The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“PASSAGE OF H.R. 3121” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Senate section on pages S7500 on July 9, 1996.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
PASSAGE OF H.R. 3121
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today by unanimous consent the House approved H.R. 3121, a bill that will make a real contribution to increasing transparency and improving congressional oversight over arms transfers. In taking this action, the House accepted the Senate-passed amendments, obviating the need for a conference and clearing the bill for signature by the President. Since no report was filed with the bill in the Senate, I would like to take this opportunity to explain some of the changes that were made in the Foreign Relations Committee, and the rationale behind them.
First, we deleted a section that would have raised the thresholds above which arms sales must be notified to Congress. The current levels--$14 million for major defense equipment, $50 million for any defense articles or services, and $200 million for design and construction services--cannot be raised without reducing effective oversight, particularly since many of the most serious abuses of human rights take place with less sophisticated weapons systems.
Second, we lengthened the notification period for grant transfers of excess defense articles to 30 days, which is the current standard under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. H.R. 3121 streamlines the existing excess defense article authorities, giving the administration added flexibility in many areas in exchange for a tight cap on the value of weapons that are provided to foreign countries without cost. Although it would have been preferable that this new cap of $350 million be calculated according to original acquisition cost rather than current value, the important point is that the cap is a firm one.
I remain concerned, however, about procedures for determining the current value of excess defense articles. In January 1994, a GAO report found that ``irregularities in pricing/valuing EDA's compromise the reliability of EDA data.'' It concluded that ``the military services did not always adhere to guidelines for pricing/valuing EDA's, and as a result, the acquisition and current values of the EDA program were understated.''
According to pricing directives now in effect, equipment may be valued at anywhere between 5 and 50 percent of its original acquisition cost, depending on its age and condition. Over the past 4 years the current values have averaged about 25 percent of acquisition costs. It is the congressional expectation that, in implementing this provision, the Secretary of Defense will instruct the military services to adhere consistently to pricing directives that accurately reflect the value of the article to be transferred. Pricing decisions must be made without regard to the recipient of the article or to the amount of equipment that could be transferred within the statutory ceiling.
A third change to the initial version of the bill is a renewal of the requirement in current law that excess defense articles be offered to Greece and Turkey at the same ratio that applies to foreign military financing. The purpose of this provision is to promote peace and stability in the eastern Mediterranean by maintaining the military balance and restraining arms transfers to the region.
Fourth, we have reinstated an annual report that will show all the defense articles and services the United States provided to each foreign country in the previous fiscal year. There is growing concern about the proliferation of authorities under which the United States provides military aid, weapons and training to foreign countries. In addition to traditional sources such as grant military aid, international military education and training, leases and loans, and commercial sales, there have now been added such authorities as excess defense article transfers, drawdowns, cascading under the CFE Treaty, the defense export loan guarantee facility, and the military-to-
military contacts program. Obviously it is important that, in making foreign policy decisions, we have a complete picture of all the ways in which we are providing arms or military assistance to other countries.
Fifth, a provision was added repealing the sunset clause on the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act. The NPPA, which refines and expands sanctions against countries and companies that help non-nuclear weapon states to acquire nuclear weapons, would otherwise expire with the enactment of the next State Department authorization bill.
Finally, two new sections increase transparency in reporting of arms sales. Section 155 requires that certifications of government-to-
government arms sales, which are submitted under section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act, and notifications of commercial arms sales, submitted under section 36(c), are printed in the Federal Register. Section 156 ensures that at least the name of the country and the type and quantity of equipment for which commercial export licenses are issued be publicly disclosed, unless the President determines this would be contrary to the national interest. This reverses the burden of proof that applies under current law, where commercial licenses are revealed only if the Secretary of State determines it to be in the national interest to do so. Both of these provisions are of particular interest to the arms control and human rights communities, who have experienced unnecessary difficulty in obtaining information about unclassified arms sales.
____________________
