[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 82 (Friday, June 24, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
         NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT OF FISCAL YEAR 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, we have a few amendments that we can agree 
to now, I believe, on both sides. The Senator from Indiana is going to 
be here. I believe the Senator from Alaska has an amendment he is going 
to present, which is acceptable on my side of the aisle; I am not sure 
on the other side. There is an amendment by Senator Hutchison, the 
Senator from Texas, and I believe the Senator from Indiana will present 
that amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set 
aside so that other amendments may be offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1853

  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Mrs. Hutchison and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats], for Mrs. Hutchison, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1853.

  Mr. COATS. Madam 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:

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC.   . REVISIONS TO RELEASE OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST, OLD 
                   SPANISH TRAIL ARMORY, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.

       (a) Clerical Amendments.--Section 2820 of the Military 
     Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (division 
     B of Public Law 103-160; 107 Stat. 1894) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking out ``1936'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``1956''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking out ``value'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``size''.
       (b) Payment for Survey.--Subsection (c) of such section is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``The cost of the 
     survey shall be borne by the State of Texas.''.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, the purpose of my amendment is to 
make a technical correction to a provision of the Department of Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994. The original provision was 
contained in the House-passed bill. The Senate concurred with the 
amendment during the joint conference. Unfortunately, the provision 
contained an error in drafting that needs to be corrected. The 
Department of the Army supports this change, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. COATS. I understand this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides. We have no objection.
  Mr. NUNN. I urge the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1853) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COATS. I move to lay that vote on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1854

 (Purpose: To provide credit under small business subcontracting plans 
    for purchases from central nonprofit agencies designated by the 
 Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled)

  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senators Bingaman and Smith and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Bingaman, for 
     himself, and Mr. Smith, proposes an amendment numbered 1854.

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

       On page 177, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:

     SEC. 816. TREATMENT UNDER SUBCONTRACTING PLANS OF PURCHASES 
                   FROM QUALIFIED NON-PROFIT AGENCIES FOR THE 
                   BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED.

       (a) Revision and Extension of Authority.--Section 2410d of 
     title 10, United States Code, relating to credit under small 
     business subcontracting plans for certain purchases, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking out ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (ii) by striking out the period at the end of subparagraph 
     (B) and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) a central nonprofit agency designated by the 
     Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
     Disabled under section 2(c) of such Act (41 U.S.C. 47(c).'';
       (B) by striking out paragraph (3); and
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3); and
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking out ``September 30, 
     1994'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30, 1997''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2301(D) of such title is 
     amended by striking out ``approved commodities and services 
     (as defined in such section)'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``commodities and services''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, section 2301(d) of title 10, United 
States Code provides that it is the policy of Congress to provide 
opportunities for the blind or other severely handicapped to 
participate in defense procurements as subcontractors and suppliers. 
This policy is implemented in section 2410d of title 10, United States 
Code, which provides that subcontracts with qualified nonprofit 
agencies for the blind or severely disabled may be counted by 
contractors in terms of meeting their subcontracting goals.
  Section 2410d expires on September 30, 1994. The amendment sponsored 
by Senator Smith and myself would extend this important provision for 3 
years. In addition, it would enhance the effectiveness of this 
provision by including central nonprofit agencies for the blind or 
severely disabled--the National Industries for the Blind and the 
National Industries for the Severely Disabled. The amendment would also 
remove the administrative burden imposed by current law, which provides 
subcontracting credit only for commodities and services expressly 
approved by the Committee for Purchase from the Blind and Severely 
Disabled. Finally, the amendment would make conforming changes in the 
statement of congressional policy in section 2301(d) of title 10, 
United States Code.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I urge adoption of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1854) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COATS. I move to lay that on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1855

  (Purpose: To transfer family housing located at a closed Air Force 
  Radar Bomb Scoring Site in Holbrook, AZ, from the Air Force to the 
                      Department of the Interior)

   Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Mr. DeConcini and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

        The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. DeConcini, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1855.

  Mr. NUNN. Madam 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:

       At the appropriate place in title XXVII, Subtitle C of the 
     bill, add the following section:

     SEC.  . TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION, AIR FORCE HOUSING AT RADAR 
                   BOMB SCORING SITE, HOLBROOK, ARIZONA.

       (A) Transfer Authorized.--As part of the closure of an Air 
     Force Radar Bomb Scoring Site located near Holbrook, Arizona, 
     the Secretary of the Air Force may transfer without 
     reimbursement the administrative jurisdiction, accountability 
     and control of the housing units and associated support 
     facilities used in connection with the site to the Secretary 
     of the Interior for use in connection with the Petrified 
     Forest National Park.
       (b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be transferred under 
     subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory 
     to the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of the 
     Interior.
       (c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary of the 
     Air Force may require such additional terms and conditions in 
     connections with the transfer of real property under 
     subsection (a) as the Secretary considers appropriate.

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President. I offer this amendment to the fiscal 
year 1995 Defense authorization bill transferring family housing 
located at a closed Air Force Radar Bomb Scoring Site near Holbrook, 
AZ, from the Air Force to the Department of the Interior. The purpose 
of this transfer is to provide badly needed housing for employees of 
the Petrified Forest National Park at no extra cost to the American 
taxpayer.
  The 11 townhouses at Holbrook, which have been listed as surplus by 
the Air Force, have stood vacant for nearly 1 year. During this same 
period, officials at the Petrified Forest National Park have been 
forced to house their employees in antiquated structures built in the 
1930's. Most people think of Arizona as a hot, dry, desert, however, 
the area around Holbrook is in the White Mountains near one of the 
West's best ski areas. It gets quite cold in the winter. Adoption of 
this amendment would ensure that our hardworking Interior Department 
employees have adequate, and warm, housing for their families.
  This amendment, offered in the House of Representatives by my Arizona 
colleague, freshman Representative Karan English, was adopted by the 
full House during its consideration of the fiscal year 1995 Defense 
authorization bill. I appreciate the courtesy of the Chairman of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee and his staff in working with my staff 
on this amendment, and I urge its adoption by the Senate.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, this amendment transfers jurisdiction of 
11 family housing units and in support facilities at the former Air 
Force Radar Bomb Scoring Site near Holbrook, AZ, from the Air Force to 
the Department of the Interior.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1855) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COATS I move to lay that on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1856

 (Purpose: To authorize original appointments of limited duty officers 
 of the Navy and the Marine Corps in grades in which such officers are 
      serving on active duty pursuant to a temporary appointment)

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

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Shelby, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1856.

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

       On page 124, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

     SEC. 506. ORIGINAL APPOINTMENTS OF LIMITED DUTY OFFICERS OF 
                   THE NAVY AND MARINE CORPS SERVING IN TEMPORARY 
                   GRADES.

       Section 5589 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new 
     subsection (f):
       ``(f) Original appointments as regular officers of the Navy 
     or Marine Corps may be made from among officers serving on 
     active duty in a higher grade pursuant to a temporary 
     appointment in that grade under section 5596 of this title. 
     The grade in which an officer is appointed under this 
     subsection shall be the grade in which the officer is serving 
     pursuant to the temporary appointment. The officer's date of 
     rank for the grade of the original appointment shall be the 
     same as the date of rank for the grade of the temporary 
     appointment.''.

  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I offer this amendment to give the 
Secretary of the Navy discretionary authority to redesignate certain 
``temporary'' limited duty officers as ``permanent'' limited duty 
officers with the same grade and date of rank.
  The Marine Corps has a number of officers designated as limited duty 
officers. These officers serve as ``temporary'' limited duty officers 
and as and ``permanent'' warrant officers. Therefore, they compete for 
promotion both as limited duty officers and warrant officers.
  This amendment would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to designate 
limited duty officers as ``permanent'' and to terminate their warrant 
officer status.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, this amendment provides the Navy 
discretionary authority to redesignate certain ``temporary'' limited 
duty officers as ``permanent.''
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Leahy). The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1856) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1857

 (Purpose: To authorize the Secretaries of the military department to 
waive administratively imposed time-in-grade requirements for purposes 
 of computing retired pay under the provision of law that prevents pay 
                              inversions)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for Mr. 
Shelby and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Leahy). The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Shelby, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1857.

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

       On page 138, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 634. COMPUTATION OF RETIRED PAY TO PREVENT PAY 
                   INVERSIONS.

       Section 1401a(f) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(f) Prevention of Pay 
     Inversions.--''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), for the purpose of 
     computing the monthly retired pay of a member or former 
     member of an armed force under paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     concerned may waive any provision of a regulation that, as 
     such provision was in effect on the earlier date applicable 
     to the member or former member under paragraph (1), required 
     a member to serve for a minimum period in a grade as a 
     condition for retirement in that grade.
       ``(B) Any waiver under subparagraph (A) shall apply in the 
     case of a member or former member only to that part of the 
     minimum period of service provided for a grade in the 
     regulation that exceeds the minimum period of service in such 
     grade that was authorized by a provision of this title to be 
     required as a condition for retirement in that grade (as such 
     provision of this title was in effect on the earlier date 
     applicable to the member or former member under paragraph 
     (1)).
       ``(C) The Secretary concerned may waive the provision of a 
     regulation under subparagraph (A) in the case of a particular 
     member of former member or for any group of members or former 
     members.''.

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this amendment would protect the retired 
pay of certain military retirees who left military service in the 
1970's.
  An amendment known as the Tower amendment was enacted in 1975 and 
ensured that personnel who remained on active duty past their initial 
retirement eligibility date did not draw less retired pay than their 
peers who chose to retire. The Tower amendment was occasioned by 
adjustments to retired pay, that were based on the Consumer Price 
Indices, exceeding actual pay raises by substantial amounts.
  The manner in which the Air Force applied the Tower amendment, though 
believed to be appropriate at the time, has recently been found to be 
administratively incomplete. Without the amendment I have introduced 
today, the Air Force would be forced to conduct a costly and time-
consuming bureaucratic exercise to grant over 4,000 individual waivers 
to individuals affected by the Tower amendment in order to ensure these 
retirees will have their retired pay reduced, through no fault of their 
own, beginning on October 1, 1994.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1857) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1858

 (Purpose: To impose requirements regarding the management and budget 
       responsibility for the space-based chemical laser program)

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

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats], for Mr. Wallop, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1858.

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

       On page 37, after line 25, add the following:

     SEC. 224. MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET RESPONSIBILITY FOR SPACE-
                   BASED CHEMICAL LASER PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) In section 243 of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160; 107 Stat. 1615) 
     Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to transfer 
     management and budget responsibility for research and 
     development regarding far-term follow-on technologies from 
     the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization unless the 
     Secretary certifies that it is in the national security 
     interest of the United States for the Ballistic Missile 
     Defense Organization to retain that responsibility.
       (2) For purposes of section 243 of such Act, a far-term 
     follow-on technology was defined as any technology that is 
     not incorporated into a ballistic missile defense 
     architecture and is not likely to be incorporated within 15 
     years into a weapon system for ballistic missile defense.
       (3) The Secretary of Defense has recommended pursuant to 
     section 243 of such Act that management and budget 
     responsibility for chemical laser technology be retained in 
     the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
       (b) Assignment of Responsibility.--Subject to subsection 
     (c), the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization is authorized 
     to retain management and budget responsibility for chemical 
     laser technology programs.
       (c) Requirements.--(1) The Director of the Ballistic 
     Missile Defense Organization shall ensure that, to the extent 
     practicable, the conduct of research and development related 
     to space-based chemical lasers reflect appropriate 
     consideration of a broad range of military missions and 
     possible nonmilitary applications for such lasers.
       (2) If, as a result of budgetary limitations, the Director 
     of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization is unable to 
     program sufficient funds to ensure that the space-based 
     chemical laser program remains an option for the acquisition 
     process within the next fifteen years, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall--
       (A) establish a new high energy laser research and 
     development program outside of the Ballistic Missile Defense 
     Organization;
       (B) transfer $50,000,000 out of funds available for fiscal 
     year 1995 for programs administered by the Ballistic Missile 
     Defense Organization to the new high energy laser research 
     and development program; and
       (C) assign the duty to perform the management and budget 
     responsibilities for the new program to the Secretary of the 
     military department determined by the Secretary of Defense 
     most appropriate to perform such responsibilities or, if the 
     Secretary determines more appropriate, to the head of the 
     Defense Agency of the Department of Defense that the 
     Secretary determines most appropriate to perform such 
     responsibilities.

  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, this amendment would permit the ballistic 
missile defense organization to maintain management and budget 
responsibility for space-based lasers, subject to certain conditions.
  The Senate Armed Services Committee had recommended in its report on 
the fiscal year 1995 Defense authorization bill the transfer of the 
laser program out of BMDO. In part, this recommendation was based on 
the fact that the Department of Defense had not yet submitted a 
recommendation on this matter, as required by last year's Defense 
Authorization Act. Since the committee issued its report, the Secretary 
of Defense has recommended that BMDO retain management of the laser 
program.
  The committee was also concerned that, as a result of budgetary 
constraints, BMDO would not be able to adequately fund the laser 
program. I share this concern. As a result, I have proposed a solution 
that would allow BMDO to keep the laser program as long as the Director 
can continue to program sufficient funds to keep the laser program as a 
coherent effort that would allow us to make a decision within 15 years 
as to whether to allow the laser program to enter the acquisition 
process.
  This solution takes into account the views of all concerned with the 
laser program and the BMDO technology base in general. I believe that 
it is acceptable. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this amendment would permit the ballistic 
missile defense organization to maintain management and budget 
responsibility for space-based lasers.
  I understand that the amendment has been cleared by both sides, and I 
urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1858) was agreed to.
  Mr. COATS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1859

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

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Smith, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1859.

  Mr. NUNN. 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:

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

     SEC.  . DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DECLASSIFICATION PRODUCTIVITY 
                   INITIATIVE

       Of the funds authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Department of Energy under Section 3103, $3,000,000 shall be 
     available for the Department of Energy's Declassification 
     Productivity Initiative.

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President this amendment seeks to address certain 
deficiencies within the Department of Energy's Office of 
Declassification. The amendment authorizes $3 million to initiate the 
Department's Declassification Productivity Initiative which will 
introduce computer aided systems to improve productivity in 
declassifying documents.
  The Department of Energy has reported that approximately 30 million 
documents are awaiting declassification review. Further the Department 
has received hundreds of request for information from specific 
documents that must go through this tedious review process. Because of 
the magnitude of classified and restricted documents, the Department's 
Office of Declassification is seriously constrained in time, money, 
personnel, and applicable technology to do the job in an efficient 
manner. Indeed, current declassification efforts entail only two 
specially trained declassifiers who laboriously review documents by 
manually checking them against the Department's 80 classification 
guidelines. These guidelines, which themselves are classified, enable 
the reviewer to decide what must remain classified.
  While current efforts focus on individuals spending significant time 
and resources, the Declassification Productivity Initiative will 
increase the productivity of the review process through the 
introduction of incremental computer aided systems--most notable 
optical scanner systems--that will help the reviewers decisionmaking by 
reducing the amount of text they must review. The specific goals of the 
DPI also include reducing the high cost of declassification, providing 
timely and efficient access to the declassified records, and ensuring 
the safety and security protocols for retaining necessary classified 
information. In addition, the DPI will continue to develop the expert 
systems, advanced optical scanning, and computer software that will 
ultimately lead to complete automation of the declassification review 
process.
  The primary benefits anticipated from the DPI are substantial 
reductions in both the time and cost of the declassification process. 
Though the Initiative is targeted toward the Department of Energy, 
there would be obvious benefits to other Federal agencies, as well. In 
fact, the products developed under the DPI would have much broader 
uses. In addition to high-speed document declassification, the DPI will 
ultimately develop advanced hardware and software programs applicable 
to information and data intensive industries in the private sector, 
including health care, banking, and petrochemicals.
  Finally, Mr. President, the DPI promotes the efforts of our 
Government and the Armed Services Committee to encourage technology 
diversification and reinvestment, create new applications in high 
performance computing, develop new information infrastructure, and help 
promote our industrial competitiveness.
  Though $3 million is a small investment for such a challenging task, 
it is a critically important first step. I am hopeful the Department of 
Energy will accelerate its efforts and increase resources for the DPI 
beyond the limited funds we provide in the bill. I would also hope that 
other Departments, including Defense, look toward the DPI as a model 
for framing their own declassification efforts.
  Mr. President, I understand the amendment has been cleared on both 
sides. I thank my colleagues and staff for their assistance, and I move 
the amendment.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this amendment would require the Department 
of Energy to fund a $3 million effort to create a computer program to 
declassify documents.
  I understand that this has been cleared on both sides, and I urge its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1859) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1850

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
that was previously put aside be brought before the Senate again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do not want to delay the managers of 
the bill. I would be happy to at any time have the motion to consider 
this amendment. I know the Senator from Georgia wants to get finished 
quickly.
  Yesterday, I advised the managers of the bill my intent to offer an 
amendment reducing the authorization for the federally funded research 
and development centers, known as FFRDC's.
  This Senator discussed that matter on the floor, in reference to the 
need to find a way to restore the authorization for the National 
Defense Sealift Fund, and initiate procurement of the LHD-7 amphibious 
assault ship.
  At this time, the amendment I have sent to the desk addresses the 
compensation provided the officers and employees of the federally 
funded research and development centers.
  I reiterate my comments of respect and recognition for the 
contributions made by the FFRDC's to our national defense. At MITRE, 
Rand, the Aerospace Corp. and all the rest, dedicated people are 
working to support our national defense.
  Their contributions though do no exceed, and cannot have priority 
over, the military, warfighting needs of our forces.
  Most of the employees at FFRDC's are paid less than these amounts. 
Their pay still exceeds comparable experts within the Department of 
Defense and the national labs.
  We should not provide financial disincentives for people to engage in 
Government service, by providing quasi-governmental entities with 
superior pay and benefits--at taxpayer expense.
  Again, this amendment is not an attack on the individuals who now 
manage and lead the FFRDC's. I know that many could command higher 
salaries in the private sector.
  But that is my point--the FFRDC's are not part of the private sector. 
They are intimately involved in many aspects of our national defense 
policy--with much of their business obtained on a noncompetitive basis 
with the private sector.
  Mr. President, this amendment represents only a first step to review 
and place the management and spending at FFRDC's on a rational level 
with other defense priorities.
  I appreciate the managers' consideration of this amendment, and I 
join them in their efforts to ensure proper oversight of the federally 
funded research and development centers.
  Despite the limited reductions in FFRDC spending initiated by the 
Appropriations Committees in 1989, these centers have continued very 
generous compensation packages for top executives.
  In a recent report by the publication Science & Government Report, 
the salaries of managers at Rand, MITRE, and the Institute for Defense 
Analyses were detailed.
  My comments are not critical of these individuals--I know several of 
them, and respect them personally. But their pay and benefits must fit 
within the framework for all Federal entities.
  I do not want to attack any of the individuals cited in this report 
directly. But according to that report, pay in the amounts of $180,000, 
$200,000, even $295,000 is not uncommon.
  This Senator does not accept, approve or countenance a pay system at 
these centers, derived from the defense budget, that exceeds the pay of 
the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Chiers 
of Staff of the military services.
  In several instances, pay of FFRDC executives exceeds that even of 
the President of the United States.
  The Department of Defense should not underwrite this practice.
  We have sustained funding for the FFRDC's over the past 5 years at a 
level far above the overall cutbacks to our defense program.
  I do not propose that the FFRDC's to bear an unfair burden of those 
cuts--I only suggest that they at least share in our defense drawdown.
  All FFRDC's are not alike. Some provide written studies and analyses. 
Others assist in the design and engineering of weapons systems. Some 
are directly involved in the management of defense development and 
acquisition programs.
  Because these functions are so different, this Senator has not 
proposed specifying the cut against each of these entities. That 
responsibility should rest with the Department of Defense.
  Unfortunately, as of this week, the Department was unable to provide 
the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee with a detailed breakout of the 
1995 funding for these centers.
  That problem is reflected in the language included by the Armed 
Services Committee--which I again commend the Committee for including 
in the bill and report.
  It is time that these centers begin to compete for funding with other 
defense priorities.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an 
excerpt from the report of the committee pertaining to the subject of 
FFRDC's.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Federally funded research and development centers

       The committee is pleased that the Department of Defense has 
     begun to implement the management reforms which the Congress 
     has demanded for DOD federally funded research and 
     development centers (FFRDCs) in recent years. The committee 
     is also pleased that the individual FFRDCs are being managed 
     to ceilings that collectively are less than the total ceiling 
     imposed by the Congress for fiscal year 1994. The committee 
     is aware that these individual ceilings were established by 
     the Defense Department in accord with the general 
     instructions provided by Congress for fiscal year 1994.
       During the past year, the committee has become aware of two 
     serious issues regarding the Defense Department's management 
     of its FFRDC program. The first issue is the compensation of 
     FFRDC employees, especially senior management. During the 
     congressional review cycle last year, the committee proposed 
     freezing the salary of FFRDC employees. This proposal was not 
     enacted into law based on assurances from the Defense 
     Department and from several top managers of individual FFRDCs 
     that such a freeze would damage the FFRDCs and the Defense 
     Department. Later in the year, the committee became aware of 
     serious allegations that some FFRDCs had granted substantial 
     raises to top management personnel while laying off lower 
     ranking workers.
       The second issue is the role of FFRDC derivative 
     organizations in allowing FFRDCs to circumvent management 
     ceilings and restrictions contained in sponsoring agency 
     mission statements. Because contract awards to FFRDCs are 
     excepted from the requirement for full and open competition, 
     the creation of such entities, both as affiliated FFRDCs and 
     non-FFRDCs, has resulted in an ambiguous legal, regulatory, 
     organizational, and financial situation. For example, there 
     have been allegations that government users granted 
     inappropriate award preferences because they did not realize 
     that a non-FFRDC affiliate of an FFRDC was not covered under 
     the agency sponsorship agreement with the FFRDC.
       In order to gain a better understanding of these two 
     issues, the committee directs the Defense Department to 
     provide a report identifying all FFRDCs and all affiliated 
     entities, both FFRDCs and non-FFRDCs. The report shall 
     include a discussion of the relationship between the 
     statements of work of the original FFRDCs as well as those of 
     their affiliated entities. The report shall also identify all 
     sponsors and customers, the value of contracts with each, and 
     approved and actual staffing levels for those entities over 
     which the federal government has some cognizance. Finally, 
     the report shall also include an analysis of the levels of 
     compensation for FFRDC employees compared to their 
     counterparts in similar for-profit companies. The portion of 
     the report addressing FFRDCs and affiliated entities should 
     be compiled from data from the organization's most recent 
     fiscal year. The report should be submitted to the committee 
     not later than April 1, 1995.
       Based on the continuing decline in the Department of 
     Defense budget for research and development and the fact that 
     many FFRDCs will not reach funding ceilings in fiscal year 
     1994, the committee directs the Department to limit its 
     funding for FFRDCs in fiscal year 1995 to $1.3 billion, a 
     reduction of just under 4 percent. The committee again 
     directs the Department to ensure adequate funding for the 
     smaller FFRDCs that provide studies and analysis support to 
     the Department.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, let me summarize by saying yesterday I 
did discuss on the floor an amendment to reduce the authorization for 
federally funded research and development centers.
  As pointed out here in my statement, I want to wait to pursue that 
until we see the committee's review of the various proposals that have 
been made to restore the initiative for sealift and the LHD-7. This is 
not that amendment. I just want to make sure there is no 
misunderstanding. This is not the amendment to reduce the authorization 
for FFRDC's. This is an amendment I offered at this time because of the 
statements made in the Record, and also because of the history of my 
concerns over the years with the compensation schedule for officers and 
employees of these FFRDC's.
  I respect what they do, and I respect the fact that they are needed 
by the Department of Defense. But as I pointed out yesterday when we 
already reduced the procurement effort by 60 percent, to maintain the 
level of funding for these FFRDC's at the level set is not correct, and 
to allow these FFRDC's to set their salaries at levels far beyond the 
compensation schedule for Federal employees, to me, is wrong.
  About 95 percent of the money these FFRDC's spend is taxpayers' money 
directly. I do not see any reason why we should allow the establishment 
of a system whereby Federal money is paid through an FFRDC to 
compensate people far beyond what they could receive if they were 
working within one of the agencies.
  This amendment is for that purpose. It is to limit the total 
compensation for any officer or employee of FFRDC's to the executive 
level 1. Currently that is about $148,000, Mr. President, more than the 
compensation of Members of the House and Senate. I see no reason why we 
should have people being compensated in excess of that level.
  By a report that has been circulated rather extensively, pay in these 
areas is routinely in excess of $200,000 and there are some even 
farther beyond that. As a matter of fact, several of these people are 
paid far in excess of the amount that we pay the President of the 
United States.
  They are not just quasi-governmental, they are governmental. 
Primarily 95 cents on the dollar is taxpayer money.
  Under those circumstances we should send the word to them that they 
are limited by the same schedule that applies to all people who are 
spending Federal taxpayers' money.
  I have the full statement in the Record. That is the intent and 
purpose of this amendment.
  I am aware this will cause a little consternation out there. I want 
to say to my good friend from Georgia, and I know Senator Warner is 
going to be involved in this, and Senator Thurmond, when you get to 
conference I will understand and we all understand there has to be some 
fine-tuning of this amendment. I do hope the Senate will maintain its 
position that the limitations on the compensation follow the Federal 
taxpayers' dollar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, there will be some consternation on this 
amendment. There is some uneasiness by some Senators on this, I think, 
on both sides of the aisle, because the original concept of these 
laboratories was to remove them somewhat from Government and thereby 
have their salaries more competitive with the free enterprise system 
rather than governmental.
  It is very difficult, if not impossible, to justify some of the 
salaries that are being paid. For that reason, I think the Senator from 
Alaska makes a valid point.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment. We may hear more about this 
before the conference, and I am sure the Senator from Alaska will be 
willing to listen to reason on this from people who may be concerned on 
both sides of the aisle.
  So I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that a Senator on 
our side wishes to speak on this amendment, and has been notified and 
is on his way. So I do not believe we are ready to move to adoption of 
the amendment at this particular time. The same reservations that were 
expressed by the Senator from Georgia are apparently held by the 
Senator from Virginia, and he wants to come and address that issue.
  Mr. President, the latest flash from the front indicates that it 
would be acceptable to go ahead and accept the amendment at this 
particular time, with the reservation expressed by the Senator from 
Alaska and the Senator from Georgia that there is some controversy 
regarding this but it is something that can be resolved during the 
conference on this.
  With that we can go ahead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Alaska.
  The amendment (No. 1850) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COATS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 1841

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I am deeply appreciative of the concerns 
raised by my colleague, Senator Feingold, who sought to delay funding 
for the Navy CVN-76 Nimitz-class carrier. Like him, I believe that 
defense spending remains too high and that every military activity must 
be submitted to evaluation.
  Whle I agree with the goal of reduced military spending and have 
spent my time in the Senate working for budget reductions, I 
respectfully disagreed with my colleague that delaying the aircraft 
carrier is in the best interest of the taxpayer.
  As the ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, I 
must evaluate Senator Feingold's amendment in terms of funding as well. 
The Appropriations Committee has provided procurement funding for the 
CVN-76 for fiscal years 1993 and 1994. The Navy reported to Congress 
that the shipyard constructing this carrier states that a 1-year delay 
in the funding adds $400-$500 million to the cost, due to the necessity 
to reconstitute skills, facilities, and suppliers.
  If I had more confidence that the carrier fleet would be reduced then 
I would have been sympathetic to Senator Feingold's arguments. The 
decision to maintain a 12-carrier fleet, however, has been extensively 
considered. It has been determined that aircraft carriers are and will 
continue to be a valuable tool in our defense activities. Carrier task 
forces have proven themselves invaluable during times of war and also 
have served as a deterrent to hostilities.
  Based upon the findings of the bottom-up review and continued support 
for the CVN-76 in Congress, I have concluded that a reduction in the 
carrier fleet is unlikely. Therefore, I believe it is incumbent that 
Congress achieve the greatest savings possible. For this reason I voted 
to continue funding the procurement of the CVN-76.
  Mr. President, the Senate Armed Services Committee in its fiscal year 
1995 authorization bill has included a provision which will strengthen 
oversight on nuclear weapons activities.
  The provision, which was originally proposed in the House by 
Congresswoman Elizabeth Furse, assures that the Nation's nuclear 
weapons laboratories are receiving appropriate approval of nuclear 
weapons activities. As Congresswoman Furse describes it, this provision 
puts sunshine on warhead activities.
  This provision is a step forward in our effort to reduce our nuclear 
weapons activities. Although the Congress ended underground nuclear 
weapons testing nearly 2 years ago, I remain concerned that there does 
not exist a consensus on our weapons policy. Furthermore, because 
nuclear weapons activities undertaken by our Nation could have 
ramifications in our continuing efforts to achieve a Comprehensive Test 
Ban Treaty and the renewal of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, I 
believe it is important that all nuclear weapons activities be approved 
by the Joint Nuclear Weapons Council.
  In addition, I welcome the requirement that the Joint Nuclear Weapons 
Council provide a report to Congress annually. As the ranking 
Republican on the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, I 
believe this report will be valuable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested, 
and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________