J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of the Armed Services Committee. This amendment implements an agreement between the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee. Pursuant to this agreement, the Armed Services Committee has agreed to reduce by $275 million funds in the pending bill for nonintelligence programs and to increase by $275 million funds for the next Foreign Intelligence Program, which is also part of this bill. The Armed Services Committee has considered the range and options for implementing this agreement, all of which involve making difficult choices to cut defense programs. After considerable deliberation, the committee has decided to reduce funding for the Theater High Altitude Area Defense Program by $250 million and the Advanced Medium Range Air- To-Air Missile System by $21 million. These funds are now assigned to these two programs.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I thank my able colleague from Nebraska for his kind words about me. I also wish to thank him for the great service he has rendered this country here in the Senate. He is an expert on defense matters and his opinions are certainly worth the consideration of every Senator here. Again, it is a pleasure to serve with him. I wish him continued success.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this amendment has been agreed to on both sides of the aisle. I now ask for a vote on this amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enz1). Is there further debate on the amendment?

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I thank the able Senator from Connecticut for the kind remarks he made about me. I also wish to thank him for the great service he renders as a member of the Armed Services Committee. He is one of the most valuable members of our committee. I also thank him for the great service he renders this Nation. He has taken sound positions and he has followed a course of action that our Nation would be well to follow. I appreciate all he does for his country and want him to know his colleagues hold him in high esteem.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

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

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

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of staff that I send to the desk, be permitted the privilege of the floor during the pendency of the Department of Defense authorization bill.

Mr. THURMOND. Thank you very much.

Mr. THURMOND. This is the 40th defense authorization bill on which I have worked since I joined the Armed Services Committee in 1959. It is my fourth as Chairman of the committee and as I indicated earlier this year, while I intend to remain on the Committee, this will be my last year as Chairman. I look forward to the floor debate on this bill as well as the conference with the House. I am hopeful that we are able to complete the bill and send it to the President before the July 4th recess. It is essential that we complete floor action before the Memorial Day recess in order to meet this ambitious schedule. We have accelerated significantly our process this year. I cannot recall ever bringing the defense authorization bill to the floor this early in the year. If we are successful in completing conference in late June, we may be setting a modern day record. Mr. President, the Defense Authorization bill for Fiscal Year 1999 which I bring before the Senate today is only 3.1 percent of Gross Domestic Product--the lowest since 1940. Defense outlays peaked in 1986 at 6.5 percent. President Reagan's defense buildup was one of the great investments in our history. As a result of President Reagan's strong leadership and our strengthened military, we won the Cold War. Therefore, we have been able to reduce our defense force structure. These reductions enabled the Nation to reduce the deficit and achieve a balanced budget. The victory in the Cold War and the resulting peace dividend, which began, by the way, under President Reagan, is now saving us over $250 billion per year--the major factor in achieving a balanced budget. Mr. President, we haven't debated the levels for defense spending on the floor of the Senate for some time. Maybe its because defense doesn't rank very high these days in the polls which reflect the concerns of the American people. Or maybe it's because everyone assumes that the defense budget is adequate and there is no reason to debate it. I am concerned first of all because I believe there is a clear shortfall between the ambitious foreign policy of this Administration and the resources we are willing to provide for national defense. The operational tempo of our military forces is at an all time high. American forces are deployed literally around the globe. The foreign policy of this Administration has raised the number of separate deployments to the highest in our history. Our servicemen and women spend more and more time away from their homes and families on more frequent and extended deployments. As a result, recruiting grows more difficult and retention is becoming an extremely serious problem-- especially for pilots. We are also beginning to see increasing indicators of readiness problems. Spare parts shortages, increased cannibalization, declining operational readiness rates, cross-decking of critical weapons, equipment and personnel foretell a potential emergence of readiness difficulties that could seriously cripple our military forces in the very near future. The Chiefs of the military services indicate that they are on the margin in readiness and modernization. The Chief of one of our military services has recently stated orally as well as in writing that his budget for fiscal year 1999 is, for the third year in a row, inadequate. While, at the present time, the American people may not be expressing concern about threats to our national security or the readiness of our armed forces, we in the Senate are not relieved of our responsibilities to ensure that we have capable, effective military forces ready to defend our nation's vital interests. It is our job in the Congress to examine the readiness and capability of our armed forces and ensure that we have provided adequate resources and guidance to the Secretary of Defense so that he can carry out his mission to protect our national security. I believe, as I have stated so many times on this floor, that nothing that we do here in the Congress is as important as providing for our national security. I intend to continue to make this point whenever I believe that we in the Senate may not be paying enough attention to this most critical issue. Mr. President, the Congress has endeavored over the past several years to shore up our defense budgets with annual add-ons. However, reductions in the defense budgets over the last 3 years to pay for Bosnia have denigrated the effect of those Congressional plus-ups. Almost half of the $21 billion we added to the defense budgets over the last 3 years, which was intended to enhance readiness and modernization, was spent instead for operations in Bosnia. The maintenance of our forces in Bosnia and in the Persian Gulf, places great strain on our military forces and budgets. As many of you are aware, we have been forced to cope with a $3.6 billion outlay shortfall in the defense budget resulting from scoring differences between the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office. The Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici has been very helpful in working out a solution to help alleviate this problem. I am sure the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee joins me in thanking Senator Domenici and his staff for their assistance. Under the budget agreement, we have not added funds to the defense budget this year. I do not believe that a majority of Senators would support adding funds to the defense budget in violation of the budget agreement. Therefore, we have conducted our markup consistent with the budget agreement. However, I have stated in the past and I say again, I believe that we are not providing adequate funds for defense. The Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House National Security Committee have also called for increases in the defense budget. It remains my firm belief that we should provide additional funds for our national security. In this bill, the Committee has achieved a balance among near-term readiness; long-term readiness, through investments in modernization infrastructure and research and development; force levels; quality of life and ensuring an adequate, safe and reliable nuclear weapons capability. The Committee modified the budget request to improve operations and achieve greater efficiencies and savings and to eliminate spending that does not contribute directly to the national security of the United States. The Committee recommended provisions to provide a 3.1 percent pay raise for the uniformed services; to enhance the ability of the services to recruit and retain quality personnel; and to restore appropriate funding levels for the construction and maintenance of both bachelor and family housing. The bill recommends increased investment in research and development activities to ensure that the Department of Defense can leverage advances in technology. The Committee remains concerned about the level of resources available for the reserve components and the continued lack of a spirit of cooperation between the active and reserve forces. The Committee recommended a number of policy initiatives and spending increases intended to continue the improvement of the readiness of the reserve forces and to permit greater use of the expertise and capabilities of the reserve components. One such measure is the authority for the reserve components to prepare to respond to domestic emergencies involving the use or intended use of a weapon of mass destruction. I am proud to be able to recommend this important legislation which will enable the Nation to be prepared for the most unimaginable terrorist incident. I do want to tell my colleagues that this defense bill does not include a long list of new major projects or new initiatives. Quite simply, there is no money to support new major projects or new initiatives. However, I should note that over the past three or four years, the Committee on Armed Services has produced defense bills with major new program starts, reforms of the acquisition process, initiatives related to missile defense and counter proliferation, and programs to achieve efficiencies and enhance readiness. The Secretary of Defense must now implement these major programs. As the Department of Defense executes the programs we enacted over the past several years, I anticipate that they will come back to the Congress to suggest modifications addressing areas in which they believe they need additional flexibility. Mr. President, I would like to remind my colleagues that any amendments to the defense authorization bill that would increase spending should be accompanied by offsetting reductions. Mr. President, this is a sound bill. It provides a road map to take our Nation's Armed Forces into the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to join the Members of the Armed Services Committee and pass this bill with a strong bipartisan vote. I yield the floor. Exhibit I armed services committee staff members Les Brownlee, Staff Director George Lauffer, Deputy Staff Director Scott Stucky, General Counsel David Lyles, Minority Staff Director Peter Levine, Minority Counsel Charlie Abell John R. Barnes Stuart H. Cain Lucia Monica Chavez Christine E. Cowart Daniel J. Cox, Jr. Madelyn R. Creedon Richard D. DeBobes John DeCrosta Marie F. Dickinson Keaveny Donovan Shawn H. Edwards Jonathan L. Etherton Pamela L. Farrell Richard W. Fieldhouse Maria A. Finley Cristina W. Fiori Jan Gordon Creighton Greene Gary M. Hall Patrick ``PT'' Henry Larry J. Hoag Andrew W. Johnson Melinda M. Koutsoumpas Lawrence J. Lanzillotta Henry C. Leventis Paul M. Longsworth Stephen L. Madey, Jr. Michael J. McCord J. Reaves McLeod John H. Miller Ann M. Mittermeyer Bert K. Mizusawa Cindy Pearson Sharen E. Reaves Sarah J. Ritch Moultrie D. Roberts Cord A. Sterling Eric H. Thoemmes Roslyne D. Turner Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today the Senate begins consideration of S-2057, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. I want to thank all members of the Committee who have worked so hard this year to bring this bill to the floor. I particularly want to thank Senator Levin, the Ranking Member, for his cooperative support. I also want to acknowledge the contributions of Senator Coats, Senator Kempthorne, and Senator Glenn. This will be their last defense authorization bill. On behalf of the committee and the Senate, I want to thank them for their dedication to the national security of our country and their support for the young men and women who serve in our armed forces. We will miss these three outstanding Senators who have served our country and the committee so well. Mr. President, I also want to express my appreciation to the members of the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee. We on the Committee are very proud of our staff. I believe that we have the most competent and professional staff on Capitol Hill. They work well together in a very bi-partisan way and all of us on the Committee are indebted to them for their selfless dedication. I ask unanimous consent that a list of the members of the staff be included following my remarks.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that James Bynum, a Capitol Hill fellow, and Kurt Volker, a State Department fellow serving on Senator McCain's staff, be granted privileges of the floor during the debate and any votes concerning S. 2057, the fiscal year 1999 National Defense Authorization bill, as well as any related amendments.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 14, 1998, at 9 a.m. in SR-328A. The purpose of this meeting will be to examine the year 2000 computer problem compliance of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Farm Credit Administration.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, pursuant to Section 303 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. sec. 1383), a Notice of Decision to Terminate Rulemaking was submitted by the Office of Compliance, U.S. Congress. This Notice announces the termination of a proceeding commenced by a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a Supplementary Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the Congressional Record on October 1, 1997, and January 29, 1998, respectively. I ask unanimous consent that this Notice be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, pursuant to section 3(b) of Senate Resolution 400, I ask that, S. 2052, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999, be referred to the Committee on Armed Services. S. 2052: An original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. Referred to the Committee on Armed Services for a period not to exceed 30 days of session, pursuant to section 3(b) of Senate Resolution 400 of the 94th Congress to report or be discharged.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. I thank the Senator. I just need about 7 minutes. Mr. President, I rise today to express my views on S. 1186, the Workforce Investment Partnership Act of 1998. This bill will consolidate vocational education, adult education and Federal employment training programs. I generally support this effort. However, I do have some concerns regarding the treatment of current veterans' employment and training programs. This Nation has a long history of providing assistance to our veterans, dating from colonial days. Since World War I, several laws have been enacted to address veterans' employment problems. Such legislation has reaffirmed and strengthened the federal government's role in promoting wider employment and training opportunities for veterans. The Federal government has a legitimate role in veterans' employment issues since it is the action of the Federal government that gives an individual the status of ``veteran.'' Currently, the primary programs to assist veterans are those administered by the Department of Labor, through the Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS). These include the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) and the Local Veterans' Employment Representative (LVER), which are grant programs to the States, and will continue in their present form. The current provisions of Title 38 of the United States Code were designed to address services provided to veterans in a traditional Job Service delivery system. However, this system is changing. We now see a wide variance in delivery system design, configuration, and service delivery providers. Some states are contracting with private business, community agencies, or other units of government. Other states are focusing on electronic services. This changing environment makes it difficult to guarantee that government is providing maximum employment and training opportunities, with priority of service for veterans. To maximize these opportunities and to protect that priority, the Veterans Employment and Training Service is required by Federal law to promote and monitor participation of veterans in federally funded employment and training programs. Because of the national interest in veterans' programs, I supported language in this bill that (1) authorized a veteran representative to the Statewide Partnership; (2) required the State plan to assure coordination with veterans programs; (3) provided assurances in the State plan that veterans will be afforded services under the employment and training subtitle ``to the maximum extent practicable''; (4) required performance reporting on workforce investment activities provided for veterans; and (5) included dislocated Department of Defense civilians, contractor personnel, and members of the Armed Forces as eligible participants in National emergency grants. While these provisions help provide visibility of veterans programs at the national and state level, I am concerned that veterans employment and training programs are not represented at the local level. The bill does not provide for a veterans representative on the local workforce investment partnership. This partnership has the responsibility of setting policy for the local area and ensuring that local performance measures are met, that needs of employers and job seekers are met, and is responsible for continuous improvement of the system. Furthermore, the local partnership develops and implements the operating agreements for the one-stop customer service centers. I can support this arrangement in principle, where local business, labor and government leaders develop and oversee a plan to meet local community needs. However, where veterans programs are included in the one-stop center, veterans should have representation. This will ensure, if it becomes apparent that veterans are being underserved in any given local workforce investment area, that steps will be taken to address and correct the disparity. I encourage those Senators who are conferees to consider carefully the commitment our veterans made to the Nation, and the commitment this Nation has made to its veterans. I urge the conference to adopt language that will (1) ensure that maximum employment and training services are made available and provided to veterans; (2) require State and local plans to include information to track services to veterans; (3) include veteran representatives on local partnerships; and (4) provide that nothing in this Act shall be construed to repeal or modify any special rights or privileges for veterans including priority of service. Mr. President, I believe these modifications to the bill will strengthen this measure and protect the interests of our veterans. I look forward to working with the bill managers and with other conferees.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, if one wants to find an excellent example of a private organization making a significant difference in the lives of young people, one need look no further than the Boys & Girls Clubs of America. This organization has dedicated itself to providing invaluable services and activities for our Nation's youngest citizens, and their efforts have not only helped to provide a diversion from the many destructive temptations that face our children in this day and age, but have also made neighborhoods throughout the United States better places to live. For the past forty-two years, Errol Sewell has dedicated his life to promoting the Boys & Girls Clubs of America and helping to make this organization the success it is today. Mr. Sewell's association with the Boys & Girls Clubs began in Valdosta, Georgia where he was a member of the clubhouse in what was then a small, sleepy southern town near the Florida border. In 1956, Mr. Sewell made what was a natural transition, from that of ``club member'' to ``club staffer'', and he began what became a lifelong association with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America. Mr. Sewell's abilities and talents as a manager and a leader did not go unnoticed, and he was brought to the national staff in 1969 in the capacity of field representative for the Southeast region. Over the past almost twenty years, he has worked tirelessly to promote the Clubs, and has steadily moved up the organization ladder to the position of senior vice president. In that capacity, Mr. Sewell established what will be his most lasting legacy of service and accomplishment in the Boys & Girls Clubs of America organization, he is credited with being one of the key people in almost doubling the number of members of this organization. In the late 1980's when Mr. Sewell became Senior Vice President for Field Services, there were approximately one million boys and girls who belonged to about 1,000 clubs across the nation. It became the vision and the goal of senior officers of the Boys & Girls Clubs of America to double the size of its membership in five years, and largely through the determination and hard work of Errol Sewell, that goal was reached. Today, there are almost three million children who are members of the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, and clubhouses are added to this organization at a rate of about four a week. This is truly an impressive accomplishment, and it is one that is worthy of commendation. Errol Sewell and the Boys and Girls Clubs of America are deserving of credit and our gratitude. Mr. President, Errol Sewell is retiring from the organization that has been a part of his life since his childhood. As this dedicated man steps down from his duties, he can take great pride in all he has accomplished, not the least of which is securing the most lucrative endowment the organization has ever received, $10 million to establish the ``Joseph B. Whitehead Leadership Development Fund''. Unquestionably, Mr. Sewell leaves the Boys & Girls Clubs of America a bigger, better, and stronger organization thanks to his efforts, and I know that he will be missed by all those who have had the pleasure of working with him. I am certain that all my colleagues would join me in congratulating him on his successes and wishing him continued health and happiness in the years to come.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably 13 nomination lists in the Air Force, Army, and Navy which were printed in full in the Records of March 6 and 13, April 1 and 2, 1998, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, NATO has been the foundation of European security since its creation in 1949, containing the Soviet Union for more than forty years and providing security to Western Europe. With the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1989, and the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO now stands as possibly the most successful alliance in history. Since that time, however, the Alliance has been forced to consider the continued relevance and future of NATO, and the United States has reviewed its role in Europe. Since 1995, when the Alliance announced its intentions to enlarge NATO, the Armed Services Committee in particular, and the Senate in general, have conducted numerous hearings on enlarging the Alliance. On February 27, the Committee forwarded its views on NATO enlargement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Those views are incorporated in the Executive Report of the Committee, which is before members of the Senate, along with the resolution of ratification. During the Armed Services Committee's review of NATO enlargement, the following concerns were raised: the cost of enlarging the alliance; adapting NATO to the post-Cold War strategic environment; and, NATO relations with Russia. Defense spending has declined steadily since 1985, from $423 billion to $257 billion--the amount of the defense budget request for fiscal year 1999. Because of the increasing scarcity of defense funds, the Committee focused extensively on the issue of costs, as the majority of the funding for the NATO budget is requested through the defense budget. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of enlarging the NATO to be as high as $125 billion over a fifteen year period, while the NATO Military Committee estimated the cost of enlarging NATO to be $1.5 billion over ten years. I remind my colleagues that the differences in the cost contained in the four estimates are primarily due to differing views on the threat, current and future military requirements of NATO forces, the condition of infrastructure and facilities in the prospective new member countries, and the activities identified by NATO as eligible for NATO funding. Concerns were also raised about the willingness and commitment of current NATO members to bear their share of enlargement costs, as well as to continue to develop and modernize their military forces to defend their national borders and fulfill their Article V collective defense obligations as well. Cost estimates developed by the Department of Defense for U.S. participation in the NATO operation in Bosnia raise concerns about the validity of cost estimates. In December 1995, the Secretary of Defense testified to the Committee that the cost of deploying U.S. forces to Bosnia for one year to implement the Dayton Agreement would be $1.5 billion, and additional $500 million to provide logistical support. Before the year was over, the Committee was advised that the cost of deploying U.S. forces to Bosnia had increased to $3.0 billion. Mr. President, you are aware that the cost of deploying U.S. forces to Bosnia over the past three years is now approaching $10 billion. We may once again be discussing the need for funds for Bosnia, as there are no funds available now in the budget resolution for the continued deployment of U.S. forces in Bosnia in fiscal year 1999. The Senate has been assured by the foreign and defense ministers of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic that they will live up to their financial commitments. Our current allies have likewise given us the same assurances. If they fail to do so, the Senate can revisit the issue of burden sharing. Likewise, if the new NATO members, or current allies, do not live up to their financial obligations, I would expect the Administration to take appropriate action in the NATO military committee to revise the amount of the U.S. contribution. With regard to adapting NATO to a new strategic environment, the committee was very clear on its position that collective defense should remain the primary mission of NATO, and recommended in its letter to the Foreign Relations Committee, that the resolution of ratification include an understanding to that effect. Regardless of changes in the 1991 Strategic Concept of NATO's mission restructuring it to deal with potential new challenges of out of area operations and to support peacekeeping and peace enforcement operation, first and foremost, NATO is a military alliance. NATO must remain militarily strong in order to execute its Article V obligations. I understand that the NATO Policy Coordinating Group has developed suggested revisions to the 1991 Strategic Concept, which were circulated to Allies in late January. I also understand that the process in NATO for changes to be made to its strategic concept will take over a year. I believe it is important that the Senate be advised of any recommended revisions to the Strategic Concept, before the United States agrees to them. In particular, I believe it is important that the Senate be advised of any recommendations to change or dilute the core mission of the Alliance, revisions that would affect the distribution of forces in peacetime and redeployment capabilities, any recommendations to further enlarge the Alliance, and revisions that would affect the strategic balance in Europe. As I stated earlier, since the dissolution of the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Union, many Americans wonder why we need NATO at all, much less an enlarged NATO with expanded security obligations. Skepticism about NATO's continued value is at least as widespread as support for an enlarged NATO. Frankly, I do not believe that the Administration has made the case to the public, or the Congress on why NATO should be enlarged, and why the United States should remain engaged in Europe. As a consequence, I worry that the lack of public support will result in a weak domestic political foundation, where the United States will find it difficult to maintain an expanded commitment in a future crisis. We need to think about NATO enlargement in relation to national interests of the United States and our global strategy, and not just narrow political, organizational or even vital security interests. I believe NATO is still vital to U.S. interests. However, all Americans must first understand the magnitude of the commitment we are undertaking, and why it should be made. I support a renewed and enlarged NATO because it ensures a U.S. involvement in the European community, and a ``seat at the table'' to the world's most vital, productive region. Quite simply, the U.S. has clear, abiding and vital interests in Europe. Europe is the soil where our deepest roots run. We are bound to Europe by innumerable links of trade, finance, communications, and technology exchange; ties of history, culture and shared values, and nearly five decades of mutual security arrangements. A free and stable Europe has always been essential to the United States. In this century we have intervened in two bloody world wars to prevent the domination of Europe by aggressive dictatorships. We paid a high price for forty-five years of Cold War to prevent the domination of Europe and the Eurasian landmass by Communist imperialism. This long U.S. involvement and stabilizing presence have made the United States in effect a European power. I do not believe Europe can remain stable and prosperous, to the mutual benefit of the United States and our European allies, if its post-Cold War boundary is drawn along the borders of Germany and Austria. Such an artificial division would leave a power vacuum in each central Europe, and consign millions of people who share our democratic values and aspirations to an uncertain fate. I do not believe a new European security framework will hold up unless it reflects the realities of the political upheaval that marked the end of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The new strategic environment includes the reorienting of former East Bloc states toward the West. Some have said that the end of the Cold War spelled the ``end of history.'' I believe we are seeing the opposite. The end of the confrontation between the Soviet Empire and the Free World has unleashed historical forces suppressed for forty-five years. Nations and peoples are reverting to their patterns of the past. One of those patterns of the past is Russian imperialism. Czarist Russia was an expansionist, aggressive regional power long before the Bolshevik Revolution. Although there is no longer a Soviet Union, Russia is still a great power--if no longer a super power--and is exerting its will in the so-called ``Near Abroad''. The brutal suppression of the revolt in Chechnya and Russia's intervention in Georgia, Azerbaijian and Moldova are worrisome examples. America's primary national security goal in Europe should be to ensure that Russia makes the transition to a stable, free-market and democratic nation, but especially one that remains within its borders. Democracies do not make war on their neighbors. We should do everything within reason to help Russia's transition to democracy, to maintain warm and friendly relations, and to avoid unnecessary provocations. Likewise, Russia should take the hard steps required to transition to a stable, free-market and democratic nation. However, we cannot afford to let Russia's opposition decide the course of NATO enlargement. In taking steps to assist Russia to transition to a stable and democratic nation, both the United States and NATO have established programs to reach out to, and cooperate with, Russia. With regard to NATO, just prior to the Madrid Summit, President Yeltsin, President Clinton, and NATO leaders signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act. This Act established a forum in which Russia can consult with NATO on issues of mutual interest, called the Permanent Joint Council. The United States has established programs in the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to assist Russia in controlling its strategic arsenal, and to meet its arms control commitments. The committee did, however, point out in its letter to the Foreign Relations Committee its view that activities in the Permanent Joint Council should not distract NATO from its core function. Again, while I believe we should take steps to aid Russia in transitioning away from its communist and imperialist past, I do not believe the Permanent Joint Council should be allowed to be used by Russia to participate in NATO matters, not used as a platform to divide the Alliance, or denounce U.S. policy. The Clinton administration's policy toward Russia places all its stakes on the fate of Boris Yeltsin, and it does not appear to be having the desired effect. Moreover, the Administration's Russia- centered policy has caused us to neglect building solid relations with Ukraine and other former Soviet states. This also does not serve our goal. In fact, the policy of giving such sustained preferential treatment to Russia, and depending too much on President Yeltsin is the most destabilizing factor in Eastern Europe. We have to face the very real possibility that our policies may not succeed. Russia may not make the transition to a stable, democratic nation, nor one content to remain within its borders. In fact, an unstable Russia, torn by factions and internal strife, may not even be able to agree where its natural borders lie. The greatest potential threat to peace, stability, and security in Europe is the return to power of Russian hard-liners. President Yeltsin's popularity has sunk so low--that since his illness and heart operation--there is almost no yardstick against which to measure. The United States and its allies need to look seriously at bringing into NATO the states of the East and Central Europe which share our democratic values, and which are able to assume mutual security obligations inherent in the Alliance. Only a strong NATO that includes those states can keep a future, resurgent Russia contained and deterred. There are other reasons to expand membership of NATO, for example, the lessening of international tensions between members, and facilitating the resolution of conflicts. But we must not lose sight of the fact that NATO has been successful because it was a defensive alliance. Turning it into something else could fatally weaken it. Unless we understand that NATO's underlying and abiding purpose remains to defend Europe, the burdens of the Alliance over time will cause NATO to crumble. As a great maritime power and trading nation, America has intervened all over the globe to protect freedom of the seas and our vital interests, from the earliest days of our existence as a nation. Over time we formed strong alliance to protect mutual interests, demonstrating that free democratic nations acting collectively, can survive the threat of tyranny. These kinds of alliances, the kind represented by NATO, with allies who share our democratic values, should be the cornerstone of our foreign policy. Mr. President, I believe Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic share our values, and have worked hard to transition toward democratic nations and stabilize their economies. They have shown their willingness to act collectively with the United States by contributing forces to the coalition during the Persian Gulf War, and more recently, by sending military forces to work with NATO in Bosnia. Equally important to me, they have demonstrated their support for the United States during the most recent crisis with Iraq. They represent the type of nations which are deserving of membership in NATO, and I believe will be allies which the United States can look to in the future for support in areas of mutual defense and foreign policy interest. The Senate will have to vote on behalf of the American people by a two-thirds majority to ratify the admittance of any new country to NATO. I do not want to see the Senate become an obstacle to progress toward the Nation's national security interests. For the reasons that I have outlined, I will vote to support NATO enlargement. the alleged ``new threat to russia's borders'' by nato enlargement

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, I plan to speak for about 11 or 12 minutes.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the past week, the United States Army Reserve has had a number of events to help celebrate the 90th anniversary of their founding. Appropriately, the United States Senate, led by Senator Helms who was joined by 28 of our colleagues, passed a resolution last night commending the Army Reserve and its citizen- soldiers on an impressive heritage and on the invaluable contributions they have made to keeping the United States free and safe. As a former Army Reservist, I was naturally interested in reading this resolution and I am certain you can imagine my surprise when I discovered that it was also a tribute to me and the service I rendered the United States as a Soldier. I was, and am, humbled and flattered by this very touching gesture, you have touched the heart of this old ``trooper'', and I thank each of you for your kind act. I join each of you in commending all those who have served in the Army Reserve throughout its 90-year history, particularly those men and women who serve today. In this era of skrinking force structure and defense budgets, we will increasingly rely on our reserve forces to meet the security and foreign policy goals of the United States. We should be grateful that there is no shortage of patriotic Americans willing to endure the hardships and demands of reserve service, we are all better off their efforts. I am certain that I speak for the entire Body when I say that we appreciate and value the work and contributions of the Soldiers of the Army Reserve and stand ready to assist them however we can.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military Health Care Fairness Act. A companion measure, H.R. 3613, was recently introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman J.C. Watts and 38 cosponsors. I am pleased to have Senator Coverdell as an original cosponsor of this measure. Mr. President, this bill allows those military retirees over the age of sixty-five to sign up for the Federal Employees Health Benefits program (FEHBP) so that they may have another option for health care coverage. It is estimated that approximately 1.3 million retirees, dependents, and survivors meet this criteria. However, it is doubtful that all of them will sign up for the FEHBP. The recent base closures and realignments have limited the number of places where some retirees can receive health care. By joining the FEHBP, health care choices will increase. The FEHBP will probably be desirable to those retirees that do not have prescription drug plans or want to limit catastrophic out-of-pocket cost. Further, the retiree is not excluded from using the traditional military medical treatment facilities on a space available basis. When a retiree, under the FEHBP, uses a military facility, the health care plan reimburses the military for the cost of treatment. Mr. President, during the first year of this program the costs will be capped at $100 million. This amount increases $100 million per year for five years to cap the costs at $500 million per year. The costs to the individual should be the same as to any other federal employee in a given geographical area. In order to determine the actual premiums, the health plans will be required to establish a separate risk pool to determine whether the military group's risk characteristics such as age, gender, and care-use affect the other federal employees' premiums. While I realize that some might say the costs of this measure are high, something must be done to give health care coverage to those retirees that do not have adequate coverage under the current military health care system. The many men and women who have given so much to protect our Country by serving in the military are to be commended for their sacrifices and we should acknowledge this by giving them adequate health care choices.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military Health Care Fairness Act. A companion measure, H.R. 3613, was recently introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman J.C. Watts and 38 cosponsors. I am pleased to have Senator Coverdell as an original cosponsor of this measure. Mr. President, this bill allows those military retirees over the age of sixty-five to sign up for the Federal Employees Health Benefits program (FEHBP) so that they may have another option for health care coverage. It is estimated that approximately 1.3 million retirees, dependents, and survivors meet this criteria. However, it is doubtful that all of them will sign up for the FEHBP. The recent base closures and realignments have limited the number of places where some retirees can receive health care. By joining the FEHBP, health care choices will increase. The FEHBP will probably be desirable to those retirees that do not have prescription drug plans or want to limit catastrophic out-of-pocket cost. Further, the retiree is not excluded from using the traditional military medical treatment facilities on a space available basis. When a retiree, under the FEHBP, uses a military facility, the health care plan reimburses the military for the cost of treatment. Mr. President, during the first year of this program the costs will be capped at $100 million. This amount increases $100 million per year for five years to cap the costs at $500 million per year. The costs to the individual should be the same as to any other federal employee in a given geographical area. In order to determine the actual premiums, the health plans will be required to establish a separate risk pool to determine whether the military group's risk characteristics such as age, gender, and care-use affect the other federal employees' premiums. While I realize that some might say the costs of this measure are high, something must be done to give health care coverage to those retirees that do not have adequate coverage under the current military health care system. The many men and women who have given so much to protect our Country by serving in the military are to be commended for their sacrifices and we should acknowledge this by giving them adequate health care choices.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. I thank the majority leader for his fine leadership of the Senate.