mr. EXON] and his remarks. We have been part of the working group together for some time. I think you might say I was one of the first to support the version of the amendment way back in the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr. NUNN. I say to the Senator from Virginia, if he will yield, he has been a supporter of this amendment. He supported it back when the fire was hot and there were people against it and felt very strongly against it. I thank him for that support and am delighted he is a cosponsor.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Georgia. I think, like so many other things in life, it is distilled to where I hope it will be accepted by a majority of the Senate.

Mr. President, turning to the amendment which is sponsored by the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from New Hampshire, as I view this, in consultation with the negotiators of the treaty and others, I recommend that they take into consideration an amendment which would provide as follows, and I shall read it:

Add after Condition (a)(5)(C). the following condition:

"(6) PRESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATION ON SOVIET COMPLIANCE.-Within 30 days of the Senate's approval of the resolution of ratification, the President shall certify in a report to XXXX whether or not the Soviet Union is in violation or probable violation of the terms of the CFE Treaty and protocols thereto."

It seems to this Senator and others that that would enable the President's report to refer to that point in time as when the report is made. I think there would be certain advantages to that.

I now yield the floor-I will not yield the floor, because I have 5 minutes, but I yield to the Senator from Wyoming.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Virginia yield the floor?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am not sure of the parliamentary situation.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator yields to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. WARNER. For a question and answer.

Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Virginia that in all probability the Senate would get a more honest report with this than with the language suggested by Senator SMITH. It is necessary to point out, however, that it requires no response on the part of the President other than to give a report. If he reports that they are in violation, there is nothing that slows down the process of ratification of the treaty. It will, I think, verify what is the view of Senator SMITH and my view that this is a political document and not a military strategic document because the President will have no choice but to certify that they are in violation or probable violation of certain of the undertakings that they have on this and yet we will not then be able to slow down the process of completing these arrangements between our countries.

But I will say, in all honesty, I think we would get a report that was closer to the truth if the President and his people were not forced to act on the contents of that report. My inclination is to suggest or to hope that Senator SMITH would see it that way, too. I point out that this is essentially his amendment and he has a choice in that

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming, and I thank the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. SMITH]. I hope, by the time the amendment is presented to the Senate for further debate, that this matter will be included. I yield the floor and I thank the Chair.

Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. SIMON].

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 3 minutes on the Nunn-Lugar amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There being no objection. the Senator may so proceed.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent to be listed as a cosponsor of the amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I commend our colleague from Georgia, Senator NUNN, Senator LUGAR for their leadership on this. There is a tendency right now in our country to look inward, understandably, because of the overwhelming problems that we have in each of our States. But we also have to be aware of the rest of the world, and if, after spending literally trillions of dollars to take care of this Communist menace, we have now, through surgery and through a variety of ways, that has been taken out of the body politic, we have to be careful how we move. For us to permit the Soviets to have a situation where they can sell weapons, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons to Third World countries is inviting disaster.

Second, it seems to me, beyond that, showing an interest in what is taking place in the Soviet Union is in our best interest. We do not want a left-wing dictatorship ultimately to be replaced by a right-wing dictatorship. The security interests of the United States is best served when we have free countries. It is interesting that historically no two self-governing nations have ever attacked each other.

World stability and U.S. security is tied in with that. I think the Nunn-Lugar amendment is clearly in the best interest of the United States, and I hope we follow through on it very very quickly. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his support and encouragement back when this amendment was under great fire. I recall very well his encouragement to continue on this.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. MCCONNELL; the Senator from New York, Mr. MOYNIHAN; and the Senator from Virginia, Mr. WARNER, be listed as original cosponsors.

President pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. NUNN. I thank the Chair and thank my friend from Texas.

Return to Top
Return to Table of Contents