Samuel Nunn

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. I say to my friend from Iowa, that is the way all the forces that we have in Europe are viewed by the NATO alliance. They are viewed as military personnel that really are there for an overall NATO mission. So, for instance, the Germans would, I would imagine, be rather resentful at this stage of us saying that those troops that we have in Germany are all there to protect Germany. There is no longer a threat to Germany as we have had in the past. Our forces are in Europe primarily, as the Senator from Virginia said, because we feel that having forward-based forces in Europe allows us to play a worldwide role, not just a NATO role. For instance, the forces in Europe that we had there were forces that deployed to the Middle East in Operation Desert Storm. Would we expect Israel to pay part of the cost of forces in Europe or would we expect Saudi Arabia to pay part of the forces in Europe because those forces are likely to go there in the event of conflict, or do we want Germany to pay the cost of those forces when they are not primarily at this stage to defend Germany; they are there basically for a much broader purpose? That is the problem with this amendment, I say to my friend.

Mr. NUNN. We have shifted considerable in the mission of U.S. forces in Europe. It used to be they were there specifically to protect invasion from the Warsaw Pact. Now they are there, about a third the number; we have drawn down from 300,000 to 100,000. So we have now supposedly leveled off. The amendment, as I understand it, could conceivably, if nobody was willing to pay this cost, take our forces down to 25,000. Is that right?

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, if I could just close, I understand where the Senators are coming from on this, and I agree with their overall thrust. I would like to see our allies pay more. But this amendment is a cold war amendment that is based on the concept that we are defending every country where our troops are stationed and that they should therefore pay their part, when these countries are not going to view it that way. That may be the way the authors of this amendment view it, but that is not going to be the way the Germans view it or anyone else. If you ask someone in Poland, for instance, what they think about the United States drawing down our forces to 25,000, they will tell you in a minute that that is going to be destabilizing. But Poland is not going to be expected to pay any part of this. If you ask someone in Czechoslovakia should we draw down our forces, not from 300,000 to 100,000, but on down to 25,000, they will tell you in a minute we do not want you to draw down your forces. We feel they are needed there in a critical way now for stability purposes. If you ask someone in Hungary the same question, they will tell you the same answer. So this is a much broader application. We are not there simply to protect Germany. We are there because we are a world leader. We play a big role in the world. If we want to see things destabilize, then we can bring all our forces home and then watch the chaos take place as we watch what is happening in Bosnia today. Mr. President, I understand the motive of this amendment, but I urge its defeat. I think it needs to be thought through a lot more carefully than is apparently the case at this point in time.

Mr. NUNN. Could I answer that question?

Mr. NUNN. Very briefly, the main reason is because the Japanese do not have military forces. Our NATO allies do. The Japanese have a very small percentage of their budget. That ends up being a lot higher percentage of their money because of the GNP, but they did not spend more than 1 percent. They did not have much of a security role anywhere else in the world. Our allies like Britain, France, and even now Germany, they are moving and helping in Bosnia and are contributing military forces. So it has always been thought that the Japanese ought to do more in the offset area since they are doing less in the military area relative to their GNP.

Mr. NUNN. This is what the post-cold-war environment is all about. During the cold war I sponsored burden-sharing amendments. At the same time we were protecting Germany, which was divided, there was a large Warsaw Pact force. Germany had a threat. The Koreans have that kind of threat. They have 9,000 artillery tubes looking down their throats in Seoul. So we are directly protecting our national security. What I am saying to you is that our forces in Germany today are not there directly and primarily to protect Germany. They are there for stability in all of Europe and the Middle East. So it has shifted fundamentally. I think there may be a way to get at this, but I do not think this amendment does it.

Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I think the Guard and Reserve are among our highest priorities. I am pleased we have a package here for the Guard and Reserve. As I understand the Levin amendment--and I want the Senator to clarify this if I am wrong--I note the letter from the National Guard Association says, ``We are opposed to efforts which would merely identify a lump sum dollar amount for equipment which would be referred to the Department of Defense for distribution.'' That is the letter I believe the Senator from Virginia read from. It is my understanding the Levin amendment does not do what that letter was opposed to. The Levin amendment leaves it up to the Reserve and Guard components to make that choice individually--Army National Guard, Air National Guard, Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Air Force Reserve, and Marine Corps Reserve. This amendment leaves it to the Department of Defense to make the choice, and if they want the items we have selected here, they could select every one of those.

Mr. NUNN. My position is I support the package in the bill, but I believe the Levin amendment is a better way to go about it because, we do not go over these line items as we do in the regular budget. The regular budget comes over, the Department of Defense has scrubbed it, the Office of Management and Budget has looked at it closely, each of the military services has basically come up with their request. It is gone over and over and over. The Guard and Reserve package is needed, in my view, but it is an add-on package. We do not have the kind of attention paid to these items that we do in the regular budget, because they are add-on items. I think in 1993, 1994, and 1995 that this is what we did. It would be better to leave this up to the Reserve components for their priority. I believe the Levin amendment makes sense. No one should misunderstand this amendment. It does not cut the Guard and Reserve. It leaves it up to them to make that determination.

Mr. NUNN. Right.

Mr. NUNN. We are willing to accept the amendment on this side. If the Senator from Pennsylvania could enlighten us, I understand this is similar to the administration's legislation they have been seeking.

Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I recommend this be accepted.

Mr. NUNN. The Leahy amendment, once it goes into effect, would it preclude the allied forces, United States and Korean forces, having any mines in the DMZ in Korea?

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, how much time remains? I would like to ask a couple of questions, if I could.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, could I ask my friend from Vermont, I think all of us agree with the purpose and motive, what he is trying to do here. But I have two or three questions. Do we already have a prohibition on export that is in the law that the Senator from Vermont sponsored? Do we not have that in the law so the United States does not export any?

Mr. NUNN. If I could just ask, we do have a moratorium on export?

Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator yield for a brief question? I think it is important. I think the Senator will agree the mines he was talking about that the Kuwaitis cleared were not the United States mines, they were the ones laid by the Iraqis. Is that not correct?

Mr. NUNN. The U.S. mines were the ones that self-destructed. Mr. LEAHY. No, there were mines of ours, too.

Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. usuhs

Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for his comments on this matter. I know he has had concerns about the cost-effectiveness of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and I understand his frustration with the delay in the GAO's review of the school. I also want to thank the Senator for approaching this issue in a straightforward and thorough manner. I think it is appropriate for this body to have the benefit of the GAO's work before acting on the school, and I appreciate the Senator from Wisconsin's willingness to wait for that anaylsis. I assure the Senator that I fully support his resolve to have GAO complete its report at the earliest possible time so that the Congress can have the benefit of its input during this session, as [[Page S 11427]] contemplated in the agreement relating to the Senator from Wisconsin's amendment regarding USUHS. need for a congressional debate on national security requirements in the 21st century

Mr. NUNN. I can say to the majority leader one little note of at least slight encouragement. There has been a crosswalk between the ones that we have both been working on to clear and the 41 listed. We have 16 that we know we cleared on both sides. We can handle those tonight. And we have 10 more that we are working on to clear. That is 26 total amendments. The last 10 have not all been cleared. Some of them--we think that most of them will be cleared. So that is 26 amendments. We have a correlation between that list and the 41 amendments listed here. That can be done. When it is done you can have a different picture. You can have, instead of 41 amendments, you could conceivably have half that number. And that gets within reach.

Mr. NUNN. My guess is of the 61 there are probably around 15 or more that have been cleared or are in the process of being cleared. And I also would say that there are a number of those 61 that I do not believe will require a vote. I think a number of those will disappear. So I really think we are talking about a list that is much shorter than 61.

Mr. NUNN. I do not read the amendment that way. That is the reason I am asking. I read it as an alliance obligation.

Mr. NUNN. Would, for instance, the Germans pay for all the incremental costs if you have United States forces stationed on the ground in Germany?

Mr. NUNN. We will look at it.

Mr. NUNN. We need to take a look at that amendment. I believe it is probably cleared on both sides. We can get to them quicker if there is not a rollcall vote. Does the Senator from California have to have a rollcall vote?