[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 87 (Friday, July 1, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 1, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    ADVANCED FIELD ARTILLERY SYSTEM

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I rise to speak on the Advanced Field 
Artillery System, or AFAS. This is an issue that was treated during the 
Committee markup, in the Subcommittee that I chair, and because of new 
developments it is important to review the language in the Subcommittee 
report that is now part of the Committee's report.
  Madam President, the AFAS system is our next generation field 
artillery system, and the program has undergone numerous changes during 
the last year. The Armed Services Committee approved full funding for 
the program, but the Committee report noted two basic concerns. The 
first concern was the Army's reliance on a liquid propellant gun 
technology that is not mature. The second concern was the lack of an 
acquisition strategy by the Army and the lack of Pentagon approval of 
such a strategy.
  Because of these concerns, the Subcommittee I chair recommended that 
the Army delay issuing the Request For Proposals (or RFP) until: First, 
the Defense Acquisition Board reviews the program later this year; 
second, the Army justifies its reliance on the LP gun technology, and 
third, the Pentagon has approved the Army's acquisition strategy.
  Madam President, in light of numerous developments since our markup, 
the recommendation is no longer necessary. I am concerned that the 
language in our report may cause the Pentagon to believe that the 
Committee does not fully support the AFAS program and thus may withhold 
funds from the program, or delay it in a manner that undermines the 
program. I want to state that the Committee did fully fund the program, 
which reflects its strong support, and would not want to see the 
program cut or delayed in such a manner.
  Madam President, I wish to describe briefly the reasons why. Earlier 
this year, the Army had a draft acquisition strategy for the AFAS that 
was flawed. I worked with the Department of the Army and of Defense to 
help correct that strategy. The Armed Services Committee staff also 
reviewed this issue and recommended a course of action, including a 
delay in issuing the Army draft RFP.
  The Army then changed its acquisition strategy to achieve many of the 
important objectives lacking in the first Army acquisition strategy. At 
the time of our markup, the Army had not finalized its new acquisition 
strategy, as the Committee report notes. But since then, the Army has 
adopted an acquisition strategy that is sound, and which the Department 
of Defense approves.
  In addition, the Army has taken important steps to establish an 
alternative technology for the AFAS gun, called ``Unicharge,'' that 
will provide an important fallback in case the liquid propellant gun 
technology does not prove successful.
  So, Madam President, the Committee's two primary concerns have been 
addressed since our markup, and I wish to express my view as Chairman 
of the relevant subcommittee that it is not necessary that the Army 
delay issuing the Request For Proposals. The developments that have 
taken place since our markup satisfy my primary concerns about the 
program. I believe the Army should issue the RFP when it is ready to do 
so, and I believe the Subcommittee would agree with my assessment.
  I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I wish to associate my remarks with 
the able chairman of the Armed Services Committee in what he had to say 
concerning of passage of this bill and also concerning the McCain 
family, who have rendered a great service to our Nation. Three 
generations have served, and we are very proud of them.
  Madam President, we have completed many long and arduous hours of 
debate on this Defense bill; therefore, I will be brief in my closing 
comments.
  It has been my privilege to have served on the Senate Armed Services 
Committee since 1959, the last 21 years with my friend and colleague, 
the able Chairman of the Arms Services Committee, Senator Nunn. 
Together, we have worked on many defense bills--always with the goal to 
provide resources and the best technology for the finest Armed Forces 
in the world.
  Although it does not provide everything we both wanted, and in my 
judgment, is bare bones, this bill will allow our Armed Forces to 
provide a defense that meets the needs of the coming fiscal year.
  Madam President, as I said in my opening statement on this bill, the 
budget level we considered is the lowest in terms of percentage of 
gross domestic product since 1948. It represents 17 percent of the 
Federal budget, which is the lowest since 1940. Despite these startling 
statistics as well as the comments of our service chiefs that we are on 
the razor's edge in terms of readiness, the administration is calling 
for another 10 percent reduction in the Defense budget over the next 4 
years. During the debate on this bill, the Senate vetoed several 
amendments that would have had an adverse impact on readiness. I am 
putting the administration on notice that we will also veto future 
Defense budgets that put readiness at risk.

  Madam President, the successful conclusion of the bill was achieved 
by the hard work of many people: the Senators who brought up the many 
thoughtful and productive amendments; the Senate floor staff, on both 
sides, who skillfully guided our debate; my colleagues on the Armed 
Services Committee; and Senator Nunn, whose skillful leadership and 
management of this bill made it appear deceptively easy. I thank each 
of them for their hard work and contribution in finalizing the national 
defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1995.
  I also want to express my appreciation to Mr. Greg Scott and Mr. 
Charlie Armstrong, from the Legislative Counsel's Office, for their 
work on drafting and correcting the bill and the many amendments that 
were considered during this process. They do not get much visibility, 
but they deserve a great deal of the credit for the successful 
completion of this bill.
  Finally, Madam President, I want to recognize the hard work of the 
Armed Services Committee staff. Under the leadership of Richard Reynard 
and Arnold Punaro, the staff worked untold hours in preparing briefing/
background papers and assembling information so that the Senate could 
make the decisions that we reached today.
  I ask unanimous consent that a list of the entire Armed Services 
Committee staff be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                 Senate Armed Services Committee Staff


                                minority

       Dick Reynard, Charlie Abell, Les Brownlee, Chris Cimko, 
     Menge Crawford, Don Deline, Jon Etherton, Pamela Kidd, 
     Melinda Koutsoumpas, George Lauffer, Steve Madey, Jack 
     Mansfield, Tom Moore, Joe Pallone, Steve Saulnier.


                                majority

       Arnold Punaro, Kathy Bognovitz, Jamie Bond, Monica Chavez, 
     Dick Combs, Kelli Corts, Christ Cowart, Madelyn Creedon, Rick 
     DeBobes, Marie Dickinson, John Douglass, Debra Duncan, Andy 
     Effron, Rick Finn, Dave Fuchs, Danny Ginsberg, Shelly Gough, 
     Creighton Greene, P.T. Henry, Bill Hoehn, Julie Kemp, David 
     Lyles, Kirk McConnell, Mike McCord, Frank Norton, Kathleen 
     Paralusz, Cindy Pearson, Jeff Record, Jacki Spivey, Christy 
     Still, Jan Wise.

  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, it is to the Senate's credit that we 
completed the Defense bill before the Fourth of July recess. What an 
appropriate way to celebrate the birth of our great Nation by restating 
our ongoing commitment to its security. I wish everyone a glorious 
Fourth of July and look forward to bringing before the Senate the 
conference report on this bill.
  As I understand it is agreeable that we will have a final rollcall 
vote on the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina and 
thank him for his superb job as usual on this defense bill. Without 
him, we could not pass this bill. Without him, we would not have the 
kind of defense bill that we do.
  Madam President, one of the highlights of my year and I suppose one 
of the highlights of my last several years was going to the Normandy 
commemoration this year, seeing the veterans there who had sacrificed 
so much and risked so much 50 years ago.
  Senator Thurmond did not get to go. I believe he was probably the 
only World War II veteran who was attending a high school graduation of 
one of his own children. But that is the reason he did not get to go.
  But our committee rejoiced with him when we returned by having a very 
private committee celebration of his participation in Normandy.
  The interesting thing about our colleague from South Carolina is when 
he joined up to go into World War II he was already 41 years old at the 
time. I doubt that that happened on very many occasions. He not only 
volunteered to go to war, he volunteered to take perhaps the most 
dangerous mission anyone volunteered for. That was to be in one glider 
that went in in the Normandy invasion.
  We represented Senator Thurmond at Normandy at this 50 year 
anniversary but not nearly so well as he represented this country 50 
years ago in his service, his courage and his dedication.
  He has continued that same pattern of courage and dedication and 
absolute commitment to our Nation's security in his entire public 
career.
  So, Senator Thurmond, we are grateful to you and we continue to be 
grateful for your service, not only now but everything you have done 
over the years for this country. You have been a wonderful public 
servant and you are a tremendous colleague here on the floor and in 
this committee.
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I thank the chairman for his kind 
remarks.
  I have been in the Senate now almost 40 years and I want to say I 
have not served with a more able chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee than our able chairman now. We have had many fine chairmen, 
but none have served more ably and been more dedicated than Senator 
Nunn.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank my friend and colleague.
  Madam President, I believe we are prepared to go through a number of 
other amendments that have been worked out on both sides of the aisle.


                           Amendment No. 2213

   (Purpose: To strike section 3154, relating to the transfer of the 
  responsibility for the production of tritium from the Department of 
                 Energy to the Defense Nuclear Agency)

  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, the first amendment that I send to the 
desk is an amendment on behalf of Senator Johnston. I ask that the 
amendment be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Johnston, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2213.

  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 366, line 5, strike ``TRITIUM PRODUCTION.'' and all 
     that follows through page 367, line 15 and in lieu thereof 
     insert: ``Nuclear Weapons Council Membership. Section 
     179(a)(1) title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as 
     follows: `(3) Two senior representatives of the Department of 
     Energy appointed by the Secretary of Energy.'''
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, this amendment would strike the section in 
the bill transferring responsibility for new tritium production from 
the Department of Energy to the Defense Nuclear Agency.
  In addition, the amendment would add an additional representative 
from the Department of Energy to the Nuclear Weapons Council, bringing 
the DOE membership on the Council to two.
  Madam President, this is a provision that we have talked about a 
great deal. Our committee is not satisfied with what the Department of 
Energy has done in this area. Senator Johnston knows that.
  We have talked to the Secretary of Energy about it. We have gotten 
certain commitments that we hope will be completely implemented and 
fulfilled from the Department of Energy. So we are reluctantly agreeing 
to change this provision in our bill which would have transferred 
responsibility from the Department of Energy to the Defense Nuclear 
Agency for tritium production.
  I know Senator Thurmond has a statement on this. He at this stage has 
some reluctance on this amendment, but I would defer to him for any 
comment on this amendment.
  This amendment is not yet agreed to, Madam President. I hope the 
Senator from South Carolina will agree, but at this stage he has 
certain reservations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, this amendment troubles me very much, 
and it should trouble all Senators. Before I begin, I want to commend 
the distinguished Senators from Georgia and Nebraska for their 
perceptive insight into the mess at DOE. I was very much heartened when 
the Senator from Nebraska included in his subcommittee mark this 
provision to transfer responsibility for tritium production from DOE to 
DOD. I was heartened because I feel that we can trust the Department of 
Defense to do everything it can to ensure that the nuclear stockpile 
does not wither away for lack of tritium, whereas I believe that the 
Department of Energy no longer deserves our trust in this matter. It is 
so important, so imperative, to the Department of Energy to allow its 
policy to be molded and formed by so-called stakeholders such as the 
Natural Resources Defense Council and other anti-military special 
interest lobbies. It is so important to them to have the cachet of 
anti-nuclear groups, that DOE is willing to put us at risk of losing 
our nuclear stockpile by cunningly devised deferral and delay.
  Madam President, I wish to be more specific about these DOE plans.
  First, Mrs. O'Leary truly has surrounded herself with a team of 
professional antinuclear activists. It appears that all her close 
advisors have worked for most of their professional lives to rid the 
world--or at least the United States--of all things nuclear. It appears 
she has no advisors who are seasoned, experienced veterans of work in 
the trenches of national security. It appears that the men who built 
our successful nuclear deterrent have no impact and are ignored. It is 
said that one of the first things Mrs. O'Leary did at DOE was to take 
down the pictures of nuclear warships, like the Nautilus. That was a 
symbolic indication of what was to come.
  Second, DOE keeps delaying the start of a new tritium source. Last 
year, DOE told us that they needed to begin construction of a new 
reactor by the year 1999. This week, they say it is 2000. Are we going 
to see a delay of 1 year per year? I would not be surprised. They are 
looking for every excuse not to start a reactor. I understand that; I 
understand why Mrs. O'Leary's league of antinuclear activists cannot 
bring themselves to start building a reactor. How could they face their 
professional peers? In fact, I am willing to go on record today with a 
prediction that the Environmental Impact Statement on new tritium 
production capacity, due next spring, will choose the alternative of 
trying to use an existing commercial light-water reactor to make 
tritium for nuclear weapons. That way, this antinuclear crowd will not 
have to put a nuclear reactor in their DOE budget; and, what is even 
better, making tritium in a commercial reactor will immediately become 
a focus of attack for blurring the civil-military barrier. More 
acrimony and more delay.
  Third, it does not matter to the policy team at DOE that they are 
putting us at risk of running out of tritium. As it is, their ``best 
case,'' that they can have tritium production by 2009, only works if 
they eat into our tritium reserve. But what happens if we need more 
tritium than they plan? DOE admits, in the report on New Tritium 
Production Capacity submitted June 24, that ``the date by which new 
tritium production capacity would be needed can move up or back * * * 
by several years.'' Madam President, I ask that this report, and the 
accompanying letter from the Secretary of Energy, be placed in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. THURMOND. If this happens, and DOE admits that it could, we run 
out of tritium. We start losing nuclear weapons at the rate of hundreds 
per year. Madam President, why wouldn't DOE do the natural thing in a 
case like this: accelerate their new production reactor program to 
avoid this disaster? That would mean that these former denizens of 
antinuclear lobbying groups would have to advise the Secretary to start 
a new reactor now, before it is too late. I cannot believe they will 
ever do that.
  Fourth, even in the face of an emergency, this Department of Energy 
will never seek exemptions to the National Environmental Policy Act for 
any nuclear activities. This is particularly galling to South 
Carolinians. We have dangerous radioactive solutions in our canyons 
there. We have aluminum-clad fuel sitting corroding in pools of water. 
Rocky Flats, in Colorado, has plutonium metal in unsafe, inflammable 
form. But will DOE declare an emergency to circumvent an environmental 
impact statement so they can process these materials to a safe form? 
No, of course not: not for a nuclear project. They will enforce 
enormously expensive procedures to make radiation exposures as low as 
reasonably achievable on other projects; but here, where radiation 
exposure is clearly higher due to DOE's failure to act, they do 
nothing. But, let it be a pet project of theirs, let it be an 
environmental project to build a water system for a town in Colorado, 
let it be the importation of foreign reactor fuel to store at Savannah 
River, then DOE declares an exemption to NEPA, so that no EIS is 
needed. It is all right for this Department of Energy to declare NEPA 
exemptions for projects that pass their test of ``no nukes.''
  Madam President, I do not trust DOE. Many Senators do not trust DOE. 
If they want to earn our trust, they will have to show us that the man 
in charge of national security programs, Secretary Curtis, is not 
dominated by antinuclear policy advisors and can fix this program.
  So, Madam President, I am disappointed that the chairman has decided 
to remove this provision which would put our nuclear defense in safe 
hands again. Recently, so I am told, the chairman, the Senator from 
Nebraska, and the Senator from Louisiana met with the Secretary of 
Energy and her deputy on this matter, and received assurances that DOE 
would not continue to allow its national security policy to be 
dominated by antinuclear extremists.

                               exhibit 1


                                      The Secretary of Energy,

                                    Washington, DC, June 24, 1994.
     Hon. Sam Nunn,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed is the second annual report to 
     Congress on the Development of New Tritium Production 
     Capacity under section 3134 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993. The four technologies 
     assessed to be technically adequate for the new tritium 
     capacity are: the heavy water reactor, the modular high-
     temperature gas-cooled reactor, the light water reactor and 
     the proton linear accelerator. With regard to light water 
     technology, the Department is evaluating both advanced light 
     water designs for a new facility and potential use of 
     existing commercial reactors if a new facility is not 
     constructed. This report considers only options requiring new 
     construction.
       Based on the current stockpile projections outlined in the 
     FY 1994-FY 1999 Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum approved 
     by the President on March 1, 1994, the Department estimates 
     that a new tritium production source should begin operations 
     in fiscal year 2009. To meet this date, construction should 
     begin by approximately fiscal year 2000 to 2001 for the 
     reactor technologies and in fiscal year 2003 for a proton 
     linear accelerator.
       Further reductions in the weapons stockpile and reduction 
     of working inventory levels of tritium could be indicated by 
     the Department of Defense Nuclear Posture Review. This would 
     provide additional time before a new tritium production 
     source is needed. In that event, a revision of the estimated 
     dates associated with new tritium production capacity will be 
     provided to Congress. New estimates could be provided, for 
     example, in the report required by section 3145 of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, 
     which relates to tritium contingency options.
       The Department of Energy and the Department of Defense are 
     continuing to work together to assure that sufficient levels 
     of tritium are available to support stockpile requirements 
     and that a contingency plan is available to address 
     unforeseen tritium needs.
       If you have further questions, please call me, or have a 
     member of your staff contact D. Vic Reis, Assistant Secretary 
     for Defense Programs. He can be reached on 202-586-2179.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Hazel R. O'Leary.
                                  ____


    Report to Congress on the Development of New Tritium Production 
                                Capacity


under section 3134 of the national defense authorization act for fiscal 
                               year 1993

                          june 1994 appendix a


                           executive summary

        Section 3134 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484) requires the Secretary 
     of Energy to provide annually a report to Congress on the 
     development of new tritium production capacity. This is the 
     second report responding to that direction.
       This report provides a revised estimate of the date by 
     which new production capacity will be necessary and a revised 
     estimate by which construction of such capacity should begin, 
     based on current assumptions. As in the previous report, part 
     of the five-year tritium reserve would be depleted to bridge 
     a two-year shortfall after which the reserve would be 
     replenished. The report discusses uncertainties associated 
     with current assumptions and the impact on the date for a new 
     production capacity and the associated date for construction. 
     This report also address the relationship of new tritium 
     production capacity with the plutonium disposition options 
     and discusses the ongoing planning for tritium schedule 
     contingencies.
       Based on the current stockpile projections outlined in the 
     approved FY 1994-FY 1999 Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan, the 
     Department estimates that new production capacity should 
     begin operations in fiscal year 2009. To meet this date, 
     construction should begin by about fiscal years 2000 to 2001 
     for the reactor technologies and in fiscal year 2003 for a 
     proton linear accelerator. Further reductions in the weapons 
     stockpile and reduction of working inventory levels of 
     tritium could provide additional time before a new tritium 
     production capacity is needed.
       The Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration Programmatic 
     Environmental Impact Statement will be addressing these 
     technologies in detail to support eventual decisions on the 
     technology and location for a new tritium production source. 
     The Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement will be 
     available for public comment beginning March 1995.


                            i. introduction

       A primary mission of the Department of Energy is to support 
     national security by maintaining the nuclear weapons 
     stockpile, including providing nuclear materials to meet 
     national defense requirements as determined by the President. 
     Tritium, a radioactive gas with a decay half life of 12.3 
     years, is one of the nuclear materials most critical to the 
     Nation's nuclear deterrent. Becuase titium must be 
     replenished, the Nation's nuclear defense program requires a 
     steady, assured supply to ensure its availability for the 
     enduring stockpile. Currently, the United States does not 
     have any tritium production capacity available.
       This is the second of the annual reports responding to the 
     requirement contained in section 3134 of Public Law 102-484 
     for a report on the new tritium production capacity of the 
     Department of Energy. The previous report (Ref 1-1) described 
     the bases for the selection of the four methods 
     (technologies) for the production of tritium and assessed the 
     capability of potential suppliers to support the 
     technologies. The selections were based on assessments of the 
     technical risk of each technology and considered such factors 
     as cost, safety, enviromental impacts, and technical 
     maturity. The previous report also included estimates of the 
     dates for the availability of a new production capacity and 
     for the initiation of construction of the new capacity, based 
     on assumptions at the time.
       This report provides a revised estimate of the date by 
     which new production capacity will be necessary and a revised 
     estimate by which construction of such capacity should begin, 
     based on current assumptions. As in the previous report, part 
     of the five-year tritium reserve would be depleted to bridge 
     a two-year shortfall after which the reserve would be 
     replenished. The report discusses uncertainties associated 
     with current assumptions and the impact on the date for a new 
     production capacity and the associated date for construction. 
     This report also addresses the relationship of new tritium 
     production capacity with the plutonium disposition options 
     and discusses the ongoing planning for tritium schedule 
     contingencies.
       This report will be submitted annually until the 
     construction of the new tritium production capacity is 
     completed, as required by secton 3134.


                  2. date for new production capacity

       The date for a new production capacity is based on an 
     analysis that considers such factors as the current tritium 
     supply, the estimated size and composition of the active 
     stockpile, the need to maintain the five year reserve, the 
     tritium decay rate, non-defense uses of tritium and the 
     amount of tritium recovered from decommissioned weapons. The 
     analysis appears as Appendix A (classified).
       Based upon current assessment of the stockpile needs 
     outlined in the approved fiscal year 94-99 Nuclear Weapons 
     Stockpile Memorandum, delivery of required quantities (\3/8\ 
     goal quantity\1\) of new tritium to the stockpile is 
     estimated to be required by fiscal year 2011, or one year 
     later than previously reported. To achieve this goal, the new 
     production capacity would need to start producing tritium by 
     approximately fiscal year 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The date by which new production capacity would be needed 
     is significantly influenced by the projection of the size and 
     composition of the enduring stockpile in the next century, 
     which are uncertain factors. The Nuclear Weapons Stockpile 
     Memorandum may be affected by the Nuclear Posture Review 
     being conducted by the Department of Defense in response to a 
     changing international environment. In addition to the 
     uncertainties related to the size and composition of the 
     enduring stockpile, other significant assumptions relate to 
     tritium requirements for non-defense needs, the need to 
     maintain a five-year reserve of tritium to support the 
     enduring stockpile, and the assumption of indefinite 
     cessation of nuclear testing. Based on the particular 
     selection of parameters for all of the uncertain factors, the 
     date by which new tritium production capacity would be needed 
     can move up or back from fiscal year 2011 by several years.


        3. date for the construction of new production capacity

       The four technologies (methods) considered for the new 
     production capacity are: (1) A heavy water reactor; (2) a 
     high temperature gas-cooled reactor; (3) a light water 
     reactor; and (4) a proton linear accelerator. The estimated 
     duration of construction for these technologies differ in 
     relation to the complexity of construction. The previously 
     reported construction start\2\ dates for these technologies 
     were based on a conservative schedule, allowing for 
     contingencies in the pre-construction, construction, and pre-
     operational phases.
       Based on the date of fiscal year 2011 for the need for new 
     tritium production capacity cited in the above section, the 
     projected construction start dates would be approximately 
     fiscal years 2000 to 2001 for the reactor technologies and 
     fiscal year 2003 for the proton linear accelerator. In 
     addition, the previous report cited that construction of the 
     technologies would have to be preceded by approximately five 
     years of research, development, testing, contractor 
     selection, engineering, regulatory review and site selection.
       The Department of Energy is preparing an Environmental 
     Impact Statement on a new tritium production capacity. A 
     Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement is expected 
     to be issued by March 1, 1995, and a Final Programmatic 
     Environmental Impact Statement will be issued to enable the 
     Secretary of Energy to issue a Record of Decision on the site 
     and technology for a new tritium production capacity by the 
     end of calendar year 1995. The Department of Energy has 
     prepared a Tritium Supply Plant Roadmap (Ref 3-1) to provide 
     a comprehensive planning tool to support the decision process 
     leading towards a new tritium production capacity.
       The Department of Energy is undertaking a statistical risk-
     based approach to attempt to quantify the incremental risk 
     assumed by deferring the initiation of construction and 
     preconstruction activities. This approach will permit more 
     flexibility in the decision process in an era of budget 
     constraints in determining a date for the start of 
     construction. Complementary to accommodating uncertainties in 
     meeting the date for a new tritium production capacity, the 
     Department of Energy is preparing a Tritium Contingency 
     Report (See section 6).


           4. methods available for the production of tritium

       The technologies (methods) selected in the previous report 
     and still considered technically adequate are: (1) A heavy 
     water reactor; (2) a high temperature gas-cooled reactor; (3) 
     a light water reactor; and (4) a proton linear accelerator. 
     Of the technologies selected in the previous report, the 
     Department of Energy assessed that the proton linear 
     accelerator technology needed to be further developed to 
     approach the level of detail available for the reactor 
     technologies. The Department of Energy continues to develop 
     engineering and cost data for the proton linear accelerator 
     to reduce the technical risk associated with this option. The 
     information that is being developed includes preparing a pre-
     conceptual design and performing testing relating to 
     accelerator performance and environmental and safety 
     characteristics.


                  5. capability of potential suppliers

       The previous report concluded that sufficient industrial 
     support exists to establish new production reactor capacity, 
     provided sufficient lead time is available and foreign 
     vendors can be used where required. This conclusion is 
     unchanged.


          6. actions to address tritium schedule contingencies

       In conjunction with the Department of Defense, the 
     Department of Energy is assessing potential contingency 
     actions to be taken in the event that new production capacity 
     is not in place in time to satisfy tritium demand 
     requirements. These contingencies address mitigating a 
     potential shortfall in our tritium inventory which could 
     arise as outcomes of events such as those listed in Section 
     2. A formal report previously submitted to the Congress 
     examines tritium supply and demand contingency options.


            7. relationship to plutonium disposition options

       In reports accompanying the fiscal year 1993 and 1994 
     Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts, the 
     Department of Energy was requested to study the viability of 
     reactor options for the disposition of excess plutonium in 
     conjunction with the potential to produce tritium 
     collaterally. Based on its early reviews, the Department of 
     Energy concluded in Ref 7-1 that three different reactor 
     concepts could be used to dispose of plutonium and 
     collaterally produce tritium. The Secretary in January 
     created a Department-wide project to review all options 
     available for the disposition of plutonium, including 
     reactors. The selection of a preferred alternative for 
     plutonium disposition will be made in time to be included in 
     the draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 
     covering disposition of plutonium when the draft is published 
     for public comment. This is scheduled for August 1995. If a 
     reactor were to be selected for the plutonium disposition 
     mission its ability to perform the tritium production mission 
     also could be evaluated. Subsequent to the selection of 
     generic technologies, additional time may be required to 
     support site and specific technology selections. The 
     Department of Energy will continue to assess the possibility 
     and plan accordingly.


                             8.0 references

       1-1. Report to Congress on the Development of New Tritium 
     Production Capacity, U.S. Department of Energy, June 1993.
       3-1 Tritium Supply Plant Roadmap, U.S. Department of 
     Energy, Office of Weapons Complex Reconfiguration Program, 
     Draft C, December 28, 1993.
       7-1 Plutonium Disposition Study, U.S. Department of Energy, 
     July 2, 1993.
     \1\The ``goal quantity'' refers to the new production 
     capacity determined to have been required in 1988 to support 
     the nuclear weapons stockpile requirements. The present goal 
     is now 3/8 of the 1988 goal.
     \2\Start of construction is defined here as the placing of 
     concrete for the first major tritium supply structure. Site 
     preparation and clearing work would be required approximately 
     one to two years earlier.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I hope the Senator from South Carolina 
will agree to this amendment. I know that it gives him a great deal of 
trouble. I have talked at length with Senator Johnston, the head of the 
Energy Committee, on this. I know that he has talked to the Senator 
from South Carolina. He has pledged to me to monitor this very 
carefully and he has pledged to see that the Department of Energy, to 
the extent that he can as committee chairman, carries out its 
commitments and exercises much more dedication and vigilance in this 
area than they have in the past.
  So I hope that the Senator will be willing to accept this amendment.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, in view of the assurances given to the 
Senators I mentioned, I am willing to yield to the opinion of the 
chairman, whose advice has been so wise in the past. But I assure the 
Senate and DOE that I will be watching.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator from South Carolina.
  Madam President, the Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1995 
contained a provision that would transfer the responsibility for the 
production of tritium to the Defense Nuclear Agency. This transfer 
would occur beginning in fiscal year 1996 and would include the 
responsibility for new production of tritium that would be required 
after 2009. As contemplated under the provision, the Department of 
Energy would retain all of the tritium handling responsibility, by the 
DNA would be responsible for manufacturing the tritium. Once produced 
by the DNA, the tritium would be delivered to the DOE for weapons 
replenishment and other purposes.
  This provision is clearly a departure from the past practice and, 
understandably, not supported by the Department of Energy.
  The situation which the United States is currently facing is also a 
departure from past practice. There is a very real concern that the 
Department of Energy may, for the first time, not be able to meet its 
future tritium production requirements.
  Tritium is a key component to maintaining a reliable nuclear weapons 
stockpile. Unlike the other materials in nuclear weapons--plutonium and 
uranium--tritium decays very rapidly and must be replaced. Half of any 
given quantity of tritium disintegrates in 12.3 years.
  We still need a supply of tritium beginning after 2008. The important 
and far reaching arms control agreements, such as START I and START II 
have allowed a reduction in the amount of tritium that is needed and 
have pushed into the future the date when new tritium is required. But 
even though that the amount is reduced to less than half that of what 
was contemplated just 6 years ago, and the time when the new tritium is 
needed has been extended to 2009, the DOE must still begin to plan to 
meet the reduced requirement on a timely basis.
  Several years ago we were able to defer the tritium production plans. 
But we are now at the end of that deferral period. Planning must 
resume.
  The Congress, through the Armed Services Committee and the Energy and 
Water Appropriations Committee has an obligation to ensure that the 
nuclear weapons stockpile is adequately funded and maintained.
  For that reason I am concerned that the Department focus serious 
effort and attention on tritium production. Over the past few weeks, 
Senator Exon and Senator Johnston and I have discussed the tritium 
issue with Secretary O'Leary and are cautiously optimistic that the DOE 
will actively and seriously engage in planning for and meeting future 
tritium production requirements.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. I fully agree with the Senator from Georgia that we 
need a new tritium source and that the Department of Energy needs to 
begin planning for it now. Were I to agree that the Department of 
Energy is unable or unwilling to provide that source, I would support 
transferring the responsibility to an agency that would do the job.
  But I am not convinced that the situation justifies so drastic a 
solution at this point. To the contrary, I suspect that transferring 
DOE's tritium responsibilities to the Defense Nuclear Agency, which has 
no experience in this line of work, could well delay the day when a new 
tritium source comes on line.
  The Defense Nuclear Agency is now engaged in nuclear weapons effects 
research and testing. It has no expertise in producing tritium. It has 
no facilities for producing this material. It has never built or 
operated a tritium production reactor. It has never tried to get a 
license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build or operate a 
reactor. It may not be fully covered by the Price-Anderson Act 
indemnification scheme.
  Tritium production would become an anomaly within the weapons 
complex. The Department of Defense would still be dependent upon DOE to 
design, test, manufacture, assemble, and retire warheads, of which 
tritium would be only one of many component parts. Indeed, DOE would 
still be responsible for handling and processing the tritium that is 
produced by DNA.
  Giving the Defense Department responsibility for producing tritium 
also runs counter to the need to maintain civilian control of the 
production of nuclear weapons materials, which has been bedrock 
principle of our nuclear weapons program for nearly 50 years. While the 
military has gained custody over finished weapons over the years, the 
production responsibility and control of the technical expertise has 
remained in civilian hands in the Department of Energy and should 
continue to do so.
  I think we should be spending our time and effort fixing what is 
wrong at the Department of Energy rather than starting from scratch 
with another agency.
  This provision has already helped focus the Department of Energy's 
attention on the problem. The Department is now in the process of 
evaluating potential tritium sources and will complete the NEPA process 
on a new source next year. The administration has committed to request 
funds for new tritium supply in next year's budget. The Secretary of 
Energy has given us her personal assurances that the Department will 
meet its national security responsibilities.
  I would urge the managers of the bill to accept these assurances and 
agree to strike the transfer provision. Leave the tritium production 
responsibility where it is and let the committee of jurisdiction work 
together to see that the Department fulfills it.
  Mr. EXON. As chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee responsible 
not only for the Department of Energy National Security Programs, but 
all of the Strategic Programs at the Department of Defense, an assured 
future supply of tritium is a key concern. I am pleased that the 
Department of Energy is committed to its National Security Mission, 
including the production of tritium. Secretary of Energy O'Leary has 
recently reaffirmed her commitment to national security and to begin 
the process for planning a new supply of tritium.
  The second annual tritium production report recently submitted by the 
Department lays out tentative schedules for addressing the tritium 
production issue. In this report DOE indicates that new tritium 
production must be in place to produce tritium by 2011. Production by 
2011, while eating into the reserve of tritium, would fulfill the 
Department's responsibilities for tritium production.
  In the report, DOE also indicates that the nuclear posture review now 
in progress, may change the tritium requirements. While, it clearly 
would be beneficial to DOE, from a planning and budgetary perspective, 
if the nuclear weapons stockpile was reduced to below START II 
stockpile levels, this is not a certainty. We must keep in mind that as 
welcome as additional multilateral reductions in nuclear weapons would 
be, the START II agreement has not been ratified.
  Thus, until there is a significant change in our nuclear posture we 
have no choice but to work to ensure that there is an adequate supply 
of tritium in the future.
  If the nuclear posture review requires an increase in the amount of 
tritium required or we need the tritium sooner than anticipated, the 
Department should be prepared to submit a reprogramming request, if 
necessary, to address an acceleration of the requirement.
  Mr. NUNN. Senator Johnston, Senator Exon, Senator Thurmond, and I, 
remain concerned about the tritium supply and the Department of 
Energy's ability to meet its national security obligations. However, 
with the personal assurances and the commitment of both Secretary of 
Energy O'Leary and Under Secretary Curtis, that they will carry out the 
necessary planning and other activities to ensure an adequate supply of 
tritium, I have reluctantly agreed to remove the provision, which would 
transfer responsibility for tritium production to the Defense Nuclear 
Agency, from the authorization bill is appropriate at this time. We 
will work closely with the Department of Energy on this issue and hold 
them to the time commitments for completion of the environmental impact 
statements and other preconditions to selection of a technology and a 
site for tritium production during the course of the coming year.
  To assist the Department in its work on tritium as well as the 
overall issue of nuclear weapons, we also believe that it would be 
appropriate for the Under Secretary of Energy to be a member of the 
Nuclear Weapons Council. The amendment that we offer would also strike 
the provision from the authorization bill and place an additional 
representative from the Department of Energy on the Nuclear Weapons 
Council.
  Madam President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2213) was agreed to.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                      Direct Transfer of Property

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I believe the chairman of the committee 
has an amendment I had filed. I believe it had not been cleared; am I 
correct about that?
  Mr. NUNN. We have seen that. I do not have it before me. I say to my 
colleague, I do not have it with me, but we can get it in a moment.
  Mr. DORGAN. If I might just inquire of the chairman, I might say to 
the chairman that amendment dealt with direct transfer of property of 
two military installations in North Dakota, one 4 acres and one 12 
acres, on which there were a limited number of units; one was 24 
apartments and the other was 21 houses.
  As I understood it, the committee had decided that, under direct 
transfer of facilities, they were going to develop an expedited 
procedure or some different kind of process this year versus last year.
  I did not like that because of the time restraint, and it is very 
important these be transferred. The fact is, the most important was 
abandoned in 1981 and declared surplus then. It is a 12-acre tract with 
24 apartments that a city desperately needs in order to attract some 
economic development. They have a plant coming in from Canada, and they 
need places to house their people and time is of the essence.
  But I am told a procedure is established that it is not something 
that can be done for a direct transfer.
  I was surprised, then, about a half hour ago, to listen to the 
proceedings on the floor and find that, by unanimous consent, or at 
least an amendment was passed that provides for the direct transfer of 
a ship that has been decommissioned to a nonprofit organization.
  I do not come here to name the ship or name the amendment or complain 
about that. It is between the sponsors and the committee, and it is 
fine with me.
  It just seems to me, as I was listening to that, that there are two 
different standards in the committee.
  I ask the chairman whether we might be comforted in the future that 
we might have a single standard on transfers of Government property. If 
we say there must be safeguards in the direct transfer, and there are 
different processes on direct transfer of the kind of property we 
discussed, I would ask if we could not have some comfort that the same 
would be true with other kinds of Government property in which direct 
transfer requests are made here in the Congress.
  Mr. NUNN. In response, I would say, Madam President, that the ship 
transfer that the Senator has alluded to is subject to the terms and 
conditions that the Secretary of Navy determines. The Secretary 
generally determines whether the recipient is financially responsible 
and whether the recipient can maintain the vessel in conditions 
befitting the history of the ship and crew. That is title 10, section 
7306.
  I understand the Senator's frustration, but the distinction here is 
that a ship that has basically finished its service has no other use, 
and land is in a different category. Land has some other use.
  This is a very sort of novel use in that this particular ship is 
going to be used for a stationary, as I understand it, helicopter 
landing near New York City.
  So I believe the city has made arrangements with the Secretary of the 
Navy for the expenses to be paid by the city, and so forth.
  So I do not think it can be compared accurately with the land 
transfer.
  Now, I am not the best spokesman on this particular procedure, 
because Senator Glenn, as the Senator knows, is chairman of the 
subcommittee dealing with this. He and his subcommittee have set down 
certain procedures, and I believe those procedures are what they have 
followed here.
  I am told that from the date of passage of this bill, it will take 
about 125 days under that expedited procedure for your transfer to be 
completed under the normal procedure.
  I know that is not as expedited as the Senator would like. I can try 
to get Senator Glenn back here, or have him convey his understanding of 
this. But at this stage, he would oppose the amendment that has been 
submitted.
  Mr. DORGAN. I am well aware of that. I am not making a legislative 
proposal to the Senator at this point. I would simply observe that 
property is property. It occurs to me that we have two different 
procedures. And frustration does not begin to describe my emotion when 
I see the transfer of 4 acres of land in the middle of North Dakota 
that has been abandoned for years held up because we have some special 
procedure. And then to see the transfer of a ship, for which, 
incidentally, there are other uses--scrap metal, which produces revenue 
which goes to reduce the deficit. I am not suggesting that ought to be 
the mission of the ship. But I am just saying property is property. It 
occurs to me the committee has two different standards on how it 
transfers. One it transfers directly on the floor of the Senate; the 
other, because a different procedure was adopted, it is dealt with 
differently.
  I urge the chairman to evaluate that and perhaps have a system the 
next time one comes to the floor in which we transfer property under 
similar circumstances, or with similar guidelines.
  Mr. NUNN. We will take a look at that, I say to my friend from North 
Dakota. I understand his frustration here. I want to discuss it with 
Senator Glenn.
  I think the thing that should be kept in mind, however, is that once 
this procedure for the Senator's particular parcel of land is 
undertaken--unless there is some Federal agency or State agency that 
wants the land--then the land will be made available to the local 
governmental body free of charge. So there is no distinction on that in 
terms of the way we are handling it.
  In the case of the ship, there were no other Federal agencies that 
would basically have any interest in that ship. I do not think we have 
ever had the same transfer provisions for ships as we have for land. As 
a matter of fact, the Navy had just agreed with several foreign 
governments to turn over some ships they considered excess, including 
Australia and two or three other governments--Morocco, Brazil--and they 
had already had all their plans made and had crews here and so forth to 
receive those ships. And our committee has blocked that, much to the 
frustration of those countries, because we felt the Navy had not done 
the kind of assessment they needed to do in terms of what they were 
giving up.
  We felt that those ships still had considerable useful life and the 
mission they had, had not been really completed. So we have 
temporarily--we may work that out--blocked all of those ship transfers. 
So we do not take ship transfers lightly. But in this particular case 
of the ship going to New York, the Navy convinced us that there was no 
further use of this ship and there was no Federal use of this ship.
  But the Senator's point is taken and I will certainly discuss it with 
Senator Glenn. I think everyone is interested, particularly where 
military bases have closed--everyone has a very keen interest in seeing 
the process be expedited. Because the economic activity has already 
suffered. If the land is not transferred in a prompt, expeditious 
fashion, you really have problems with economic development.
  So I understand the point of the Senator. We will consider it and we 
will be glad to work with him. I will discuss it with Senator Glenn 
when I am able to meet with him.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I appreciate that. I might say exactly the 
same conditions apply to these small parcels of land of 12 acres and 4 
acres. Nobody else is going to want them so one could make the same 
case as was made with this ship, but unfortunately it could not be 
because we have two different procedures. This is transferred directly 
this evening without a problem and the other is held up. There 
certainly ought to be, in my judgment, a de minimis rule of some type.
  I fully agree and concur with the approach of Senator Glenn and with 
the chairman's approach if somebody wants to transfer an air base 
someplace, or giant buildings. We are talking about 4 acres and time is 
of the essence. They have a critical time period on these two very 
small installations. Incidentally, one was abandoned in 1981 in a 
community of 450 people.
  I fully understand the circumstances. I am not quarreling with the 
transfer of this ship. This was probably done with good judgment 
between whomever was involved in the agreement. I am just saying what 
happened here makes no sense to me and it is one thing to have foreign 
governments frustrated that they could not get our ships. It is another 
thing to frustrate me because somebody else transfers property that, it 
might well be, should be transferred but we cannot transfer 4 acres 
that needs to be transferred timely when nobody else in the world wants 
those 4 acres of land and somebody does.
  I hate to take the Senator's time. He is a good chairman. There are 
plenty of ways to stymie the will of the Senate and play games. I do 
not intend to do that ever. But I do intend to tell you about a 
procedure that I think is unfair.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NUNN. I will be certain to communicate that to the Senator from 
Ohio.
  Mr. President, we have a number of amendments that I believe have 
been agreed to on both sides. I know my colleague from Texas is 
representing the minority here. I believe the first amendment is an 
amendment by Senator Roth. It will be presented by my colleague from 
Texas.


                           Amendment No. 2214

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress regarding the ability of 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to operate beyond its geographic 
                              boundaries)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I offer on behalf of Senator Roth, an 
amendment that expresses the sense of the Congress in support of out-
of-area operations by NATO. I understand this amendment has been 
cleared by both sides.
  Mr. President, I send the 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 Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Roth, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2214.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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 an appropriate place in the bill add the following new 
     section

     SEC.   .

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has served as a 
     bulwark of peace, security, and democracy for the United 
     States and the members of the alliance since 1949.
       (2) The unswerving resolve of the member states of the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Organization to mutual defense against 
     the threat of communist aggression was central to the demise 
     of the Warsaw Pact.
       (3) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the most 
     successful international security organization in history, 
     and is well suited to help marshal our cooperative political, 
     diplomatic, economic, and humanitarian efforts, buttressed by 
     credible military capability aimed at deterring conflict, and 
     thus contributing to international peace and security.
       (4) The threat of instability in Eastern and Central 
     Europe, as well as in the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean, 
     continues to pose a fundamental challenge to the interests of 
     the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
       (5) North Atlantic Treaty Organization assets have been 
     deployed in recent years for more than the territorial 
     defense of alliance members; and the Rome Summit of October 
     1991 adopted a new strategic concept for the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization that entertained the possibility of 
     operations beyond the alliance's self-defense area.
       (6) In Oslo in July 1992, and in Brussels in December 1992, 
     the alliance embraced the deployment of North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization forces to peacekeeping operations under the 
     auspices of the United Nations or the Conference on Security 
     and Cooperation in Europe.
       (7) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization should attempt 
     to cooperate with and seek a mandate from international 
     organizations such as the United Nations when considering 
     responses to out of area crises.
       (8) Not all members of the international community share a 
     commonality of interests that would ensure timely action by 
     the United Nations Security Council.
       (9) The security interests of the member countries of the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Organization must not be held hostage 
     to indecision at the United Nations or a veto by a permanent 
     member of the Security Council.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) it should be the policy of the United States that, in 
     accordance with article 53 of the U.N. Charter, the North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization retains the right of autonomy of 
     action regarding missions in addition to collective defense 
     should the United Nations Security Council or the Conference 
     on Security and Cooperation in Europe fail to act;
       (2) while it is desirable to work with other international 
     organizations and arrangements where feasible in dealing with 
     threats to the peace, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     is not an auxiliary to the United Nations or any other 
     organization; and
       (3) the member states of the North Atlantic treaty 
     Organization reserve the right to act collectively in defense 
     of their vital interests.

  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2214) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2215

(Purpose: To strike out section 334, relating to retirement credit for 
    Federal employees for former service in a nonappropriated fund 
instrumentality of the United States, and substitute a requirement for 
a study to determine the level of interest among employees in obtaining 
                        such retirement credit)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I offer on behalf of Senator Coats and 
Senator Shelby an amendment that requires the Department of Defense to 
study the impact of authorizing portability of retirement credit for 
certain former nonappropriated fund employees.
  I understand this amendment has been cleared by both sides. I ask for 
its immediate consideration
  Mr. NUNN. This amendment has been cleared by both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] for Mr. Coats, for 
     himself, and Mr. Shelby, proposes an amendment numbered 2215.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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 75, beginning with line 9, strike out all through 
     page 79, line 13, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
       (a) Study Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct 
     a study to determine the level of interest among employees of 
     the Department of Defense referred to in subsection (b) in 
     obtaining credit under the Civil Service Retirement and 
     Disability System or the Federal Employees' Retirement System 
     for former service described in such subsection as an 
     employee of a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the 
     United States.
       (b) Employees Concerned.--The employees referred to in 
     subsection (a) are employees who, for at least 12 months 
     during the period beginning on January 1, 1966, and ending on 
     December 31, 1986, performed services as an employee 
     described in section 2105(c) of title 5, United States Code, 
     conducting a program described in section 8332(b)(16)(A) of 
     such title.
       (c) Conduct of Study.--In carrying out the study under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
       (1) provide an opportunity for all employees referred to in 
     that subsection to express interest in obtaining retirement 
     credit for the former service in a nonappropriated fund 
     instrumentality of the United States; and
       (2) inform such employees that deposits to the Civil 
     Service Retirement and Disability Fund would be required of 
     the interested employees under section 8334(c) of title 5, 
     United States Code, or section 8411(f) of such title.
       (d) Report.--Not later than February 1, 1995, the Secretary 
     shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the study 
     required by subsection (a). The report shall contain the 
     following matters:
       (1) An analysis of the issues, to include existing legal 
     rights of the employees described in paragraph (b) above 
     under the Civil Service Retirement Disability System or the 
     Federal Employees' Retirement System.
       (2) An analysis of the inequities, if any, that may have 
     been caused by conversion from employment by nonappropriated 
     fund instrumentalities of the United States to employment by 
     the Department of Defense.
       (3) The number of full time and part time employees 
     described in paragraph (b) above that are affected by any 
     inequities described in paragraph 2.
       (4) The Department of Defense recommendations, if any, to 
     redress any inequities described in paragraph 2, and
       (5) The cost to the federal government of any 
     recommendations described in paragraph 4.

  PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2215) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2216

(Purpose: To require a review of, and report on, Department of Defense 
 programs relating to regional security and host nation development in 
                        the Western Hemisphere)

  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. Graham, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2216.

  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 200, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 1017. REVIEW AND REPORT REGARDING DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                   PROGRAMS RELATING TO REGIONAL SECURITY AND HOST 
                   NATION DEVELOPMENT IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The political environment in the Western Hemisphere has 
     been characterized in recent years by significant democratic 
     advances and an absence of international strife; but 
     democracy is fragile in some nations of the region.
       (2) It is desirable for the Department of Defense to 
     perform a positive role in influencing regional armed forces 
     to make positive contributions to the democratic process and 
     to domestic development programs.
       (3) Congress receives a number of annual reports relating 
     to specific authorities granted to the Secretary of Defense 
     under title 10, United States Code, such as the authorities 
     relating to the conduct of bilateral or regional cooperation 
     programs under section 1051, participation of developing 
     countries in combined exercises under section 2110, and the 
     training of special operations forces with friendly forces 
     under section 2011.
       (4) The annual reports are replete with statistics and 
     dollar figures and generally lacking in substance.
       (5) Congress does not receive annual reports with respect 
     to other authorities of the Secretary of Defense, such as 
     that relating to Latin American cooperation under section 
     1050 of title 10, United States Code.
       (6) Testimony before Congress, including in particular the 
     testimony of the Commander in Chief, United States Southern 
     Command, and the Commander in Chief, United States Atlantic 
     Command, has emphasized the conduct of a large number of 
     complementary programs under the leadership and supervision 
     of those two commanders to foster appropriate military roles 
     in democratic host nations and to assist countries in 
     developing forces properly trained to address their security 
     needs, including needs regarding illegal immigration, 
     insurgencies, smuggling of illegal arms, munitions, and 
     explosives across borders, and drug trafficking.
       (7) Most of the programs referred to in paragraph (6) 
     provide excellent and often unique training and experience to 
     the United States forces involved.
       (8) The expansion of the military-to-military contact 
     program to the Western Hemisphere will provide another tool 
     to encourage a democratic orientation of the defense 
     establishments and military forces of countries in the 
     region.
       (9) There is a need to conduct a comprehensive review of 
     the several authorities in title 10, United States Code, for 
     the Secretary of Defense to engage in cooperative regional 
     security programs with other countries in the Western 
     Hemisphere in order to determine whether the authorities 
     continue to be appropriate and necessary, particularly in the 
     light of the changed circumstances in the region.
       (10) There is a need to conduct a comprehensive review of 
     the various programs carried out pursuant to such authorities 
     to ensure that such programs are designed to meet the needs 
     of the host nations involved and the regional objectives of 
     the United States.
       (11) There is a need to assess the strengths and weaknesses 
     of the various regional security organizations, defense 
     forums, and defense education institutions in the Western 
     Hemisphere in order to identify any improvements needed to 
     harmonize the defense policies of the United States and those 
     of friendly nations of the region.
       (b) Report Required.--Not later than May 1, 1995, the 
     Secretary of Defense, shall--
       (1) carry out a comprehensive review and assessment of the 
     matters referred to in paragraphs (9), (10), and (11) of 
     subsection (a); and
       (2) after consultation with the Chairman of the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff and the commanders of the combatant commands 
     responsible for regions in the Western Hemisphere, submit to 
     the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives a report on regional defense matters.
       (c) Content of Report.--The report shall contain a detailed 
     and comprehensive description, discussion, and analysis of 
     the following matters:
       (1) The Department of Defense plan to support United States 
     strategic objectives in the Western Hemisphere.
       (2) The external and internal threats to the national 
     security of the nations of the region.
       (3) The various regional security cooperative programs 
     carried out by the Department of Defense in the region in 
     1994, including training and education programs in the host 
     nations and in the United States and defense contacts set 
     forth on a country-by-country basis, the statutory authority, 
     if any, for such programs, and the strategic objectives 
     served.
       (4) The various regional security organizations, defense 
     forums, and defense education institutions that the United 
     States maintains or in which the United States participates.
       (5) An assessment of the contribution that such programs, 
     defense contacts, organizations, forums, and institutions 
     make to the advancement of regional security, host nation 
     security and national development, and the strategic 
     objectives of the United States.
       (6) The changes made or to be made in the programs, 
     organizations, forums, and institutions as a result of the 
     comprehensive review.
       (7) Any recommended legislation considered necessary to 
     improve the ability of the Department to achieve its 
     strategic objectives.
       (d) Classification of Report.--The report shall be 
     submitted in an unclassified form and may, if necessary, have 
     a classified supplement.

  Mr. NUNN. This amendment requires the Secretary of Defense, after a 
comprehensive review and consultation with the JCS Chairman and the 
regional combatant commanders, to submit a report not later than May 1, 
1985 to the Armed Services Committee on the Department's plan and 
programs to support U.S. strategic objectives for the Western 
Hemisphere.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. No objection.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this is an amendment to the legislation 
currently under consideration, the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 
year 1995. I am very interested in the issues of national development 
and regional security in the western hemisphere, and the role which the 
militaries of our hemispheric neighbors can play in the achievement of 
development and security. I believe that our Nation has the ability and 
a strong national interest in pursuing a strategy to foster growth and 
stability in this hemisphere. Our Nation can and should take a 
leadership role in facilitating the building up of the capabilities of 
the militaries in this hemisphere to assist their nations in meeting 
the needs of their people, and collectively, in the creation of a 
multinational mechanism for regional stability and security.
  Mr. President, currently, our military is beginning to explore ways 
in which it can assist these nation's governments and peoples. We 
should understand that military organizations can often contribute in 
very tangible and valuable ways to the domestic needs of nations. Let 
me cite a couple of examples to illustrate my point. On Monday, June 
6th of this year, an earthquake that registered 6.4 on the Richter 
scale shook parts of the South American continent. By Friday, June 10, 
rescue workers in Colombia had identified more than 500 dead, as aid 
workers dug through the rubble, debris, and mud to recover lost bodies. 
According to Colombian President Cesar Gaviria, 12 helicopters were 
used to carry out rescue operations in the nation's mountainous 
regions. These helicopters belonged to the police and the army, and 
were normally used for operations involving counterdrug operations. 
According to President Gaviria, the police and the army were the only 
institutions capable of efficiently delivering aid to where it was 
needed.
  This is consistent with our own experience. In the aftermath of 
Hurricane Andrew, our nation had to call on our own military to assist 
in providing relief for the thousands left homeless or without 
utilities or other basic necessities.
  I cite these examples to highlight the productive, non-traditional 
roles that militaries, our own and foreign, historically have and do 
play in assisting citizens when they are faced with non-military 
crises.
  Mr. President, our military personnel have skills which are useful 
for responding to domestic needs both during periods of crisis, and in 
times of peace, as in providing the services associated with the Army 
Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard. Developing this capability in 
Western Hemispheric militaries should be a priority in our military to 
military contacts, including training and military equipment and 
supplies.

  I do not suggest that the armed services should abandon its 
traditional military role. However, I do believe that by fostering 
programs which assist foreign nations to help themselves domestically, 
we can enhance the prospects for democracy, peace and stability in 
those nations.
  And by doing so, we can lessen the possibility of a regional military 
crisis in the Western Hemisphere, especially a crisis driven by an 
assault on a democratically elected government. The very existence of a 
regional capability to defend democracy renders it less likely that 
these nations will be placed in jeopardy.
  Mr. President, I believe that our Nation has the opportunity to 
exercise a leadership role in crating such a regional security 
arrangement. We should use all tools that we have at our disposal--
political, economic, diplomatic, and military--to assist in this 
worthwhile cause of enhancing regional peace, human rights, democracy, 
and stability. I see an opportunity for us to take advantage of our 
current military to military contacts with other nations in Latin 
America to help in this regard. I also believe that our military's 
involvement and visibility in host Latin American nations can also be a 
use vehicle for sharing our tradition, of the military being under 
civilian management, with our Latin American allies.
  Mr. President, it is for these reasons that I am proposing the 
amendment offered today.
  I have worked closely with the distinguished chairman of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee and he has been very supportive of my 
initiative. Additionally, this amendment has the endorsement of the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff who have had the 
opportunity to review it. In fact, the Joint Staff indicate its desire 
to progress in this direction, and that there are already some programs 
established that are leading that way. However, I believe that if we 
are to accomplish these things in a comprehensive and meaningful way, 
it is necessary for us to thoroughly assess where we are and where we 
want to go.
  My amendment calls for such an assessment, as well as a report to the 
House and Senate Armed Services Committees, by the Secretary of Defense 
in consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important and 
much needed legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2216) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2217

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress regarding the violations 
     of genocide in Rwanda, and the need to expedite assistance in 
               protecting populations at risk in Rwanda)

  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. Wellstone, for 
     himself, Mr. Simon, Mr. Moynihan, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. 
     Feingold, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
     Durenberger, and Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2217.

  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.  . GENOCIDE IN RWANDA.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) since April 6, 1994, elements of the Rwandan government 
     forces, and their allied militias, have organized the 
     massacres of more than 200,000 Rwandan civilians, of both 
     Tutsi and Hutu ethnic origin;
       (2) an estimated 2 million Rwandans have been internally 
     displaced, and at least 500,000 have fled to neighboring 
     countries;
       (3) on April 26, 1994, the Senate agreed to Senate 
     Resolution 207, deploring the massacres and urging prompt 
     resolution of this crisis;
       (4) the potential exists for retaliatory acts to be 
     committed by elements within the Rwandan Patriotic Front 
     against civilians;
       (5) on June 8, 1994, the United Nations Security Council 
     expanded and reinforced the United Nations Assistance Mission 
     for Rwanda (UNAMIR) to 5,500 troops with a mandate to protect 
     civilians;
       (6) on June 22, 1994, the United Nations Security Council 
     voted unanimously to support the deployment of military 
     forces from France and Senegal for a temporary operation that 
     would contribute to the security and protection of 
     populations at risk in Rwanda.
       (b) Policy.--The Congress--
       (1) calls upon the President to acknowledge that Acts of 
     genocide have been committed in Rwanda;
       (2) urges the President to support the establishment of an 
     impartial commission of experts to examine and analyze the 
     evidence submitted of breaths of the Convention on Genocide, 
     and other grave violations of international humanitarian law, 
     committed in Rwanda;
       (3) commends the Department of Defense for logistical help 
     already provided and urges the Secrtary of Defense to further 
     expedite all United States military contributions to the 
     humanitarian effort in Rwanda.
       (4) implores the President to take the lead in the 
     international community to expedite commitments of the 
     necessary resources for, and to organize the speedy training 
     and deployment of, the reinforced UNAMIR operation, with the 
     mandate of protecting civilian populations at risk in Rwanda;
       (5) strongly urges the President and the international 
     community to expedite assistance needed for humanitarian 
     operations in Rwanda, and neighboring states, for the support 
     of Rwandan refugees;
       (6) commends France and Senegal for cooperating with the 
     Secretary General towards the fulfillment of the objectives 
     of the United States in Rwanda; and
       (7) urges France and Senegal pursuant to the United Nations 
     Security Council resolution of June 22, 1994, to maintain the 
     humanitarian character of * * *.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment expresses several findings 
about the situation in Rwanda and calls on the President to take 
certain actions.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. We have no objection.


                           genocide in rwanda

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise today to submit an amendment 
expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the violations of 
genocide in Rwanda, and the need to expedite assistance in protecting 
populations at risk in Rwanda.
  I introduce this amendment today because of the mounting humanitarian 
crisis in Rwanda and its impact on neighboring countries. Over 500,000 
refugees have fled Rwanda soil for safe haven and security in Tanzania, 
Uganda, Burundi, and even Zaire. Reports have estimated that 2 million 
Rwandans are internally displaced from the massacres.
  I call upon the President to acknowledge that genocide has been 
committed in Rwanda. And strongly urge the President to work with U.N. 
Secretary General Boutros Ghali, and OAU Secretary General Salim Salim, 
to expedite the commitments of resources to respond to this massive 
tragedy.
  There have been increasing reports of environmental contamination due 
to rotting corpses, and the spread of diseases which have been the 
cause of alarming concern by the international community. Of the 
letters that I receive on the Africa region, correspondence on Rwanda 
has eclipsed that of South Africa and Somalia combined.
  The scale of the massacres (between 200,000-500,000) are such that 
the African continent has never witnessed in such a short period of 
time. Those killed have included: government opponents, human rights 
workers, and members of the Tutsi ethnic group. There is additional 
concern for the long-term political future of this country, if indeed 
the entire Rwandan opposition has been destroyed, political 
reconciliation in this bleeding country will be extremely difficult.
  Finally, the international community, must not ignore its duty to 
assist those that are crying out for help in Rwanda. We must do what we 
can to assist those in need.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2217) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2218

   (Purpose: To ensure effective Congressional oversight of overseas 
military base support carried out by NATO host countries for the United 
    States a payments-in-kind for release of United States overseas 
                 military facilities to such countries)

  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. Lautenberg, 
     for himself, Mr. Sasser, Mr. Pressler, and Mr. Daschle, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2218.

  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 200, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 1017. PAYMENTS-IN-KIND FOR RELEASE OF UNITED STATES 
                   OVERSEAS MILITARY FACILITIES TO NATO HOST 
                   COUNTRIES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States has invested $6,500,000,000 in 
     military infrastructure in North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     (NATO) countries.
       (2) As part of an overall plan to reduce United States 
     troop strength in Europe from 323,432 in 1987 to 100,000 by 
     the end of 1996, the Department of Defense plans to close or 
     reduce United States military presence at 867 military sites 
     overseas.
       (3) Most of the overseas military sites announced for 
     closure are in Europe where the United States has already 
     closed 434 such sites.
       (4) When the United States closes military sites in Europe, 
     the United States brings the military personnel home but 
     leaves buildings, roads, sewers, and other real property 
     improvements behind.
       (5) Some allies have agreed to pay the United States for 
     the residual value of the real property improvements left 
     behind.
       (6) Although the United States military drawdown has been 
     rapid since 1990, European allies have been slow to pay the 
     United States the residual value of the sites released by the 
     United States.
       (7) As of 1994, the United States has recouped only 
     $33,300,000 in cash, and most of that was recovered in 1989.
       (8) Although the United States has released to Germany over 
     60 percent of the military sites planned for closure by the 
     United States in that country and the current value of United 
     States facilities to be returned to the German government is 
     estimated at approximately $2,700,000,000, the German 
     government has budgeted only $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1994 
     for payment of compensation for the United States investment 
     in such improvements.
       (b) Policy.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the President should redouble efforts to recover the 
     value of the United States investment in the military 
     infrastructure of NATO countries;
       (2) the President should enter into negotiations with the 
     government of each NATO host country with a presumption that 
     payments to compensate the United States for the negotiated 
     value of improvements will be made in cash and deposited in 
     the Department of Defense Overseas Military Facility 
     Investment Recovery Account;
       (3) the President should enter into negotiations for 
     payments-in-kind only as a last resort and only after 
     informing the Congress that negotiations for cash payments 
     have not been successful; and
       (4) to the extent that in-kind contributions are received 
     in lieu of cash payments in any fiscal year, the in-kind 
     contributions should be used for projects which are 
     identified as ones of the Department of Defense.
       (c) Requirements and Limitations Relating to Payments-in-
     Kind.--(1) Subsection (e) of section 2921 of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (10 U.S.C. 
     2687 note) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``Negotiations for Payments-
     in-Kind.--'';
       (B) by striking out ``a written notice'' and all that 
     follows and inserting in lieu thereof ``to the congressional 
     defense committees (and one additional copy to each of the 
     Subcommittees on Defense of the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the Senate and the House of Representatives) a written 
     notice regarding the intended negotiations.''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) The notice shall contain the following:
       ``(A) A justification for entering into negotiations for 
     payments-in-kind with the host country.
       ``(B) The types of benefit options to be pursued by the 
     Secretary in the negotiations.
       ``(C) A discussion of the adjustments that are intended to 
     be made in the future-years defense program or in the budget 
     of the Department of Defense for the fiscal year in which the 
     notice is submitted or the following fiscal year in order to 
     reflect costs that it may no longer be necessary for the 
     United States to incur as a result of the payments-in-kind to 
     be sought in the negotiations.''.
       (2) Such section is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(h) Congressional Oversight of Payments-In-Kind.--(1) Not 
     less than 30 days before concluding an agreement for 
     acceptance of military construction or facility improvements 
     as a payment-in-kind, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to Congress a notification on the proposed agreement that 
     contains the following matters:
       ``(A) A description of the military construction project or 
     facility improvement project, as the case may be.
       ``(B) A certification that the project is needed by United 
     States forces.
       ``(C) An explanation of how the project will aid in the 
     achievement of the mission of those forces.
       ``(D) A certification that, if the project were to be 
     carried out by the Department of Defense, appropriations 
     would be necessary for the project and it would be necessary 
     to provide for the project in the next future-years defense 
     program.
       ``(2) Not less than 30 days before concluding an agreement 
     for acceptance of host nation support or host nation payment 
     of operating costs of United States forces as a payment-in-
     kind, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a 
     notification on the proposed agreement that contains the 
     following matters:
       ``(A) A description of each activity to be covered by the 
     payment-in-kind.
       ``(B) A certification that the costs to be covered by the 
     payment-in-kind are included in the budget of one or more of 
     the military departments or that it will otherwise be 
     necessary to provide for payment of such costs in a budget of 
     one or more of the military departments.
       ``(C) A certification that, unless the payment-in-kind is 
     accepted or funds are appropriated for payment of such costs, 
     the military mission of the United States forces with respect 
     to the host nation concerned will be adversely affected.''.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment modifies existing reporting 
requirements on U.S. negotiations for payments-in-kind for overseas 
military facilities to include a discussion of adjustments to the 5-
year defense plan in order to reflect costs the Department may no 
longer be necessary for the U.S. to incur as a result of the payments-
in-kind.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor an amendment 
offered by my good friend from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, dealing 
with the establishment of a Congressional oversight process for 
``Payment-in-Kind'' military construction projects that are accepted in 
lieu of cash for residual value payments for overseas bases disposed of 
by the Department of Defense.
  The Department of Defense has notified the Congress that they have 
concluded negotiations and have agreed to accept over $200 million 
worth of overseas military construction projects paid for by the host 
country in lieu of cash payments of residual value claims. While I 
firmly believe that it should be a policy of this government that 
residual value claims should be paid for in cash, I am also a realist 
and understand that cash payments will not always be forthcoming.
  In the case of Germany, the U.S. has released over 60 percent of the 
military sites planned for closure, with a current estimated residual 
value of $2.7 billion. To date, the U.S. has only received $50 million 
in cash for these properties with little hope of any substantial cash 
payments in the near future. As a matter of fact, the German government 
budgeted only $25 million for payments of residual value claims in 
1994. It is my opinion that while they recognize their legal 
obligations in reference to residual value, there is very little desire 
on the part of the German Federal Government to provide cash payments 
to the United States to meet their obligations. The German budget 
situation is as bad if not worst than ours. There is an ever growing 
resentment among West Germans in reference to the amount of money it is 
costing to reunite with the former East Germany. Taxes are and will 
continue to rise in Germany and the economic slowdown continues into 
its second full year. The German Federal Government is also conducting 
a ``fire sale'' of federal property in both East and West Germany, 
their own version of base closure. Understanding these facts, it is 
very unlikely that the German Federal Government will budget for any 
more than a token amount for residual value cash payments over the next 
few years.
  In this environment, the German Government is trying to satisfy some 
of their residual value payments by paying for ``payment-in-kind'' 
military construction projects for United States forces in Germany. 
This is more palatable to the German Government because there is no 
direct cash payment to the United States and the payment-in-kind 
projects are done by German companies to United States standards.
  I believe we should support these payment in kind projects only as a 
last resort when our demand for cash payments have not and most likely 
will not be met. As this amendment states, cash payments for residual 
value claims should be our policy.
  To date, Mr. President, the Department of Defense has had a free hand 
to negotiate and to agree to payment in kind military construction 
projects, military construction projects on U.S. bases which have had 
no congressional review. Senator Lautenberg's amendment proposes a 
notification procedure by which, I believe, our congressional oversight 
responsibilities are protected while at the same time allowing the 
Department to move forward to optimize our return on our past 
investments in overseas military construction. I commend my colleague 
for his leadership on this issue and his very even handed approach to 
this issue.
  Mr. President, this amendment directs the Department to notify 
Congress at least 30 days prior to concluding an agreement with a 
foreign government for acceptance of military construction facility 
improvements as a payment in kind. As the chairman of the Military 
Construction Subcommittee of Appropriations, I would expect that this 
notification should be in the form of a 30 day notification 
reprogramming action, a procedure which is very familiar to both the 
Department and the Congress.
  Mr. President, I compliment Senator Lautenberg for his diligence on 
this issue that is so important to get our deficit down and to provide 
relief to the nation's taxpayers. He has raised the issue of burden 
sharing and residual value payments time and time again in the Defense 
Appropriations Committee. I know he met with United States Ambassador 
to Germany, Richard Holbrooke, to personally urge the administration to 
do more to secure residual value payments from the allies. He 
successfully fought to preserve the position of Ambassador for Burden 
Sharing.
  Senator Lautenberg recognizes that it's important to keep the Western 
Alliance strong and in tact, but that our allies must assume more of 
the burden for the collective defense. He understands that if our 
economy is to grow and be strong, we need to invest our past resources 
here at home as our allies have been doing in past years.
  His commitment to ensuring that residual value payments will be used 
to offset stated budget priorities and help bring spending and the 
deficit down is admirable. He is absolutely correct. He has been a 
leader in the Senate in efforts to encourage the allies to pay a 
greater share of the defense burden. His contribution to the debate and 
process has been enlightening and constructive.
  Mr. President, I am informed by staff that this amendment has been 
agreed to by the Comptroller of the Department of Defense and is 
acceptable to the committee and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in past years I have offered 
amendments to address the issue of burden sharing--the effort to get 
our allies to pay a greater share of the cost of stationing U.S. troops 
in Europe to defend our common interests. Earlier this year, I 
persuaded the Congress to maintain a Special Ambassador for 
Burdensharing. I have tried to persuade the Congress that our European 
allies ought to pay for 75 percent of what it costs to station our 
troops in Europe to save the American taxpayer $9.6 billion over 5 
years. I will continue that fight.
  Today, however, I want to focus on an area of burden sharing that 
could save the American taxpayers between $1 and $2.7 billion in the 
upcoming years. I want to focus on an aspect of burden sharing that 
sounds technical, but is very tangible. It's called residual value 
payments. That isn't a household world, but it will save U.S. 
households money. Because these residual value payments should result 
in the American people getting the cash that our allies--mostly the 
German Government--owe us.
  Residual value payments refer to the money the United States is 
supposed to get from the German Government and other European allies in 
exchange for the infrastructure we leave behind in Europe as we 
withdraw our troops and turn our bases over to their governments. It 
refers to the billions of dollars they owe the American taxpayer in 
return for the capital we invested in military bases in Europe.
  Let me start, Mr. President, by setting the scene. Throughout the 
cold war, we stationed half a million American troops in Europe. In 
order to make sure that their military and human requirements were met, 
we spent billions of dollars on physical necessities: sewers, roads, 
housing, school buildings, and so on.
  It was a necessary investment, one that the American people 
supported, and paid for. But now, as we withdraw our troops, we are 
leaving those facilities behind. The sewers and roads and houses we 
built for American troops will be there for German or French or Spanish 
or British citizens to use.
  We are not talking about nickels and dimes here, Mr. President. The 
United States invested $6.5 billion on infrastructure in NATO 
countries. But as tensions ease, our deployment has been reduced. We 
plan to cut U.S. troop strength in Europe from 323,432 in 1987 to 
100,000 by the end of 1996. As a consequence, we plan to close or 
reduce our presence at 867 military sites overseas. Most of those sites 
are in Europe, where America has already closed 434 military sites.
  Ever since this draw down started, we have been trying to get our 
allies to pay for the physical structures we are leaving behind.
  We have not been very successful in that effort.
  Despite an investment of $6.5 billion, we have recouped only $33.3 
million in cash, and most of that was recovered in 1989.
  Although we have already turned over 60 percent of the military sites 
scheduled for closure in Germany to that Government, and although the 
value of those sites is estimated to be approximately $2.7 billion, the 
German Government has only budgeted $25 million this year to compensate 
the United States for its investment.
  Equally distressing is the fact that there is an increasing tendency 
for our allies to try to discharge their debt by offering us ``in-kind 
contributions'' rather that cash. In this context, an ``in-kind'' 
contribution means that our allies build something--at their expense--
that otherwise the Pentagon would have built--at our expense--as part 
of our overall security planning. In-kind contributions, while 
appreciated, do not meet our needs as well as cash. We can use cash 
payments to cut defense spending, reduce the deficit, or to lower 
taxes.
  It is a little more complicated to do that with in-kind 
contributions.
  What we need to do is turn these in-kind contributions into cash. I'm 
confident we can do that if we ensure they will be used, instead of tax 
dollars, for projects the Department of Defense has identified through 
the budget process as priorities.
  In-kind contributions will help reduce the deficit if they result in 
reductions in the defense budget. They will help reduce the budget if 
we can get the allies to build a project for ``free'' that we would 
otherwise ask the taxpayers to build.
  But under the current system, we don't know if the projects we accept 
through in-kind contributions are our highest budget priorities. We 
don't know that they are being used to offset costs that the taxpayers 
would otherwise be asked to incur by the Pentagon. They may benefit the 
host nation as much or more than they benefit us. Rather than being 
used to reduce the amount of money the U.S. Government needs to spend, 
in-kind projects are built in addition to those the American people 
have been asked to fund through the budget process.
  That, Mr. President, is the problem. The amendment I am offering 
would turn these in-kind contributions into tangible savings.
  Mr. President, my amendment has three goals. First, it emphasizes 
that we are interested in a more significant cash contribution from the 
allies. In other words, we want them to pay what they owe the American 
taxpayer and to do it in cash.
  Second, if part of the burden sharing responsibility is to be met by 
in-kind contributions, my amendment would require that these offers of 
assistance be used in relation to projects specifically identified as 
priorities in the defense budget. This would relieve pressure on the 
Pentagon budget and the American taxpayer.
  Third, it would guard against potential wasteful spending by 
requiring that only projects approved by Congress can receive in-kind 
contributions.
  Let's look at the first goal: getting more cash.
  Mr. President, I am aware that residual value negotiations are 
difficult. But I also believe the Department of Defense has been too 
willing to abandon negotiations for cash in favor of in-kind 
contributions. I am particularly concerned that the Administration will 
too easily accept in-kind contributions from Germany, where the DOD now 
says our investment on facilities to be turned over is $2.7 billion.
  Germany clearly prefers in-kind contributions. Why wouldn't they? In-
kind contributions create a public works program in Germany, creating 
jobs for their citizens.
  The United States, though, should prefer cash payments. It is 
important to get our deficit down and provide relief to the Nation's 
taxpayers. Cash payments would help bring spending down, reduce the 
deficit, strengthen the economy, and help create jobs at home.
  It is important to keep the Western Alliance strong and in tact, but 
our allies must assume more of the burden for the collective defense. 
While our economy has lagged, and unemployment claims have taken their 
toll on the American people, our allies have been given a free ride by 
our negotiators at the expense of the American people. While 
we continue to pour money into the defense of their nations, they pour 
money into their economies. We need to invest our resources here at 
home as our allies have been doing in past years.

  Our negotiators need to change that. Unfortunately, U.S. negotiators 
have not been tough enough. They continually tell us that German 
economic problems and political considerations require them to settle 
for in-kind contributions.
  That is not consistent with American interests or existing American 
policy. The Pentagon and our negotiators need to be tougher. My 
amendment states that, as a matter of policy, the administration should 
enter negotiations with each host nation with a presumption that 
residual value payments will be made in cash and deposited into the 
Department of Defense Overseas Military Facility Investment Recovery 
Account. My amendment also makes it clear that the administration 
should only enter into negotiations for in-kind payments as a last 
resort and only after negotiations for cash payments have failed.
  The second goal of the amendment is to reduce American spending by 
applying in-kind contributions toward our stated budget requirements. 
If we have to accept in-kind payments, then I want to make sure that, 
rather than meeting the desires of the host nation, they are used to 
pay for projects our military has identified as our own priorities 
through the budget process. That way, we cut spending and the deficit.
  Here is the point. Our allies have already agreed to pay--in-kind--
for the cost of nearly $200 million worth of projects overseas. In my 
view, that means the American taxpayer should spend $200 million less 
as a result. But I don't think they are. Instead, they're being asked 
to spend exactly what would have been proposed had the administration 
not negotiated with the allies in the first place. That should change.
  Under the current system, the Pentagon is not required to return 
directly to the U.S. taxpayers what it gets from other countries. It is 
not required to use the allies' in-kind contributions to bring 
requested spending levels down and reduce the deficit. The net result 
is more spending overall and less control of spending by the Congress. 
What the allies agree to build in Europe through in-kind contributions 
ought to be a substitute for other expenditures the Pentagon will make.
  Mr. President, let me illustrate the problem. Look at overseas 
military construction spending. The administration has submitted a 
budget which asks the Congress to authorize and appropriate $22 million 
for military construction projects for next year. Although residual 
value negotiations should generate hundreds of millions of dollars 
worth of in-kind contributions, the Pentagon is not asking the Germans 
to build the projects already identified as important through the 
budget process. If it did, the Pentagon could save the taxpayers $22 
million.
  It's the same thing with the NATO infrastructure budget request. The 
Pentagon is asking the American taxpayers to spend almost $230 million 
in NATO countries next year. At the same time, it is seeking hundreds 
of millions of dollars worth of in-kind contributions from the allies 
for the debt they owe the American people. Why not let the allies pay 
for the $230 million worth of NATO infrastructure projects rather than 
the American people. Let's let the allies pick up the tab, and give the 
American taxpayer a break.
  Mr. President, this issue and amendment go beyond the budget for 
fiscal year 1995. The administration recently notified the Congress 
that it will seek $200 million from Germany for each of 5 years for 
residual value payments. That's $1 billion. If the administration 
identifies $1 billion worth of projects already included in its future 
year budget plans, and asks the Germans to pay for those projects--as 
my amendment would require--we could save the American taxpayer $1 
billion. That's $1 billion that could be applied toward deficit 
reduction.
  Again, the point is that our allies are apparently not being asked to 
off-set hundreds of millions of dollars worth of requirements the 
administration has asked the Congress to fund in Europe or has 
identified through the budget process. Instead, the allies are being 
asked to pay for construction projects the Pentagon says it needs, but 
have never been identified as priorities in the budget. By requiring 
the Pentagon to ask the allies to cover the cost of projects that have 
been identified in the budget, we could save hundreds of millions of 
dollars--billions down the road.
  My amendment would correct this problem by requiring that in-kind 
contributions be used to offset costs that would otherwise be incurred 
by the Department of Defense and the American taxpayer.
  Under current law, the Pentagon is required to submit ``a written 
notice to the congressional defense committees containing a 
justification for entering into negotiations for payments-in-kind with 
the host country * * *'' before it seeks in-kind contributions. My 
amendment would require the Pentagon, at the time it submits this 
justification, to let us know how the budget will be adjusted to 
reflect costs that may no longer be incurred by the United States as a 
result of the residual value payment-in-kind being sought from the 
allies.
  Thirty days before the Pentagon enters into an agreement with a host 
country to accept a burden sharing contribution in-kind, the amendment 
would require the Pentagon to notify the Congress and to certify that 
tax dollars will no longer be necessary as a result of the allies 
burden sharing in-kind contribution.
  The third goal of the amendment is to protect against wasteful 
spending by requiring congressional approval of these burden sharing 
contributions made in-kind.
  Mr. President, the Congress is required to approve military 
construction projects by law. It is not the role of the German 
Government or any foreign government to set our budget priorities. If 
residual value payments were secured in cash from the allies, the 
Congress would authorize and appropriate those funds. We could help 
bring defense spending down and reduce the deficit by applying those 
dollars to projects included in the administration's budget request. 
The Congress should play the same role in approving military 
construction projects secured as in-kind contributions.
  There has been abuse in the system even with congressional oversight. 
Without congressional oversight and with billions of dollars worth of 
in-kind projects at stake, we do more than invite waste, fraud, and 
abuse--we virtually require it.
  Look at what happened at the Ramstein Air Base in Germany in the late 
1980's. In 1989 the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector 
General found that the Ramstein Air Base had inappropriately used 
taxpayer money at officers' clubs to buy a $6,800 snooker table, to buy 
party equipment--like cocktail, champagne, and wine glasses--and to 
upgrade the officers club.
  I would like to keep Ramstein Air Base in a unique example. I fear it 
will be all too common unless we get control over the use of the 
purposes for which in-kind contributions can be used.
  I am not suggesting that we shouldn't give our military the kind of 
facilities they deserve. That isn't the point. The point is simply that 
even with oversight, fraud can happen. Wasteful spending can slip 
through the cracks. The system can be abused. Imagine what could happen 
with little or no congressional oversight.
  Under my amendment, the Congress will have a greater oversight and 
approval role. Currently, we have none. Thirty days before the Pentagon 
accepts a burden-sharing payment through an in-kind contribution, it 
must submit it to the Congress for review. I expect the notification 
mandated by this amendment to be submitted in a manner consistent with 
current notification reprogramming procedures. So does the Pentagon and 
in the context I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the 
Comptroller be printed in the Record at this point.
  Given this system, we will have at least 30 days to scrutinize the 
project and have the opportunity to disapprove it we do not believe it 
is meritorious or in the national interest.
  Mr. President, we have carried the burden of defending Europe for 
generations. We have created a safe environment that has allowed 
European economies to flourish. Maybe there is no way to get our allies 
to pay as much as they should. But, Mr. President, we must do better.
  We must ensure that burden sharing in-kind payments reduce the 
Federal deficit. We must ensure that burden sharing in-kind payments 
benefit the United States, because our allies sure do benefit. Instead 
of paying us for what they are getting, they are in essence paying us 
for what they are getting, they are in essence paying themselves: they 
are putting their people to work, they are improving structures they 
may ultimately inherit. They are making the decisions, and we are still 
footing the bill.
  Mr. President, the Comptroller of the Department of Defense has 
worked closely with me on this amendment. He has been both constructive 
and cooperative, and I appreciate his input.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It reiterates U.S. 
burden-sharing policies which look to our allies to pay their fair 
share for their defense. That fair share amounts to billions. It 
requires that our Government use contributions by the allies to reduce 
the deficit and bring our spending down. And, it puts us on record 
against potential wasteful spending of billions owed to the American 
people.
  I ask unanimous consent a letter from Mr. Hamre be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                                Comptroller of the


                                        Department of Defense,

                                    Washington, DC, June 30, 1994.
     Hon. Frank Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: We have reviewed the text of your 
     proposed amendment on residual value.
       We believe that this amendment will satisfy the 
     congressional concern that the Department is using residual 
     value settlements to satisfy valid military requirements, 
     while at the same time allowing the Department to obtain the 
     maximum settlement possible. We do believe a relatively minor 
     change, which has been provided to your staff, should be 
     incorporated in your amendment.
       The Department will comply with the notification 
     requirements using procedures similar to those employed for 
     the reprogramming of funds prior to the conclusion of any 
     agreement.
           Sincerely,
                                                    John J. Hamre.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment my 
colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, has offered regarding 
burdensharing. This amendment would ensure effective congressional 
oversight with regard to the transfer of U.S. military bases to our 
NATO allies.
  The United States has invested $6.5 billion in the military 
infrastructure of NATO countries. By the end of 1996, the Department of 
Defense will close or reduce U.S. presence at 867 overseas military 
bases. Most of our bases are located in Europe, where 434 U.S. military 
installations have been already closed.
  When U.S. forces withdraw and U.S. military bases are turned over to 
the governments of host nations, we leave behind vast infrastructures 
consisting of buildings, roads, sewers, and other improvements. Through 
a series of negotiations conducted with our NATO allies, some have 
agreed to pay the United States for the value of what we leave behind. 
The key words in these negotiations has been ``residual value,'' 
referring to the money the United States is supposed to receive in 
exchange for the infrastructure given to other governments. To date, 
our allies have been slow in providing residual value payments. We have 
recouped only $33.3 million in cash. Germany, for example, will assume 
$2.7 billion worth of infrastructure, but has budgeted only $25 million 
to pay for these assets.
  This amendment urges the President to redouble efforts to recover the 
value of U.S. investment in the military infrastructure of NATO 
countries. It also supports a negotiation process that hopefully would 
result in a greater number of residual payments being made in cash 
rather than in in-kind payments. Additionally, this amendment says 
negotiations for payments in kind should be entered into only as a last 
resort and only after informing Congress. Should in-kind contributions 
be received as a substitute for cash payments, they should offset costs 
that otherwise would be incurred by the Department of Defense for 
overseas support.
  The crux of this amendment is that it encourages our NATO allies to 
repay the United States for completed projects and remaining U.S.-built 
infrastructure in allied countries. As U.S. troops leave allied 
nations, it is important that our Government receive compensation for 
the completed projects. It is a question of fairness. These countries 
will continue to benefit from the use of these assets long after the 
U.S. presence is gone.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2218) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2219

     (Purpose: To provide $15,000,000 for procurement of aircraft 
survivability equipment for the Army and to reduce the amount provided 
                   for C-135 aircraft modifications)

  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. Dodd, for 
     himself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. D'Amato, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2219.

  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 14, line 11, strike out ``$1,058,781,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$1,073,781,000''.
       On page 15, line 9, strike out ``$6,602,994,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$6,587,995,000''.

  Mr. NUNN. This amendment authorizes $15 million to procure additional 
receivers for Army attack helicopters that warn when hostile forces 
have pointed a laser designator or rangefinder at the helicopter.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lieberman and Senator 
D'Amato, I offer an amendment to provide $15 million for procurement of 
laser warning systems for self-defense of Army helicopters, such as the 
Apache, the Cobra, and the OH-58.
  The Army has been forced to terminate procurement of this important 
program due to budget constraints, leaving the Army with a shortfall of 
several hundred devices. These receivers not only warn helicopter 
pilots when hostile forces have aimed a laser designator or rangefinder 
on them; they also can be used in training and exercises to score hits 
and misses by other forces using harmless laser devices in lieu of 
actual weapons.
  As an offset, the amendment would reduce the amount authorized for C-
135 modifications. The Air Force recently terminated a KC-135 
multipoint refueling system, making available at least $15 million.
  I thank the Committee for their interest and cooperation on this 
matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2219) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2220

     (Purpose: To authorize funding for the small business defense 
        conversion program of the Small Business Administration)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and the Senator from 
Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers, and others. I ask that it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mrs. Feinstein, 
     for herself, Mr. Inouye, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Pell, Mr. Wofford, Mr. Kerry, 
     Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Wofford, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2220.

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

  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 47, after line 20, insert the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 235. SMALL BUSINESS DEFENSE CONVERSION GUARANTEED LOANS.

       (a) Authorizations.--Section 20 of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 631 note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (l), as added by section 405(3) of the 
     Small Business Credit and Business Opportunity Enhancement 
     Act of 1992--
       (A) by striking ``(l) There'' and inserting ``(3) There'' 
     and indenting appropriately; and
       (B) by striking ``subsection (k)'', and inserting 
     ``paragraphs (1) and (2)'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (k), as added by section 
     405(3) of the Small Business Credit and Business Opportunity 
     Act of 1992, as subsection (l);
       (3) in subsection (l), as so redesignated, by inserting 
     after paragraph (1), the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) The Administration is authorized to make not more 
     than $1,000,000,000 in loans on a guaranteed basis, in 
     accordance with section 7(a)(21), such amount to remain 
     available until expended.'';
       (4) in subsection (n)--
       (A) by striking ``(n) There'' and inserting ``(3) There'' 
     and indenting appropriately; and
       (B) by striking ``subsection (m)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraphs (1) and (2)'';
       (5) in subsection (m), by inserting after paragraph (1), 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) The Administration is authorized to make not more 
     than $1,000,000,000 in loans on a guaranteed basis, in 
     accordance with section 7(a)(21), such amount to remain 
     available until expended.'';
       (6) by redesignating subsection (o) as subsection (n); and
       (7) in subsection (p)--
       (A) by striking ``(p) There'' and inserting ``(2) There'', 
     and indenting appropriately; and
       (B) by striking ``subsection (o)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (1)''.
       (b) Technical Clarification.--Section 7(a)(21)(A) of the 
     Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(21)(A)) is amended by 
     striking ``under the'' and inserting ``on a guaranteed basis 
     under the''.
       (c) Job Creation and Community Benefit.--Section 7(a)(21) 
     of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(21)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) In providing assistance under this paragraph, the 
     Administration shall develop procedures to ensure, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, that such assistance is used for 
     projects that have substantial potential for stimulating new 
     economic activity in communities most impacted by reductions 
     in Federal defense expenditures.''.
       (d) Authority to Transfer Appropriations.--Of the amount 
     authorized to be appropriated pursuant to section 201(4), 
     $27,400,000 may be transferred by the Secretary of Defense, 
     to the extent provided in an act appropriation funds for the 
     Department of Defense, to the Small Business Administration 
     for the purpose of providing loan guarantees under section 
     7(a)(21)(A) of the Small Business Act, such amount to remain 
     available until expended.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment would establish a loan 
guarantee program to guarantee loans to small businesses that have been 
DOD contractors and have suffered a substantial reduction in revenues 
due to reductions in defense spending. The program will require $25 
million appropriation to back up these loans.
  I might add that this program was authorized in our original defense 
conversion legislation and had not been funded. So it is the hope the 
appropriators will see fit to fund this program this year.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2220) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2221

(Purpose: To authorize funding to be made available for high resolution 
             imaging of space objects using excimer lasers)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of 
Senators Kennedy, Bingaman, and Domenici.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia (Mr. Nunn), for Mr. Kennedy, for 
     himself, Mr. Bingaman and Mr. Domenici, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2221.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 28, below line 22, add the following:

     SEC. 204. HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGING.

       Of the funds authorized to be appropriated pursuant to 
     section 201(3), $10,000,000 shall be available for high 
     resolution imaging of space objects using excimer lasers.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my amendment would authorize $10 million 
for an Air Force program that is developing high resolution optical 
techniques, using excimer lasers, for space object imaging 
applications. The purpose of the technology is to create finely 
detailed images of satellites from the ground.
  This technology has both defense and civilian applications. For 
defense purposes, the images can be used to determine the 
characteristics of hostile satellites, or to monitor the condition of 
our own satellites. On the civilian side, the technology can be used to 
inventory and monitor space debris and other objects in orbit that 
increasingly pose threats to our satellites and spacecraft. The next 
step in future years will be to develop high-power laser transmitters 
for imaging of more distant objects.
  The excimer laser program is conducted by the Phillips Laboratory in 
New Mexico, which has developed an Advanced Imaging Testbed to 
demonstrate the technology on objects in low earth orbit. A small 
portion of the project is also carried out by Textron Defense Systems 
in Everett, Massachusetts.
  I understand that this amendment has been accepted by both sides. I 
want to thank the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the 
Ranking Member for their cooperation on this amendment. I also want to 
thank Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici for their support for this 
amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment authorizes $10 million to 
continue development of a laser that can generate detailed images of 
satellites and other objects in space.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2221) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2222

    (Purpose: To require a GAO evaluation of the Uniformed Services 
                   University of the Health Sciences)

   Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Feingold, and I ask that it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia (Mr. Nunn), for Mr. Feingold, for 
     himself, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Mathews and Mr. Grassley, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2222.

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

       On page 186, add the following between lines 14 and 15:
       ``(c) Evaluation of the Uniformed Services University of 
     the Health Sciences.
       (1) GAO Report. By June 1, 1995, the Comptroller General of 
     the United States shall submit to the appropriate Committees 
     of the Congress a detailed report that--
       i. compares the cost of obtaining physicians from the 
     Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences with 
     other sources of military physicians;
       ii. assesses the retention rate needs of the military for 
     physicians in relation to the respective retention rates of 
     Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences 
     physicians and physicians obtained from other sources and the 
     factors which contribute to retention rates among military 
     physicians obtained from all sources;
       iii. reviews the quality of the medical education provided 
     at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences 
     with the quality of medical education provided by other 
     sources of military physicians;
       iv. reviews the overall issue of the special needs of 
     military medicine and how these special needs are being met 
     by Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences 
     physicians and physicians obtained from other sources;
       v. assesses the extent to which the Uniformed Services 
     University of the Health Sciences has responded to the 1990 
     report of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense 
     and make recommendations as to resolution of any continuing 
     issues relating to management and internal fiscal controls of 
     the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, 
     including issues relating to the Henry M. Jackson Foundation 
     for the Advancement of Military Medicine identified in the 
     1990 report; and,
       vi. makes such recommendations as the Comptroller General 
     deems appropriate.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment calls for a 
comprehensive, independent review by the General Accounting Office on a 
broad range of issues regarding the Uniformed Services University of 
the Health Sciences. I am pleased to be joined in offering this 
amendment by Senators Bumpers, Mathews, and Grassley.
  I became involved in this issue when I included a proposal to phase-
out the university as part of an 82 point deficit reduction plan I 
proposed during my campaign for the Senate in 1992. Certainly, that 
proposal was not the first to include such a provision, nor has it been 
the last. Proposals to close down the school have been part of the 
Grace Commission recommendations, the Vice President's National 
Performance Review, the Congressional Budget Office's spending and 
revenue options proposals, the Kerrey-Graham-Brown deficit reduction 
proposal, and the package of spending cuts put together by a group of 
Senators led by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry].
  In addition, Mr. President, the House of Representatives has voted to 
close down the school on a number of occasions.
  In the Senate, the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford] tried to 
terminate the program 17 years ago. And this session I introduced 
legislation, S. 1562, to phase out the program, and I had considered 
pursuing termination of the program as part of the Defense 
appropriations bill later this year.
  The Armed Services Committee, however, included language in the 
Defense authorization bill which requires, in effect, that the 
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences be kept open 
indefinitely.
  Mr. President, I do not consider that language to be good public 
policy. To provide a kind of immortality to any program, effectively 
shielding it from legitimate scrutiny on a reasonably regular basis, is 
inappropriate.
  At the same time, this program has been controversial from its 
inception, and I recognize that it is unfair to the school, to try to 
do its job, particularly in trying to recruit and retain quality 
faculty, under the atmosphere of uncertainty that has been generated by 
the continual efforts to shut the program down. Constantly being on the 
chopping block is not beneficial to anyone and I recognize that this 
was much of the motivation behind the Armed Services Committee 
language.
  Many of us feel, however, there is a need for a comprehensive, 
independent review by the General Accounting Office of the institution 
on a broad range of issues. There has been no GAO review of the school 
since 1976--18 years ago--and in their own 1990 review of USUHS, the 
Department of Defense Inspector General specifically noted that though 
a number of cost related studies had been done, no studies had reviewed 
non-cost related issues, such as quality. The IG report said:

       * * * Future studies should consider these and other 
     external variables to ensure a more comprehensive and 
     conclusive finding that will enable the DOD and Congress to 
     correctly assess the future mission and role of the USUHS in 
     meeting the military health care requirements.

  Mr. President, in this spirit, I am offering an amendment to have GAO 
carry out a thorough review of all issues surrounding USUHS. I will 
await the results of that study, and am willing to abide by GAO's 
evaluation.
  I very much appreciate the cooperation of the proponents of the 
program, both on and off the Armed Services Committee, in working to 
perfect this amendment so that we can obtain the kind of independent, 
comprehensive evaluation that will help guide our decisions regarding 
this program. I recognize fully the importance on all sides of having 
this study done in a fair and careful manner.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for 
the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences [USUHS]. I am 
pleased that my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold has agreed 
to drop his proposal to strike the strong language that the Armed 
Services Committee included in the bill before us.
  Both the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and the Armed Services 
Subcommittee on Force Requirement and Personnel held hearings on this 
matter. Through the courtesy of my colleagues, Senator Inouye and 
Senator Shelby, I testified at both hearings which I believe 
established a very strong record in favor of the school.
  I don't know if my friend from Wisconsin has had an opportunity to 
review the testimony from those hearings but I would certainly 
encourage him to do so.
  Chairman Inouye heard from the President and dean of the university 
as well as several graduates of USUHS. Chairman Shelby took testimony 
from the Surgeon Generals from each of the three Services, several 
widely recognized medical educators, and Everett Alvarez, the 
distinguished former POW who now chairs the university's board of 
regents.
  Mr. President, in my view, there is absolutely no justification for 
closing the only medical school in the United States that trains 
doctors to practice military medicine.
  I want to commend the committee and my friend from Georgia, Senator 
Nunn, for including strong language in the bill before us that states 
that the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences may not 
be closed.
  In Section 922, the bill states:
  ``The Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences may not be 
closed.''

And goes on to say:

  ``It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of Defense 
should budget for the ongoing operation of the Uniformed Services 
University of the Health Sciences as an institution of professional 
education that is vital to the education and training each year of 
significant numbers of personnel of the uniformed services for careers 
as uniformed services health care providers.''
  This language parallels the findings of the two Senate hearings that 
USUHS should not be closed. As I have stated before, the closure idea 
is a proposals in search of a rationale.
  Mr. President, this university is named the F. Edward Herbert School 
of Medicine in honor of our former colleague whose vision led to its 
establishment in 1972. Since that time, almost 2,000 regular medical 
officers have graduated from the university. In addition to the time 
these officers spend in internships and residencies, they serve an 
obligation of 7 years in their respective service.
  The university has done an extraordinary job in instilling a sense of 
commitment and duty in its graduates. More than 95 percent of those 
graduates are still serving today in the Air Force, the Army, the Navy, 
or the Public Health Service.
  Also notable is the fact that, of those who have completed their 
required commitment and could leave for private practice, 89 percent 
continue to serve our Nation. This contrasts sharply with retention 
rates under 50 percent for the Health Professions Scholarship Program, 
the alternative source of military doctors.
  These remarkable statistics reflect one of the goals of USUHS. These 
students are committed to a medical career in the military rather than 
merely repaying a required obligation. They take pride in serving our 
Nation.
  During a recent visit to USUHS, I had the opportunity to talk with a 
number of current students. Mr. President I cannot describe the high 
level of enthusiasm that these young men and women have for serving 
their Nation. As soon as you sit down with them, you sense that these 
are top-notch students who will be a tremendous asset to our Armed 
Forces and the Public Health Service.
  Approximately 50 percent of applicants have some type of prior 
military experience. After 4 years at the university, a remarkable 43 
percent of graduates have chosen primary care in lieu of assignments 
considered more desirable my most medical school graduates.
  The number of students pursuing specialized degrees such as master's 
degrees in public health and tropical medicine is further evidence that 
these students are interested in long-term service to our Nation.
  Mr. President, these officers are trained to serve both in time of 
war and disaster.
  In addition to military medicine, the curriculum at USUHS includes a 
heavy emphasis on disaster medicine, tropical medicine, preventive 
medicine, and on survival in extreme environments. Graduates of this 
university are serving with distinction around the globe and played an 
important role in our Desert Shield deployment.
  It is imperative that our Armed Services have men and women trained 
in these specialty areas. In their fourth year, all students complete 
training in advanced trauma life support, advanced cardiac life 
support, and a major field exercise. These additional requirements are 
one reason why the USUHS curriculum is about 25 weeks longer than that 
of the typical medical school.
  It is this important training that prepares USUHS graduates to be the 
leaders of the military health corps and the Public Health Service.
  While the majority of physicians needed by the services can be 
recruited through the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship 
Program, USUHS provides, at a reasonable cost, a cadre of physician-
leaders who are highly educated in military medical issues.
  Only about 10 percent of the medical officer corps are USUHS 
graduates but it is these doctors who are best prepared to provide 
leadership among the medical ranks.
  I understand that the Federal Government spends $98,396 on a 
scholarship program student for each year of obligated service. In 
comparison, USUHS students receive an equal or better level of 
education for $66,212 per year of obligated service.
  Estimates released last November 15 by the Congressional Budget 
Office suggest that the potential savings from closing the university 
are greatly overstated. Instead of the $350 million listed in the 
National Performance Review proposal, CBO estimates that 5-year savings 
would total about $100 million.
  Even if other medical schools could and would assume the task of 
providing the specialized education now available through USUHS, there 
are serious questions about whether or not any savings would be 
achieved in the long run.
  Complementing the university's emphasis on training doctors is an 
extensive program to provide specialized medical support training to 
law enforcement officers, firefighters, and rescue personnel. These 
programs have been successfully run with Federal, State, and local 
governments across the country.
  USUHS medical expertise has proved important at several recent crises 
including the riots in Los Angeles and the tragedy at Waco, TX. The 
University's Counter Narcotics Tactical Operations Medical Support 
Program has provided medical support training to over 1,000 personnel 
and is widely regarded as a national standard for tactical emergency 
services.

  As I testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee and the 
Senate Appropriations Committee, I am concerned that elimination of the 
University would be a step backwards in the quality of care offered to 
our Armed Services.
  I want to read for my colleagues a list of other Nations that 
currently have Government-run medical schools.
  Algeria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Greece, India, 
Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Pakistan, the People's 
Republic of China, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Taiwan, and Turkey. 
They have recognized the need for specialized training in military 
medicine and we must continue to do the same in the United States.
  USUHS enjoys strong support in the medical and military communities. 
An impressive array of organizations have publicly advocated its 
continued operation including: American Academy of Family Practice; 
American Association of Academic Health Centers; American College of 
Physicians; American College of Surgeons; The American Legion; American 
Medical Association; American Veterinary Medical Association; 
Association of American Medical Colleges; Association of the United 
States Army; National Association for Uniformed Services; Organizations 
of Academic Family Medicine; Reserve Officers Association; The Military 
Coalition; and The Retired Officers Association.
  Mr. President, I invite all of my colleagues to go out to USUHS, tour 
the facility, and meet with faculty and students. I am confident that 
they would be impressed with the quality of the students and the 
outstanding work which is being done there.
  There is a continuing role for USUHS even in our changing defense 
landscape. The hearing record demonstrates the need to retain the 
university.
  I want to close by again commending Chairman Nunn and the members of 
the Armed Services Committee for their strong support for USUHS. The 
bill reported by the committee wisely rejects the proposals to close 
this national resource and restores funding cuts that were proposed by 
the administration. I thank all members of the committee and the Senate 
for supporting this fine institution.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I look forward to an unbiased and 
objective report undertaken by GAO on the Uniformed Services University 
of the Health Sciences [USUHS]. This report should highlight features 
such as cost, quality of the program, and retention rates of 
graduates--all of which are appropriate areas for inquiry and important 
aspects of any medical training program. Additionally, it is hoped that 
when this study is performed, GAO will take into consideration the 
following statistics regarding retention rates comparing our military 
academies to USUHS graduates:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          U.S.          
                                       Naval      AF      Mil           
             Grad. year               Academy  Academy  Academy   USUHS 
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1980................................     50.9     47.4     38.6     89.7
1981................................     50.5     54.5     42.9     92.4
1982................................     52.4     57.5     39.0     98.1
1983................................     58.3     59.2     36.5     94.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  These statistics are striking. USUHS, the only medical school which 
trains physicians and nurses in the particular aspects of military 
medicine, has produced high quality military physicians whose special 
qualifications play an important part in fulfilling our promise to 
those we send into battle. In fact, it remains almost unbelievable that 
these physicians chose to remain in the military and to stand in harm's 
way when they could easily lead a more comfortable life outside of the 
military. USUHS graduates are truly extraordinary people--a rare breed 
that we are so fortunate to have in the defense of our Nation. Any 
physician will tell you that there is a profound difference between a 
regular physician and a military physician. A military physician must 
be in prime physical condition, must not only know medicine but must 
know military routine and the special aspects of military medicine as 
well, and must be able to withstand unusual circumstances. I invite 
those doing the study and my colleagues to review the compelling 
testimony at a recent hearing before the Subcommittee on Defense 
Appropriations of several USUHS graduates including one who was held 
captive as a prisoner of war in Desert Storm--this is the best example 
of the purpose of USUHS and its unique contributions.

  We have said to our fighting forces that we will care for them on the 
battlefield; we have said to the soldier when you are at war, we will 
care for your loved ones; we have said to the sailor and the airman, 
your spouse and children will receive the best of medical care while 
you are away. Consequently, as we reduce the size of the military and 
its supporting infrastructure in proportion to the threats we now face, 
we must not forget the human side of the equation.
  Today as we find ourselves once again in the throes of a military 
drawdown, we are faced with similar problems and situations that were 
prevalent in the 1970's. At that time, there were many in the Congress 
and throughout this land who were quite concerned with the condition of 
our military. That is when words such as ``hollow army'' were first 
heard. During that period, over one-third of our naval vessels were 
considered not ready for combat, not because the vessels were old and 
decrepit, some were brand new. They could not be sent into combat 
because the personnel necessary to man those ships were not combat 
ready. In recruiting, we were having a terrible time. A study was 
conducted and it was shown that we were in a very dangerous position, 
very simply because we did not have adequate medical support. We were 
not able to recruit and retain physicians. The problem was not that 
simple. The report showed that we could not go into any war because we 
did not have the appropriate medical personnel. How could we send men 
and women into combat without medical forces? As a result, in 1972 the 
Congress passed overwhelmingly the Uniformed Services Health 
Professional Revitalization Act which established two programs for 
military medical education: one is the scholarship program and the 
other is the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences 
[USUHS].

  Since its inception in 1976, the Uniformed Services University of the 
Health Sciences has served to provide our Nation with military 
physicians and scientists who can readily adapt to adverse conditions 
as evidenced in our recent experience with Desert Storm. USUHS provides 
our Nation with a cadre of career oriented medical officers trained and 
educated to both practice military medicine and serve as uniformed 
medical leaders. I reemphasize the term ``military physician'', not 
just ``physician in the military''. There is a definite qualitative 
difference. USUHS is the only resource in the country that teaches the 
unique discipline of military medicine. Students receive a strong 
concentration in public health, preventive medicine and leadership 
skills as well as combat casualty care, disaster medicine, and tropical 
medicine which prepares them for a unique role--rapid overseas 
deployment. This type of unique preparation could mean the difference 
between life and death for any serviceman.

  The decision to close this fine military medical school for economic 
reasons could result in being very costly to us all. The tunnel vision 
approach being applied to the closure of USUHS is based solely on per 
capita cost. Attention has not been paid to the ``value added'' of 
USUHS graduates and their services. In fact, from a total of 1,836 
USUHS graduates, 97 percent remain on active duty and provide valuable 
staffing in our military clinics and hospitals.
  Graduates of USUHS are not only trained in the specifics of military 
medicine, but are men and women who usually make the military their 
career, men and women who serve longer than non USUHS educated 
physicians. Studies indicate that 41 percent of USUHS graduates will 
remain in the military until retirement. This is an extraordinary 
statistic compared to the 6 percent of scholarship program graduates 
who choose to do the same.
  Whatever the reasoning which has led to this attempt to once again 
resurrect this issue to challenge the existence of our Nation's only 
Federal medical school, we must stand behind Congress' initial sound 
decision to create a medical school dedicated to medical readiness and 
service to our Nation. I ask for your strong support to protect the 
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences from those who do 
not fully recognize the worth of our military medical school.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment would require the General 
Accounting Office to report not later than June 1, 1995, regarding the 
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. The report will 
address the cost of obtaining physicians, the quality of medical 
education at the university, the special needs of military medicine, 
and the university's response to a previous DOD IG report.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. There is no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2222) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2223

(Purpose: To limit joint development of an advanced threat radar jammer 
   with a foreign government, other than a major ally of the United 
  States, or with an entity controlled by a foreign government, other 
                           than such an ally)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Feinstein and Senator Bingaman and ask that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mrs. Feinstein, 
     for herself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Roth and Mr. Sasser, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2223.

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

       On page 59, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 250. ADVANCED THREAT RADAR JAMMER.

       (a) Limitation Regarding Joint Development Program With 
     Certain Foreign Entities.--The Secretary of Defense may not 
     negotiate or enter into any agreement with, nor accept funds 
     from, a foreign government or an entity controlled by a 
     foreign government for a joint program for the development of 
     an advanced threat radar jammer for combat helicopters until 
     30 days after the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Army, and the 
     Director of the Defense Security Assistance Agency, conducts 
     a comprehensive review of the program and submits a report on 
     the results of that review to the congressional defense 
     committees.
       (b) Matters Covered by Review and Report.--The matters 
     relating to the program referred to in subsection (a) that 
     are required to be covered by the review and report are as 
     follows:
       (1) The legal basis for seeking for the program funds that 
     are neither authorized to be appropriated nor appropriated.
       (2) The consistency of the program with the Department of 
     Defense policy that no foreign military sale of a defense 
     system, and no commitment to foreign military sale of a 
     defense system, be made before operational test and 
     evaluation of the system is successfully completed and the 
     Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology has 
     specifically approved the system for sale to a foreign 
     government.
       (3) The mission requirement for an advanced threat radar 
     jammer for combat helicopters.
       (4) An assessment of each threat for which an advanced 
     threat radar jammer would be developed, particularly with 
     regard to each threat to a foreign country with which the 
     United States would jointly develop an advanced threat radar 
     jammer.
       (5) The potential for sensitive electronic warfare 
     technology to be made available to potential adversaries of 
     the United States as a result of United States participation 
     in the program.
       (6) The availability of other nondevelopmental items and 
     less sophisticated technologies for countering the emerging 
     radar detection threats to United States combat helicopters 
     and combat helicopters of United States allies.
       (7) A capability assessment of similar technologies 
     available from other foreign countries and the consequences 
     of proliferation of such technologies in regions of potential 
     conflict.
       (c) Inapplicability to Major Allies of the United States.--
     This section does not apply with respect to a major ally of 
     the United States.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``entity controlled by a foreign government'' 
     includes--
       (A) any domestic or foreign organization or corporation 
     that is effectively owned or controlled by a foreign 
     government; and
       (B) any individual acting on behalf of a foreign 
     government,

     as determined by the Secretary of Defense. Such term does not 
     include an organization or corporation that is owned, but is 
     not controlled, either directly or indirectly, by a foreign 
     government if the ownership of that organization or 
     corporation by that foreign government was effective before 
     October 23, 1992.
       (2) The term ``major ally of the United States'' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 2350a(i)(2) of title 10, 
     United States Code.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and 
Senators Bingaman, Roth, and Sasser, to offer an amendment that would 
require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on a very 
important issue that involves not only congressional oversight of a 
defense program, but also proliferation concerns and stability in the 
Middle East--a Department of Defense proposal to codevelop the Advanced 
Threat Radar Jammer [ATRJ] with the United Arab Emirates [UAE].
  I understand that the U.S. Army and Defense Security Assistance 
Agency [DSAA] are prepared to offer the UAE a proposal to codevelop the 
ATRJ--the Army's next generation radar receiver and jamming system. 
Under this proposal, the UAE would provide funding for research and 
development of the ATRJ and then be allowed to purchase the 
sophisticated systems for installation on recently acquired AH-64 
Apache helicopters.
  I and many of my colleagues are concerned about this proposal for 
several reasons. First, this agreement would establish an arrangement 
wherein a foreign nation would fund a U.S. defense program in an 
apparent circumvention of the normal authorization and appropriations 
process, and beyond the effective oversight of Congress. The Congress 
has repeatedly voiced its objections to executive branch efforts to 
solicit funds in support of U.S. foreign policy or defense initiatives 
that were not first made subject to the scrutiny of the legislative 
branch.
  Second, I believe this agreement would undermine the President's own 
efforts to constrain weapons proliferation. It provides the UAE with a 
quantum improvement in its war fighting capability which could provoke 
other hostile nations to seek advanced systems to counter the new 
perceived UAE threat.
  Third, this arrangement would violate a departmental policy, recently 
reaffirmed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense on March 15, 1994, which 
states that ``the Department of Defense remains committed to the policy 
of no foreign military sales or commitments for foreign sales of 
defense systems prior to the successful completion of OT&E [operational 
test and evaluation], and the specific approval of the Under Secretary 
of Defense. This policy remains in effect today.''
  Finally, I am deeply concerned that if this new weapons system were 
introduced into a volatile region and ever fell into the hands of a 
U.S. adversary, its state-of-the-art jamming capability could pose a 
serious threat to U.S. forces. When fully operational, this system will 
be capable of friend or foe identification, pulsed radar jamming, 
extreme radio frequency sensitivity, and processing capability, as well 
as multiband situational awareness.
  I see little justification for proceeding with an arrangement that is 
fraught with so many questionable funding practices and policy 
implications. While I and many of my colleagues believe that the United 
States shares an interest in the security of the UAE, the ATRJ would 
provide a level of jamming capability significantly greater than that 
processed by many of our close NATO and major non-NATO allies. The 
possible threats to the UAE are no greater than those faced by other 
nations in the region, none of which have been asked to participate in 
the ATRJ program.
  I have already contacted the Defense Department on this issue, 
expressing my concern over the codevelopment of the ATRJ with the UAE. 
Unfortunately, I found the response to my concerns to be inadequate.
  Therefore, I have offered this amendment that directs the Department 
of Defense not to proceed with the codevelopment of the ATRJ with any 
foreign entity until the Department has fully consulted with Congress, 
and evaluated both legal and policy implications. The amendment exempts 
our NATO and major non-NATO allies.
  I urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment and I 
urge its adoption. I ask unanimous consent that my previous 
correspondences with DOD be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, April 13, 1994.
     Lt. Gen. Thomas Rhame,
     Director, Defense Security Assistance Agency, Washington, DC.
       Dear General Rhame: I am concerned that the Department of 
     Defense is considering a co-development program with the 
     United Arab Emirates (UAE) for the Army's Advanced Threat 
     Radar Jammer (ATRJ). This action follows the sale of AH-64 
     Apache helicopters to the UAE.
       Apparently, the UAE would provide funding for research and 
     development of the ATRJ and then be allowed to purchase the 
     sophisticated systems for installation on the recently 
     acquired Apache helicopters. Specifically, I am concerned 
     that the proposed program could have serious implications for 
     U.S. national security by providing the UAE with an ultra-
     sophisticated capability to detect enemy radar and equip UAE 
     helicopters with an advanced, high-powered radar jamming 
     system.
       This precedent may represent a major departure from U.S. 
     Middle East policy and our commitment to Israel's qualitative 
     edge in its national defense. To my knowledge, ATRJ 
     technology has not been offered to other U.S. allies and 
     would likely surpass similar technologies currently employed 
     by other countries. By allowing the UAE to assist with 
     research and development costs, the Defense Department may be 
     granting a foreign country access to the most advanced 
     version of a weapon system used by U.S. forces. In addition, 
     the ATRJ co-development program may cause a new round of high 
     technology proliferation in a very volatile region of the 
     world.
       I urge you to fully investigate the ATRJ co-development 
     program, and carefully consider the implications to U.S. 
     national security and U.S. Middle East policy. Thank you for 
     your attention to this matter and I look forward to your 
     reply.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                 Dianne Feinstein,
                                                     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____



                           Defense Security Assistance Agency,

                                     Washington, DC, May 10, 1994.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: This responds to your April 13, 
     1994, letter concerning the electronic warfare (EW) suite for 
     the United Arab Emirates' (UAE) AH-64 Apache helicopter 
     program.
       The UAE has for some time been considering several U.S. and 
     foreign EW systems for its AH-64 Apache helicopters. The 
     Department of Defense and the UAE are exploring a two-phased 
     approach under which the UAE would purchase a standard U.S. 
     Army EW suite for its short-term needs, with a possible 
     cooperative development program providing hardware for its 
     long-term requirements. These discussions are still at an 
     early stage, and no final decisions have been reached.
       It is premature to speculate about the configuration and 
     capabilities of any hardware that may result from a 
     cooperative program several years hence, though it assuredly 
     would not exceed the capabilities of equipment in use with 
     our own forces. Should the United States and the UAE agree on 
     such a program, you can be assured that all sensitive 
     technologies would be protected and precautions taken against 
     unauthorized disclosures.
       The central objectives of our security assistance programs 
     throughout the region are to enhance the self-defense 
     capabilities of our friends and allies and to build the 
     interoperability that will enable us to fight together should 
     it ever become necessary. If successfully implemented, this 
     program will fulfill both these objectives by providing UAE 
     aircraft with a defensive system that will be interoperable 
     with U.S. systems and supportable through the U.S. logistics 
     system.
       I can assure you that our commitment to Israel's security 
     remains unshakable. We would not even be considering such a 
     program with the UAE if we believed that it would affect 
     Israel's qualitative edge, which we are committed to 
     maintaining. Please contact me if I can provide any 
     additional information.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Thomas G. Rhame,
                                 Lieutenant General, USA Director.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Feinstein 
and several other Senators in offering this amendment, which would put 
a halt to the Army's efforts to win funding from a foreign government 
which is not a NATO or major non-NATO ally to undertake an advanced 
threat radar jammer program until a series of questions are answered by 
the Secretary of Defense.
  We are deeply disturbed by Army attempts to seek funding in this 
manner for the development of an advanced threat radar jammer [ATRJ] 
for combat helicopters outside the normal budget processes. We 
understand that the Army intends to share this sensitive, state-of-the-
art technology with nations that are neither members of NATO nor major 
non-NATO allies and may be pursuing this effort outside the 
congressional authorization and appropriate processes.
  We are aware that the Army is looking to a foreign government to 
provide research and development funding for the ATRJ. In exchange, the 
Army would permit the purchase of the system for installation in that 
country's recently acquired AH-64 Apache helicopters. When fully 
operational, the ATRJ system is intended to be capable of 
identification of friend or foe, pulsed radar jamming, extreme RF 
sensitivity and processing capability as well as multiband situational 
awareness.
  The Senators offering this amendment are disturbed by this 
arrangement for several reasons:
  First, this proposed agreement appears to establish an arrangement 
wherein a foreign nation, which is neither a NATO ally nor a major non-
NATO ally, is funding a United States defense program in an apparent 
circumvention of the normal authorization and appropriations process 
and beyond the effective oversight of Congress.
  Second, this proposed agreement appears to undermine the 
administration's efforts to constrain proliferation of sensitive 
technologies. Currently, Apache helicopters available for sale to 
foreign countries come equipped with a standard Foreign Military Sales 
[FMS] variant APR-39 threat warning receiver. The proposed ATRJ would 
represent a significant improvement in critical electronic warfare 
capabilities in a sensitive region. If this new system were to fall 
into the hands of a United States adversary, most notably Iraq or Iran, 
its state-of-the-art jamming capability could pose a serious threat to 
U.S. forces in the region.
  Third, this proposed agreement appears to violate a departmental 
policy reaffirmed by Deputy Secretary Deutch on March 15, 1994, which 
states ``the Department of Defense remains committed to the policy of 
no foreign military sales or commitments for foreign sales of defense 
systems prior to the successful completion of operational test and 
evaluation and the specific approval of the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Acquisition and Technology).''
  Therefore, we are offering this amendment, the effect of which would 
be that all efforts to solicit funds from a government, which is 
neither a NATO ally nor a major non-NATO ally, to develop the ATRJ 
would be halted while the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with 
the Secretary of the Army, conducts a comprehensive review of the 
program. While this review is conducted we would expect that the Army 
would terminate all formal and informal discussions with any country 
interested in obtaining ATRJ technology.
  Mr. President, the Army's actions clearly warrant the pause which our 
amendment would impose. There are far more questions at the moment than 
answers, and I suspect that this program may never get off the ground 
once it is subjected to close scrutiny. At a minimum, the Pentagon will 
have to address the concerns we have raised and tell us how they intend 
to deal with those concerns. I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment would limit the joint 
development of advanced threat radar jammer system with a foreign 
government, other than a major ally of the United States, until the 
Secretary of Defense conducts a comprehensive review program and 
submits a report to Congress on this review.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2223) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2224

(Purpose: To provide for studies of the health consequences of military 
  service and employment in the Southwest Asia theater of operations 
                      during the Persian Gulf War)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Rockefeller and Senator Riegle and ask that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Rockefeller, 
     for himself, Mr. Riegle, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Daschle, 
     Mr. Kohl, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
     Feingold, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Mathews, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2224.

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

       On page 249, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 1068. STUDIES OF HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF MILITARY SERVICE 
                   OR EMPLOYMENT IN SOUTHWEST ASIA DURING THE 
                   PERSIAN GULF WAR.

       (a) Epidemiological Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall award a 
     grant under this subsection to one or more non-Federal 
     entities selected for the award under subsection (c). The 
     purpose of a grant is to permit the entity receiving the 
     award to carry out the study described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Nature of study.--The purpose of the study referred to 
     in paragraph (1) is to determine the nature and scope of the 
     illnesses and symptoms suffered by the individuals referred 
     in paragraph (3) as a result of service or employment in the 
     Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf 
     War.
       (3) Individuals covered by study.--Paragraph (2) applies to 
     the following individuals:
       (A) Individuals who served as members of the Armed Forces 
     in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the 
     Persian Gulf War.
       (B) Individuals who were civilian employees of the 
     Department of Defense in that theater during that period.
       (C) Where appropriate, individuals who were employees of 
     contractors of the Department in that theater during that 
     period.
       (D) Where appropriate, the spouses and children of 
     individuals described in subparagraph (A).
       (4) Study design.--The study required under this subsection 
     shall be designed--
       (A) to assess the extent, if any, of the association 
     between--
       (i) the illnesses and symptoms suffered by individuals 
     referred to in paragraph (3);
       (ii) the exposure of the individuals referred to in 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of that paragraph to chemical 
     and biological agents, drugs and vaccines, endemic biological 
     diseases, pesticides, toxins, and other potentially hazardous 
     materials; and
       (iii) the experiences of such individuals with stress-
     producing battlefield and wartime conditions;
       (B) to identify risk factors for predicting the illnesses 
     or symptoms relating to such exposure that will arise within 
     3 years of the arrival of an individual referred to in 
     subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (3) in the 
     Southwest Asia theater of operations;
       (C) to determine--
       (i) the incidence, prevalence, and nature of the illnesses 
     and symptoms suffered by the individuals referred to in 
     paragraph (3), including--

       (I) the incidence, prevalence, and nature of the illnesses 
     and symptoms of such individuals before the commencement of 
     the period of the Persian Gulf War and the incidence, 
     prevalence, and nature of the illnesses of such individuals 
     after the end of that period; and
       (II) the incidence, prevalence, and nature of the 
     illnesses, symptoms, and birth defects of any children 
     conceived by such individuals before the commencement of that 
     period and of any children conceived by such individuals 
     during or after the end of that period; and

       (ii) the incidence, prevalence, and nature of illnesses and 
     symptoms of other individuals or groups of individuals, if 
     any, who may suffer from an illness or symptom as a result of 
     the service or employment of any person or group of persons 
     in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the 
     Persian Gulf War; and
       (D) to evaluate a comparison sample or to evaluation any 
     other matter that the Secretary or the entity determines 
     appropriate to the purposes of the study.
       (5) Reports.--
       (A) Interim reports.--Not later than each of July 1, 1995, 
     and July 1, 1996, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees and the Committees on 
     Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives an interim report on the results of the study 
     carried out under this subsection.
       (B) Final report.--Not later than January 1, 1998, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the committees referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) a final report on the results of the study.
       (C) Form of reports.--The reports submitted under this 
     paragraph shall be submitted in unclassified form.
       (b) Studies of Health Consequences of Administration of 
     Pyridostigmine Bromide.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall award a 
     grant under this subsection to one or more non-Federal 
     entities selected for the award under subsection (c). The 
     purpose of a grant is to permit the entity receiving the 
     award to carry out a study or studies to determine the 
     following:
       (A) The long-term health consequences of the administration 
     of pyridostigmine bromide as an antidote enhancer for 
     chemical nerve agent toxicity during the Persian Gulf War.
       (B) The short-term and long-term health consequences of the 
     administration of pyridostigmine bromide under the chemical 
     nerve agent pretreatment program of the Department of Defense 
     and exposure to pesticides, environmental toxins, and other 
     hazardous substances during battlefield conditions that 
     prevailed in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during 
     the Persian Gulf War.
       (2) Studies.--The Secretary shall provide that an entity 
     awarded a grant under this subsection shall carry out a study 
     described in paragraph (3) or (4).
       (3) Retrospective study.--A study referred to in paragraph 
     (2) is a retrospective study on members of the Armed Forces 
     who served in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during 
     the Persian Gulf War in order to determine the following:
       (A) The nature of the undiagnosed and chronic illnesses 
     suffered by such members.
       (B) The degree of association between such illnesses and--
       (i) use of pyridostigmine bromide over a short period of 
     time (as determined by the Secretary) during the Persian Gulf 
     War;
       (ii) use of pyridostigmine bromide over an extended period 
     of time (as so determined) during that war; or
       (iii) use of no pyridostigmine bromide.
       (C) The degree of association between--
       (i) such illnesses;
       (ii) each extent of use of pyridostigmine bromide described 
     in subparagraph (B);
       (iii) receipt of other vaccinations or medications; and
       (iv) exposure to pesticides, organophosphates, or 
     carbamates.
       (4) Animal model study.--A study referred to in paragraph 
     (2) is also a study using appropriate animal research models 
     in order to determine whether use of pyridostigmine bromide 
     in combination with exposure to pesticides or other 
     organophosphates, carbamates, or relevant chemicals results 
     in increased toxicity in animals and is likely to have a 
     similar effect on humans.
       (5) Reports.--
       (A) Animal study report.--Not later than January 1, 1996, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees and the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the study 
     carried out under paragraph (4).
       (B) Interim reports on retrospective study.--Not later than 
     each of July 1, 1995, and July 1, 1996, the Secretary shall 
     submit to the committees referred to in subparagraph (A) an 
     interim report on the results of the study carried out under 
     paragraph (3).
       (C) Final report on retrospective study.--Not later than 
     January 1, 1998, the Secretary shall submit to the committees 
     referred to in subparagraph (A) a final report on the results 
     of the study carried out under paragraph (3).
       (D) Form of reports.--The reports submitted under this 
     paragraph shall be submitted in unclassified form.
       (c) Selection of Study Entities.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall select 
     entities to which to award grants for the studies described 
     in subsections (a) and (b) in accordance with this 
     subsection.
       (2) Submittal of proposals.--An entity seeking to carry out 
     a study under a grant under subsection (a) or (b) shall 
     submit to the Secretary the following proposals:
       (A) A proposal for a pilot study in order to determine the 
     research design and research instrument to be used in the 
     study.
       (B) A proposal for the study.
       (3) Independent review.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     individuals described in paragraph (4)--
       (A) review each proposal submitted to the Secretary under 
     paragraph (2) for purposes of determining whether or not the 
     proposal--
       (i) addresses adequately the purposes of the study; and
       (ii) meets the technical, scientific, and peer review 
     requirements that apply to similar studies carried out under 
     the direction of the Secretary of Health and Human Services; 
     and
       (B) submit to the Secretary recommendations for the 
     selection by the Secretary of one or more entities to carry 
     out the study.
       (4) Reviewing individuals.--Individuals referred to in 
     paragraph (3) are any individuals who, as determined by the 
     Secretary--
       (A) are not employees of the Federal Government;
       (B) have an expertise in epidemiology, toxicology, 
     neurology, biology, biostatistics, post-traumatic stress 
     disorder, or public health; and
       (C) have no financial relationship with the Department of 
     Defense or with any chemical company or pharmaceutical 
     company whose productions may be addressed in the study.
       (5) Selection.--The Secretary shall--
       (A) select the entities that will carry out the studies 
     described under subsections (a) and (b) from among the 
     entities recommended for such selection under paragraph (3); 
     and
       (B) award such entities grants under the appropriate 
     subsection.
       (d) Performance of Studies.--
       (1) Pilot studies.--
       (A) Implementation.--An entity to which the Secretary 
     awards a grant for a study under subsection (a) or (b) shall 
     carry out the pilot study for such study in accordance with 
     the proposal for the pilot study submitted to the Secretary 
     under subsection (c)(2)(A).
       (B) Response to results.--If an entity determines as a 
     result of a pilot study under subparagraph (A) that revisions 
     to the study proposed by the entity are necessary in order to 
     meet the purposes of the study under this section, the entity 
     shall submit to the Secretary a proposal for such revisions 
     to the study.
       (C) Final approval.--The Secretary shall--
       (i) review any revisions to a proposal to a study that are 
     submitted to the Secretary under subparagraph (B); and
       (ii) approve the proposal for the study, as so revised, if 
     the Secretary determines that the proposal meets the purposes 
     of the study under this section.
       (2) Studies.--An entity to which the Secretary awards a 
     grant for a study under subsection (a) or (b) shall carry out 
     the study in accordance the proposal for the study under this 
     section.
       (e) Consultation.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry out 
     this section in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
     head of the Medical Follow-Up Agency of the Institute of 
     Medicine, and the heads of other appropriate departments and 
     agencies of the Federal Government.
       (f) Funding.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated 
     pursuant to section 201, $10,000,000 shall be available for 
     purposes of awarding grants for the studies described in 
     subsections (a) and (b). Such funds shall be available for 
     such purpose until expended.
       (g) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Persian Gulf 
     War'' has the meaning given such term in section 101(33) of 
     title 38, United States Code.

     SEC. 1169. GRANTS FOR RESEARCH INTO THE HEALTH CONSEQUENCES 
                   OF THE PERSIAN GULF WAR.

       (a) In General.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall award 
     grants to appropriate non-governmental entities for purposes 
     of permitting such entities to carry out research to 
     determine--
       (A) the nature and causes of any illnesses suffered by the 
     individuals referred to in paragraph (2) as a result of 
     service or employment in the Southwest Asia theater of 
     operations during the Persian Gulf War;
       (B) the methods of transmission, if any, of such illnesses 
     from such individuals to other individuals; and
       (C) the appropriate treatment for such illnesses.
       (2) The individuals referred to in paragraph (1)(A) are the 
     following individuals:
       (i) Individuals who served as members of the Armed Forces 
     in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the 
     Persian Gulf War.
       (ii) Civilian employees of the Department of Defense who 
     were employed by the Department in that theater of operations 
     during that period.
       (iii) Employees of contractors of the Department who were 
     employed in that theater of operations during that period.
       (iv) The spouses and children of the individuals referred 
     to in clauses (i) through (iii).
       (3) In carrying out research under this section, such 
     entities shall give particular consideration to the 
     following:
       (A) Illnesses or other effects associated with exposure to 
     depleted uranium particles, mycotoxins, genetically-altered 
     organisms, petrochemical toxicity, pesticide poisoning, 
     anthrax vaccines, botulinum toxoids, and other chemical 
     hazards and agents.
       (B) Endemic viral, fungal, bacterial, and rickettsial 
     diseases (including diseases arising from biological warfare 
     activities).
       (C) Illnesses or other effects associated with ingestion of 
     silica or sand.
       (D) Assessment of risks to reproductive capacity arising 
     from the illnesses and diseases referred to in subparagraphs 
     (A) through (C).
       (E) Pediatric disorders.
       (F) Birth deficiencies.
       (G) Post-traumatic stress disorder.
       (H) Somatoform disorders.
       (I) Chronic fatigue syndrome.
       (J) Multiple chemical sensitivities.
       (b) Award Process.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall 
     award grants under this section in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services.
       (2) An entity seeking a grant under this section to carry 
     out the research described in subsection (a)(1) shall submit 
     to the Secretary a proposal for the research.
       (3) The Secretary shall ensure that appropriate individuals 
     who are not employees of the Federal Government--
       (A) review each proposal submitted to the Secretary under 
     paragraph (2) for purposes of determining that the proposal--
       (i) addresses adequately the purposes of the research for 
     which the proposal is submitted; and
       (ii) meets the technical, scientific, and peer review 
     requirements that apply to similar research carried out under 
     the direction of the Secretary of Health and Human Services; 
     and
       (B) submit to the Secretary recommendations for the 
     selection by the Secretary of one or more entities so 
     determined as recipients of a grant under subsection (a).
       (4) The Secretary shall award grants under this section to 
     entities selected by the Secretary for that purpose from 
     among the entities identified in the recommendations under 
     paragraph (3)(B).
       (5) In awarding an entity a grant under paragraph (4), the 
     Secretary shall ensure that the entity--
       (A) carry out the research covered by the grant in 
     accordance with the proposal submitted to the Secretary under 
     paragraph (2); and
       (B) not expose human beings to hazardous agents or 
     materials as a result of the research.
       (c) Reports.--(1) The Secretary of Defense and the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees and the Committees on 
     Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives a report on the results of any research 
     carried out under a grant awarded under this section.
       (2) The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services shall submit a report under paragraph (1) 
     on each of March 1, 1995, October 1, 1995, October 1, 1996, 
     and October 1, 1997.
       (3) Each report submitted under this subsection shall be 
     submitted in unclassified form.
       (d) Funding.--(1) Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201, $10,000,000 shall be available 
     for purposes of awarding grants under this section. Such 
     funds shall be available for such purpose until expended.
       (2) For each fiscal year in which activities under the 
     study under this section will continue, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall provide in the documents submitted to Congress 
     in connection with the budget of the President for the fiscal 
     year a request for such funds as the Secretary determines 
     necessary in order to award grants under this section during 
     that fiscal year.

     SEC. 1070. COMPATIBILITY OF HEALTH REGISTRIES.

       (c) Compatibility of Health Registries.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall take appropriate actions to ensure that--
       (1) the data collected by and the testing protocols of the 
     Persian Gulf War Health Surveillance System are compatible 
     with the data collected by and the testing protocols of the 
     Persian Gulf War Veterans Health Registry; and
       (2) information on individuals who register with the 
     Department of Defense is provided to the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs for incorporation into the Persian Gulf War 
     Veterans Health Registry.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, as you know, shortly after the 1991 
Persian Gulf conflict, a small number of Gulf war veterans came forward 
complaining that they were suffering from an array of unusual symptoms. 
This array of symptoms has come to be known as Gulf War Syndrome. 
Standardized medical examinations were conducted on the individuals who 
originally came forward. Since no readily identifiable illnesses were 
discovered, their claims were discounted.
  Then in 1992, the number of individuals coming forward with similar 
complaints began to grow to such an extent that Congress and a number 
of other governmental agencies began to become more concerned.
  As a result the VA Persian Gulf Health Registry was created. Still, 
many of the veterans who came to the VA hospitals were often referred 
for psychiatric treatment since the physicians could not otherwise 
diagnose their illnesses. Others were diagnosed and treated 
symptomatically--often unsuccessfully--by physicians who failed to 
recognize the full scope of the illnesses.
  Hundreds of veterans and members of the Armed Forces, from both the 
officer and enlisted corps, who served in the Gulf, have reported to us 
that chemical agents were detected with the onset of the air war, after 
Scud attacks, after explosions, in Iraqi and Kuwaiti minefields and in 
bunkers.
  In July of 1993, the Czech Government announced that Czechoslovak 
chemical detection units assigned to the Gulf detected chemical agents 
there.
  In December 1993, the French Government confirmed that they too 
detected chemical agents during the Persian Gulf conflict. there have 
been thousands of reports that camels, sheep, goats, birds, and insects 
in Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia began suddenly dying shortly after 
the initiation of the air war suggesting that whatever exposures may 
have caused a cross-species contamination of mammals, birds, and 
insects, might have also been harmful to humans.
  I have also learned that there is good reason to be concerned about 
the longterm health consequences of the administration of the 
cholinesterase inhibitors in the Nerve Agent Pretreatment Program--as a 
result of both their direct effects and the reported studies of the 
possible potentiating or synergistic effects of these drugs when 
combined with exposures to organophosphate nerve gases and pesticides.

  In addition, I believe we must continue to examine the hazards 
associated with other environmental and occupational exposures such as 
depleted uranium, chemical agent resistant coating or CARC, pesticides, 
smoke from the oil fires, and others.
  the Syndrome, contrary to previous reports has not only affected U.S. 
veterans. I have also been contacted by members of the Canadian, 
British, and Australian military all complaining of similar symptoms. 
Eighteen members of the 169 person Czech chemical decontamination unit 
are also reportedly complaining of similar symptoms.
  Since September 1993, the number of veterans who have signed up for 
the VA Persian Gulf Registry examination has increased from 5,400 to 
over 24,000. I have received calls and letters from thousands of these 
veterans from throughout the United States complaining of ineffective 
treatment.
  I have also been contacted by hundreds of active duty members of the 
U.S. Armed Forces who are sick. Many are reluctant to seek medical care 
for their illnesses fearing that they will be discharged. Others are 
fearful of coming forward because many of those who previously came 
forward were referred for psychiatric examinations. As the U.S. Armed 
Services is now an all volunteer force, this is an issue of some 
concern since their careers and, ironically, maintaining their health 
care coverage, depends on their remaining on active duty. Many members 
of their families are also ill.
  The VA Persian Gulf Registry does not include any of the sick spouses 
and children. Over 75 percent of the spouses and 25 percent of the 
children conceived before the war by the sick vets who have contacted 
me are experiencing many of these symptoms. Sixty-five percent of their 
children conceived after the war are also experiencing health problems. 
Most commonly noted among the health problems of these infants are 
respiratory infections, ear infections, and rashes. In some cases, 
severe birth defects have been noted.
  Nor does it include the sick Department of Defense civilians and 
contractors who served in the Gulf, or the DOD civilians in the United 
States who became sick after decontaminating or cleaning equipment that 
was returned from the theater of operations.
  These patterns of illnesses and exposures, along with reported 
observations of tens of thousands of dead sheep, goats, camels, birds, 
and insects suggests that immediate and extensive peer-reviewed open 
research is required.
  This is a serious public health issue. I have been contacted by 
thousands of veterans from throughout the United States, and 
regrettably, I have received reports of many young men and women who 
have--after initially experiencing these symptoms--died from cancers or 
unexplained heart failures.
  This amendment to the Senate Department of Defense authorization bill 
I am cosponsoring today with Senator Rockefeller will authorize $20 
million in funding to conduct an epidemiological survey on veterans, 
armed services personnel, and Department of Defense civilians who 
served in the Persian Gulf war, as well as their spouses and children; 
conduct research into the long-term medical hazards of the 
administration of pyridostigmine bromide in the chemical nerve agent 
pre-treatment program during the Persian Gulf War; establish a research 
program to fund independent peer-reviewed research into the illnesses, 
treatment of the illnesses being experienced, and into determining if 
and how the illnesses are transmitted; and mandate the compatibility of 
Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs registries.
  We are letting the men and women who served this country, and who we 
celebrated with parades, down. This amendment asks for funding for 
scientific research at levels well below what we spend on other 
illnesses. We spent tens of billions of dollars to finance the conduct 
of the war. We must come to understand that the expense of war also 
includes our obligations to care for our soldiers and our veterans.
  Ultimately, we will only learn the true scope and consequences of 
this issue when appropriate epidemiological testing and basic 
scientific research is conducted to determine the nature of the 
illnesses that these veterans, civilians, and their families are 
suffering. I ask today that no more or no less be done for the men and 
women who served this country in the Persian Gulf war, that we have 
done when other unidentified illnesses have surfaced. The conduct of 
this research totalling $20,000,000 could also ultimately result in a 
savings of billions of government and private-sector dollars in 
misdirected health care, disability and compensation benefits, and 
other social costs over several generations.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment would provide $20 million in 
funding for the conduct of important research into the causes and 
treatment of the Persian Gulf war illness. This amendment was worked 
out between Senator Riegle and the Veterans Committee and Senator 
Rockefeller this afternoon.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2224) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2225

 (Purpose: To authorize a land conveyance of certain real property at 
            the Defense Fuel Supply Point, Casco Bay, Maine)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Mitchell and Senator Cohen and ask that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Mitchell, for 
     himself, and Mr. Cohen, proposes an amendment numbered 2225.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 306, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       (F) A parcel of real property, including any improvements 
     thereon and the pier associated therewith, consisting of 
     approximately 118 acres and located in Harpswell, Maine, the 
     location of the Defense Fuel Supply Point, Casco Bay, Maine.
       On page 311, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
       (F) In the case of the parcel referred to in subparagraph 
     (F) of that subsection, by conveying without consideration 
     all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 
     the parcel to the Town of Harpswell, Maine.

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the committee has 
shown its support for local economic development, and particularly for 
economic development in the town of Harpswell, ME, by inserting 
language to the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
1995 which will require the Administrator of the General Services 
Administration [GSA] to screen certain parcels of land, prior to 
conveyance, to ensure that there are no preferential interests in the 
land. This provision may allow the town of Harpswell, and other 
communities, to acquire valuable property from the Department of 
Defense.
  The town of Harpswell has shown great interest in a parcel known as 
the Defense Fuel Supply Point, Casco Bay, containing nearly 120 acres 
of storefront property and a pier, since the Department of the Navy 
closed this site 2 years ago. As a result of the closure Harpswell 
formed the Navy Fuel Depot Committee and charged it with exploring 
acquisition and possible future uses for the site. Recently, after a 
vote was taken at a town meeting, the town of Harpswell asked for my 
assistance in acquiring the property.
  This provision will allow the site at Harpswell to go through the 
expedited screening process from the GSA. If no preferential interest 
is found during the screening process the Secretary of Defense may 
convey the parcel to the Administrator of GSA for transfer to the town 
of Harpswell, at no cost. The entire screening process will be 
completed not later than 125 days after enactment of the Department of 
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995.
  While Harpswell may receive rights to this property, it will not be 
responsible for cleaning any environmental contamination caused by the 
Defense Fuel Supply Point, Casco Bay. The town will not take possession 
of this land until it meets with Federal and State environmental 
regulations.
  By expediting the screening process this provision will allow the 
town of Harpswell to move forward in planning for its future. Some of 
the ideas I have heard for use of this land include a new town dock, a 
public recreation area, a marine research facility, a business park, 
and others. Within 125 days of enactment of this law the town of 
Harpswell will know if it can include the property at the Defense Fuel 
Supply Point, Casco Bay in a comprehensive plan for its future.
  Again, I thank the chairman for the support he has shown for the 
future of the town of Harpswell, ME.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment authorizes the Secretary of 
Navy to convey for no consideration, 118 acres of real property and 
improvements located in the former Defense Fuel Supply Point in Casco 
Bay, ME, to the city of Harpswell subject to the General Services 
Administration expedited screening process.
  I say to my friend from North Dakota, if he is still listening 
tonight, that this is the same procedure applied to the majority leader 
that was applied in the case of the North Dakota property.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2225) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2226

 (Purpose: To provide for a study of the improvement of highway safety 
     at the highway on the Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant, Nevada)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Reid and Senator Bryan, 
I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Reid, for 
     himself, and Mr. Bryan, proposes an amendment numbered 2226.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 254, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 2106. HIGHWAY SAFETY AT HAWTHORNE ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT, 
                   NEVADA.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of the Army shall carry out a 
     study of traffic safety on the highway at the Hawthorne Army 
     Ammunition Plant, Nevada. In carrying out the study, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (1) evaluate traffic safety on the highway, including 
     traffic safety with respect to the rail and truck crossing of 
     the highway at the Plant;
       (2) evaluate the feasibility and desirability of 
     constructing a vehicle bridge over the rail and truck 
     crossing; and
       (3) determine whether any construction required to improve 
     traffic safety on the highway be funded as a military 
     construction project or as a defense access road construction 
     project.
       (b) Architectural and Engineering Services and Construction 
     Design.--If the Secretary determines as a result of the study 
     under subsection (a) that construction of a vehicle bridge 
     over the rail and truck crossing referred to in paragraph (1) 
     of that subsection is feasible and desirable, the Secretary 
     should--
       (1) obtain architectural and engineering activities and 
     carry out construction design with respect to the 
     construction of the bridge; or
       (2) request that the Secretary of Transportation carry out 
     the construction of the bridge as project for the 
     construction of a defense access road under section 210 of 
     title 23, United States Code.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment to the Defense 
authorization bill to eliminate a potential safety hazard at the 
Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant in Nevada.
  Explosive laden trains and trucks currently must cross Route 95 using 
an at-grade crossing. This creates the potential for a significant 
accident. Fortunately, there have not been any serious accidents, but 
as traffic increases on Route 95 the chances of a major accident 
continually increase.
  This highway is the major road between Las Vegas and Reno. As the 
popularity of these two vacation destinations increases, there will be 
a corresponding increase in traffic on U.S. Highway 95. A large portion 
of this increased traffic will be tourists who are not familiar with 
this road and, therefore, are not likely to expect the crossing or be 
aware of it like the regular users of the highway.
  The existing crossing also causes increased costs and reduced 
efficiency at the ammunition plant. This crossing connects the two 
major portions of the installation. Security guard stations must be 
maintained on both sides of the highway. In addition, trucks and trains 
carrying explosives must observe extra safety precautions when crossing 
the highway.
  My amendment directs the Secretary of the Army to evaluate a project 
that will eliminate the safety hazard and improve the operating 
efficiency at Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant. A new highway bridge 
will allow explosive laden trucks and trains to cross under U.S. 
Highway 95. This will eliminate the chance of a collision involving 
highway traffic and will allow the plant to eliminate the security 
check points at the current crossing.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment directs the Secretary of the 
Army to conduct a study of traffic safety on the highway at the 
Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant in Nevada.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2226) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2227

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Levin and ask that it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Levin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2227.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 63, after line 25, insert the following:

     SEC. 307. AIR NATIONAL GUARD FIGHTER AIRCRAFT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Bottom-Up Review force structure proposal would 
     accomplish most of the remaining reductions in the total 
     number of Air Force general purpose fighter wings by reducing 
     the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve fighter force 
     from 10 wings to 7 wings.
       (2) The current plan for implementing the reduction 
     referred to in paragraph (1) is to reduce the number of 
     fighter aircraft in each Air National Guard fighter unit from 
     24 or 18 primary aircraft authorized to 15 primary aircraft 
     authorized and to convert some Air National Guard fighter 
     units to other purposes.
       (3) The number of Air National Guard Combat Readiness 
     Training Centers in operation during fiscal year 1995 should 
     not be less than the number of such centers in operation at 
     the end of fiscal year 1994.
       (4) The Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed 
     Forces established by section 952 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160; 
     10 U.S.C. 111 note; 107 Stat. 1738) is required to submit to 
     Congress a report under section 954(b) of such Act on 
     possible changes to existing allocations among the Armed 
     Forces of military roles, missions, and functions.
       (5) The Commission is not expected to submit the report 
     until at least the middle of fiscal year 1995.
       (6) The report of the Commission should contain a review of 
     and recommendations on the assignment of roles and missions 
     to units of the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve 
     in relation to active component units that are the 
     counterparts to such units and on requirements for resources 
     for training of such units.
       (b) Requirement.--
       (1) After submission of the report referred to in paragraph 
     (3), the Secretary of Defense shall review its findings on 
     the role and requirements for general purpose fighter units 
     of the Air National Guard, and shall complete within 30 days 
     a study which recommends the appropriate level of primary 
     aircraft authorized (PAA) for such units, following which, if 
     the Secretary determines changes in that level are 
     appropriate, he may notify the Congress of his determination 
     and he may seek any reprogramming of funds that he considers 
     appropriate to ensure that such changes are implemented.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment would require the Secretary 
of Defense to review the findings of the Commission on Roles and 
Missions and to complete a study of the appropriate level for primary 
aircraft authorized in the Air National Guard general purpose fighter 
units.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2227) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2228

  (Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate on the activities of the 
  Secretary of Defense in assisting communities in responding to the 
      closure of a military installation under a base closure law)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Pryor, from Arkansas, and ask it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Pryor, for 
     himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Hollings, Mr. 
     Metzenbaum, Mr. Pell, Mrs. Boxer and Mr. Riegle, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2228.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 289, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:

     SEC. 2813. SENSE OF SENATE ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SECRETARY 
                   OF DEFENSE IN SUPPORT OF COMMUNITIES AFFECTED 
                   BY BASE CLOSURES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The closure or realignment of a major military 
     installation can cause severe economic disruption to the host 
     community for the installation.
       (2) Communities affected by the closure of a major military 
     installation under a base closure law dedicate significant 
     time, effort, and resources to planning for the economic 
     redevelopment of the installation.
       (3) The Federal Government can ease the disruption caused 
     by the closure of a military installation by working 
     cooperatively with the host community for the installation to 
     implement the community's redevelopment plan for the 
     installation.
       (4) In recent years, the Federal Government has not always 
     provided sufficient assistance to communities affected by the 
     closure of a military installation under a base closure law 
     in the efforts of such communities to provide for the 
     economic redevelopment of the installation.
       (5) In July 1993, the President issued a five-point plan 
     for revitalizing base closure communities which emphasized 
     the economic recovery of communities affected by the closure 
     of a military installation under a base closure law.
       (6) In November 1993, Congress agreed to the provisions of 
     subtitle A of title XXIX of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160; 
     107 Stat. 1909), and the amendments made thereunder, in order 
     to implement the plan referred to in paragraph (5) and to 
     provide other assistance to communities attempting to 
     redevelop military installations approved for closure under a 
     base closure law.
       (7) The Secretary of Defense is accepting public comment on 
     the guidelines for implementation of the provisions of law 
     referred to in paragraph (6).
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Secretary of Defense should--
       (1) ensure that the regulations implementing the provisions 
     of subtitle A of title XXIX of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160; 
     107 Stat. 1909), and the amendments made thereunder, reflect 
     the intent of Congress that, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, the Secretary take into consideration the 
     redevelopment plans of affected communities when taking 
     actions or implementing decisions on the closure of a 
     military installation approved for closure under a base 
     closure law;
       (2) ensure that the regulations implementing such 
     provisions reflect the intent of Congress to encourage and 
     promote cooperation and dialogue between the Federal 
     Government and communities affected by the closure of an 
     installation throughout the base closure process; and
       (3) develop a system of incentives or awards to encourage 
     Department of Defense personnel to provide greater assistance 
     to and cooperation with communities affected by the closure 
     of an installation during the ongoing effort of revitalizing 
     the economy of such communities.

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, this amendment expresses the sense of the 
Senate that the Department of Defense should support the redevelopment 
efforts of military base closure communities as much as possible.
  Last year I offered an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill 
which made it possible for the Department of Defense to cooperate much 
more closely with base closure communities and to support their 
redevelopment efforts. Changing attitudes at the Pentagon is a lot 
harder than changing the law, however, and that is why I am offering 
this amendment to once again send the message loud and clear that the 
Congress expects the DOD and the services to help base closure 
communities.
  Just last week I helped organize a large meeting at which 
representatives of base closure communities gave the DOD feedback on 
the regulations they have proposed, to implement last year's amendment. 
Communities are upset that these regulations do not seem to reflect 
Congressional intent that community reuse plans should receive priority 
consideration when the DOD disposes of base properties. Communities are 
worried that the services will ignore their carefully designed reuse 
plans for the bases and go for a quick sale that will not be in the 
best interest of the community or bring in as much revenue for the DOD 
as the community reuse plan would. Communities are also upset about the 
potential for the DOD to continue removing valuable fixtures and 
equipment from bases on very slim pretense, when these items can 
greatly enhance the redevelopment potential of the base.
  More than any single provision of law or regulation, or any item of 
property, it is the attitude displayed by DOD personnel that is most 
crucial to a successful base closure. Service members and DOD employees 
who truly consider community revitalization part of their mission can 
make the closure process a springboard for the community's 
redevelopment.
  With this amendment, the Senate can send the message loud and clear 
that community redevelopment is a central part of the closure mission. 
We want community support and cooperation reflected in the regulations 
which are now out for public comment, and we want it reflected in a 
can-do spirit on the part of each DOD employee and service member 
involved in the closure process.
  Finally, with this amendment we will be encouraging the DOD to 
develop a system of incentive or rewards to encourage the very type of 
cooperative behavior I have referred to above. It is perfectly 
understandable why some base closure personnel aren't more supportive 
of community redevelopment--they have no incentive to act that way. 
They won't live in the communities after the bases are closed. Their 
jobs won't disappear if the base isn't redeveloped. They won't get 
promoted or make any more money if the redevelopment is successful.
  The Department of Defense should tie the fortunes of base closure 
personnel more closely to the communities they serve by rewarding them 
for helping the communities. These rewards could take the form of 
monetary prizes or positive consideration at promotion time. Most 
importantly, I believe community input should be the primary 
determinant of who gets these awards, because the communities are the 
customers we want to be served well in this case.
  I had considered requiring the DOD to create such an incentive 
system, but if this system is to be successful, I believe it must have 
genuine internal support at the Pentagon and be designed by DOD 
personnel. I believe this incentive system would be a valuable 
management tool for the Pentagon which will help make the base closure 
process go more smoothly. I hope the Department sees it this way and 
embraces the idea.
  Another round of base closures is currently slated for announcement 
in March of 1995. The 1995 round will be bigger than the three previous 
rounds put together. It is imperative that we get the base closure and 
redevelopment process running smoothly before the 1995 round of 
closures, and this amendment will put the Senate clearly on record of 
supporting a process that is more supportive of communities.
  I ask my colleagues' support for the amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment expresses the sense of the 
Senate that the Department of Defense should support the redevelopment 
efforts of the military base closure communities as much as possible.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2228) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2229

  (Purpose: To ensure that the fiscal year 1996 future-years defense 
  program is timely submitted to Congress and is consistent with the 
    fiscal year 1996 budget submitted to Congress by the President)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Grassley and ask that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Grassley, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2229.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 190, after line 20, insert the following:

     SEC. 1004. SUBMISSION OF FUTURE-YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM IN 
                   ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

       If, as of the end of the 90-day period beginning on the 
     date on which the President's budget for fiscal year 1996 is 
     submitted to Congress, the Secretary of Defense has not 
     submitted to Congress the fiscal year 1996 future-years 
     defense program and, after consultation with the Inspector 
     General of the Department of Defense, a certification that 
     such program satisfies the requirements of section 221(b) of 
     title 10, United States Code, then during the 30-day period 
     beginning on the last day of such 90-day period the Secretary 
     may not obligate more than 10 percent of the fiscal year 1995 
     advance procurement funds that are available for obligation 
     as of the end of that 90-day period. If, as of the end of 
     such 30-day period, the Secretary of Defense has not 
     submitted to Congress the fiscal year 1996 future-years 
     defense program together with such a certification, then the 
     Secretary may not make any further obligation of fiscal year 
     1995 advance procurement funds until such program and 
     certification are submitted to Congress. If the Secretary 
     submits to Congress the fiscal year 1996 future-years defense 
     program, together with such a certification, during the 30-
     day period described in the first sentence, the limitation on 
     obligation of advance procurement funds prescribed in that 
     sentence shall cease to apply effective as of the date of the 
     submission of such program and certification.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. My amendment addresses the plans/reality mismatch 
between the 5-year defense plan (FYDP) and the President's budget.
  I know this is a matter of concern to Senator Nunn and I was provided 
valuable assistance from his committee staff in drafting this 
amendment. I thank him for his able counsel.
  This is also an issue in which I have worked closely with Senator 
Sasser. Senator Sasser has been a leader on this matter, holding 
hearings in the past, and I hope this year also.
  Let me say that colleagues on my side of the aisle, particularly 
Senator Lott and Senator Thurman, have also been leaders in focusing 
attention on this important issue.
  As many of my colleagues know, there is a discrepancy of at least $20 
billion between the fiscal year 1995 FYDP and the President's 5-year 
budget. The Pentagon tries to wish away this problem through a negative 
budget number called ``future adjustments.''
  This budget gimmick damages our ability to make informed cost-
efficient procurement decisions. In addition, the funding discrepancy 
between what the Pentagon and the President plan to spend prevents 
Congress from receiving a realistic picture of our planned force 
structure. Senator Nunn was right when he commented last year that the 
plans/reality mismatch brings, quote ``chaos'' to the Pentagon.
  I am especially worried that DOD continues to believe that this $20 
billion gap is only due to inflation. This is in direct contradiction 
to the analysis of the Congressional Budget Office in a letter to me of 
June 23, 1994 which states, and I quote:

       CBO concluded that the future adjustments to budget 
     authority indicate funding problems beyond the question of 
     inflation estimates.

  Let me say though, that this budget gimmick is not unique to this 
administration. Unfortunately, this magic asterisk of ``future 
adjustments'' has been around for many, many years.
  These budget games are illegal. They violate the intent of section 
221 of title 10 which requires DOD to submit FYDP numbers that are 
consistent with the President's budget.
  Unfortunately, like many laws Congress passes, this one has been 
completely ignored. But this law is too important to allow it to be 
disregarded by the Pentagon. Therefore, my amendment requires a minor 
penalty if the DOD does not comply with the law.
  This amendment will restrict the obligation of fiscal year 1995 
advance procurement funds until the Inspector General of the Department 
of Defense certifies that the Secretary is in compliance within section 
221.
  This amendment provides a mechanism for bringing DOD into compliance 
with the law governing the preparation and submission of the FYDP.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment which is a small 
step toward honesty in the budget process and also establishes a minor 
penalty if DOD refuses to comply with this commonsense law.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this amendment requires the Secretary 
of Defense to certify that the future years defense plan complies with 
the statute and is submitted within 90 days of the budget submission.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2229) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2230

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Arkansas, 
Senator Bumpers, 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. Bumpers, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2230.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At an appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec.   . Limitation on obligation of funds for Mark-6 
     guidance sets for Trident II missiles.
       (a) Limitation.--Until the certification in subsection (b) 
     has been provided to the congressional defense committees, 
     funds appropriated for fiscal year 1995 for the Navy may not 
     be obligated to procure more than 14 Mark-6 guidance sets for 
     Trident II missile.
       (b) Certification.--Before the Secretary of Defense may 
     obligate funds for Mark-6 guidance sets in addition to the 14 
     sets authorized in subsection (a), he shall certify to the 
     congressional defense committees that failure to procure such 
     additional units would pose an unacceptable risk to the long-
     term readiness and reliability of the Trident II missile 
     program.


                  warner amendment on cola adjustment.

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, Senator Warner's amendment has a worthwhile 
goal. I too seek equity in the effective dates of annual cost-of-living 
adjustments for both Federal civilian and military retirees for fiscal 
year 1995 only.
  I cannot, however support the methodology which the distinguished 
Senator from Virginia has chosen to provide that equity. Using 
discretionary funds to pay for an increase in an entitlement is not a 
sound fiscal practice. Once we have taken this step, once the precedent 
is established, the temptation to do it again and again will be 
overwhelming.
  Entitlement growth is arguably the greatest budgetary problem we 
face. If we can get entitlements under control and figure out a 
politically acceptable method to keep their growth under control, we 
will be well on the way to getting the national budget and the deficit 
under control.
  Last year, the Congress, in the Joint Resolution on the Budget, 
decided to reduce the cost-of-living adjustments for both Federal 
civilian and military retirees. The task of deciding how to do that was 
referred to the committees of jurisdiction--the Governmental Affairs 
Committee for civilians and the Armed Services Committee for the 
military. Each committee arrived at a solution which entailed delaying 
the COLA's sufficiently to realize the required savings. Unfortunately, 
the two committees did not do the same thing and an inequity was born.
  I can remember discussing the impending inequity during the Armed 
Services Committee mark-up of legislation to be included in the 1993 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. The committee recognized that this 
was a problem, but as it is this year, the solution was outside the 
jurisdiction of any single committee. My colleagues may recall the 
debate on the Reconciliation Act last year. I certainly remember the 
long debates and the late night vote with the Vice President casting 
the deciding vote. Somewhere in that debate, we overlooked the COLA 
inequity and the different effective dates were enacted into law.
  Mr. President, I have talked with active military personnel, retired 
military personnel, and representatives of the associations which 
represent both groups. They all agree this inequity is bad and needs to 
be rectified. The recurring message I got from these meetings was that 
they understood the necessity of reducing the deficit and were willing 
to sacrifice. What they asked is that they not sacrifice while others 
did not or that the sacrifice be shared equally.
  Today we will debate Senator Nunn's alternative which equalizes the 
COLA's using a different methodology. The Nunn COLA alternative does 
everything the military personnel and their associations asked of me 
and it deals with the entire 4 year period of inequity. It will 
equalize the sacrifice but it will not use any discretionary funds from 
the already constrained defense budget. I hope other Senators will 
listen to the debate on both proposals and support the one which 
protects entitlement growth, does not take already scarce resources 
from the readiness accounts, and equalizes the COLA dates completely.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Nunn proposal.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman and 
the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for their efforts in 
guiding this bill through some tough decisions. Some very serious 
concerns with regard to the health, welfare, and readiness of our Armed 
Forces, however, still remain--and I feel they must be addressed.
  When presented with last year's budget, this body emphasized that 
every effort must be made to match our forces to the changing 
requirements of the post-cold-war world--The fall of communism and the 
demise of the Soviet Union dictated reduced levels of defense spending. 
Thus, last year's bill reflected yet another year of declining defense 
budgets. It provided Congress with multiple signs of declining 
readiness as well.
  While none would argue that a refocusing of priorities is in order, 
such refocusing should be based on capabilities and requirements, not 
an arbitrary budget figure.
  Last year, the term ``too-far, too fast'' was used by many to 
describe the rapid decline of our military capability. As evidenced by 
the committee's evaluation of the administration's plan for our 
continued drawdown, the Bottom Up Review, the phrase still fits.
  Our military is no longer on the razor's edge of readiness. Based on 
extensive testimony from military leaders at all levels, and real world 
facts and figures, readiness has now slipped beyond the point where the 
United States is capable of responding to two nearly simultaneous 
regional conflicts, and perhaps is not even capable of mounting one 
operation on the scale of Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
  According to the Department of Defense, 100 heavy bombers are needed 
to fulfill the warfighting requirements during one major regional 
conflict. From fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 1999, the number of 
heavy bombers will drop below 110. That's well below the number needed 
to fight and win two regional conflicts at roughly the same time.
  As to strategic lift, General Hoar, Commander-in-Chief, Central 
Command has stated that requirements during the Somalia relief effort 
stressed the Air Force's strategic lift capability to the point where 
it could not even simutaneously support a small multinational exercise 
on the same continent--never mind an operation of the magnitude that 
would be required to sustain a mission in North Korea.
  Yet current events--like the continuing crisis with North Korea, 
possible future actions in Bosnia and Haiti, and numerous hot spots 
around the globe--tell us that the world, while changed, is not any 
less dangerous, but perhaps more.
  Whether or not we retain the ability to respond to conflicts that 
pose a threat to our vital national interest will depend not only on 
the effect these declining budgets have on our military, but on how and 
where our men and women are deployed.
  Which brings me to the two chief areas of concern I want to discuss: 
military personnel and military commitments.
  Mr. President, we've been told that the goal of the Bottom Up Review 
is to ensure that the United States retains the ability to fight two 
regional wars at roughly at same time.
  But, Mr. President, ``war'' is not an abstract term. Wars require 
people. And the key factor in our Nation's ability to fight wars is the 
quality, training, and morale of our military men and women. The most 
advanced weapons and technology in the world will not win wars without 
qualified and motivated people.
  While the Department of Defense maintains that we will not repeat the 
mistakes that were made during the 1970's, when the last major defense 
drawdown produced an understaffed, poorly equipped, and demoralized 
hollow force, that is exactly the road down which we are marching 
today.
  Mr. President, this year, against a three percent inflation rate, the 
Administration proposed a 1.6 percent increase in pay. That 1.4 percent 
difference represents a direct decrease in pay for our military men and 
women. Moreover, it comes at a time when, by all best estimates, the 
military has fallen 20 percent behind their civilian counterparts in 
salaries.
  Mr. President, between 70 to 80 percent of all enlisted men and women 
earn less than $30,000 a year--including food and housing allowances. 
Forty-five percent of the Army and 46 percent of the Marine Corps earn 
less than $20,000 per year.
  Each month, an estimated 17,000 members of our Armed Forces receive 
food stamps--and the number is rising. According to the Department of 
Defense, the total value of food stamps redeemed at military 
commissaries in 1992 increased from $24.5 million to $27.4 million. 
Over 50 percent of military spouses have full-time jobs just to help 
pay the bills.
  But food and salaries are not the only problems our military families 
face. The severe shortage of family housing is another key area that 
must be addressed, and one that will require a long-term commitment.
  Mr. President, nothing is more compelling to a soldier, sailor, 
airman, or marine than to ensure that his family is well cared for and 
securely housed during extended periods away from home.
  As Army Chief of Staff General Sullivan described it, military 
personnel ``are willing to place their lives on the line, work long 
hours under demanding conditions, accept a lower pay scale than 
comparable civilian jobs, and ask their families to make sacrifices.''
  But in return, he said, they expect the Nation to take care of their 
families.
  Yet, more and more, we hear stories about junior enlisted men 
sleeping in automobiles to be with their families because no family 
housing is available. Routine plumbing, exterior painting and other 
noncritical maintenance is being abandoned, and family units are being 
closed, rather than upgraded or repaired. At Fort Huachuca, Arizona, 
where common are upkeep has been reduced by half, the result is 
increased habitats for snakes and vermin.
  Senator McCain described this situation as ``our military poor.'' I'd 
put it more bluntly: Are we the new slum landlords of our military men 
and women?
  Mr. President, something must be done to correct this deplorable 
situation. And in that regard, I intend to later introduce an amendment 
that addresses the housing problem.
  Not surprisingly, there are also signs that the quality of our troops 
is declining--a situation that threatens readiness even further.
  Today, only 94 percent of new enlistees are high school graduates, 
compared with 97 percent in the past. What's more, the Pentagon's 1993 
youth survey--a survey which annually measures the inclination of about 
10,000 16- to 25-year-olds to enlist--found that the number of young 
people who were considering joining the military had declined 2 percent 
since 1992, and 7 percent since 1989-90.
  Even more alarming is the fact that after a decade of striving, and 
succeeding, in reducing from 57 percent to zero the number of category 
IV recruits--those in the lowest educational category--the military is 
once again accepting category IV recruits. In 1993, the number was 
already up to two percent.
  Mr. President, despite downsizing, it is essential that the military 
continue to be able to attract high-caliber recruits. Yet since 1989, 
we have cut the overall service recruiting budgets by 60 percent; and 
advertising budgets by 40 percent.
  Yet, important as these concerns are, people are just part of the 
equation when it comes to readiness. What the military does with those 
people is the other part.
  When it comes to an effective fighting force, military commitments 
are where the rubber meets the road. That's where it all comes 
together.
  In 1990, the U.S. Navy was working toward a 600-ship fleet. Today, 
although it is operating with the same level of commitments worldwide, 
it has only 346 ships. Said one navy veteran, ``They are doing 18 hours 
a day. What more can they ask of these guys, when there are 360 places 
to be in, and only 346 ships?''
  Two years ago, 22,000 marines were deployed overseas for 6 months or 
more in fast-response and forward-placed units. Today, 24,000 men and 
women are deployed--even though the Corps has been reduced by 22,000 
during that same period of time.
  ``The end of the cold war notwithstanding,'' said Marine Commandant 
Gen. Carl Mundy, ``the operating tempo for marines has not diminished--
it's even picked up a couple of percentage points.''
  General Mundy also stressed that the practice of deploying as many as 
30 percent of marines away from home will ultimately wear out both 
marines and gear, drive down retention rates, and end up with units 
that are not combat-ready.
  Like the marines, the Air Force has also increased its operating 
tempo, but mostly as a result of humanitarian and peacekeeping tasking. 
About 80,000 U.S. troops were used to support U.N. peacekeeping 
missions last year. Yet, these non-traditional defense assignments have 
adversely affected the military's ability to train constructively for 
its primary mission: warfighting.
  Each year, according to Air Force Secretary Sheila Widnall, all 
aircrews spend more than 170 days deployed. Some even spend up to 170 
days deployed--despite the goal, determined by our experience with 
previous ``hollow force'' shortcomings, of 60- to 120-day deployments.
  Lengthy periods of time spent away from home have a direct impact on 
the military's ability to effectively re-train and prepare for the next 
operational assignment.
  Like the Air Force, Marine Corps units are also not receiving 
required training in warfighting skills because they are being chopped 
up for peacekeeping and humanitarian assignments.
  According to testimony we received in committee, the only way Navy 
ships were able to meet their operational and training commitments was 
to use the people and spare parts collected for the rapid 
decommissioning of other ships and units.
  Mr. President, in the past, the committee has asked that more 
emphasis be placed on sustaining readiness. Yet to date, we have done 
little more than apply bandaids to a festering wound.
  In his January 25 State of the Union address President Clinton said, 
``The budget I send to Congress draws the line against further defense 
cuts.'' Yet, the administration's long range plans call for an 
additional 11 percent drop in defense outlays between 1995 and 1999.
  Mr. President, the contrast with past years is striking. This year, 
the Navy will buy 6 ships; in 1990, they bought 20. This year, the 
military will buy 127 planes; in 1990, they bought 511. By this fall, 
only one contractor will be able to produce fixed wing combat aircraft. 
No new tanks will be bought in 1995.
  Yet our commitments have not declined. We are simply asking more and 
more of fewer and fewer people.
  Mr. President, all the issues I have discussed, and the examples I 
have used, do not represent some futuristic glimpse of tomorrow's 
military. They represent the current status of our forces. Today. And 
now is the time to address these issues.
  To quote former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, ``Current 
readiness cannot be sacrificed to future capability. Given the current 
state of international affairs, the future may be now.''
  Mr. Tony Cordesman was a little more graphic. He predicted that the 
only way Congress and the Pentagon will understand and pay attention to 
the readiness issue is ``when readiness is measured in body bags.''
  Mr. President, I hope we do not wait to see that come to pass.
  I thank the chair, and yield the floor.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, during this afternoon's discussion on the 
Mark-6 guidance unit for the Trident II missile, Senator Thurmond and I 
suggested to Senator Bumpers, the following compromise:
  The Navy would be allowed to purchase 14 of the requested 30 Mark-6 
guidance sets, and the other 16 guidance sets would be fenced; the 
Secretary of Defense would be permitted to remove the fence if, after a 
careful review of the GAO report and the Navy's response, he determines 
that failing to acquire the fenced guidance sets would lead to an 
unacceptable degradation of the Trident missile system reliability.
  The amendment has been cleared on both sides. I urge its adoption.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2230) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2231

      (Purpose: To establish criteria for Senate consideration of 
  authorization of military construction projects not included in the 
                         annual budget request)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on 
behalf of Senators McCain, Glenn, and Thurmond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. McCain for 
     himself, Mr. Glenn, and Mr. Thurmond, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2231.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDS FOR 
                   MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS NOT REQUESTED IN 
                   THE PRESIDENT'S ANNUAL BUDGET REQUEST.

       (a) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that, to the maximum extent practicable, the Senate should 
     consider the authorization for appropriation of funds for a 
     military construction project not included in the annual 
     budget request of the Department of the Defense only if:
       (1) the project is consistent with past actions of the Base 
     Realignment and Closure process;
       (2) the project is included in the military construction 
     plan of the military department concerned incorporated in the 
     Future Years Defense Program;
       (3) the project is necessary for reasons of the national 
     security of the United States; and
       (4) a contract for construction of the project can be 
     awarded in that fiscal year.
       (b) Views of the Secretary of Defense.--In considering 
     these criteria, the Senate should obtain the views of the 
     Secretary of Defense. These views should include whether 
     funds for a military construction project not included in the 
     budget request can be offset by funds for other programs, 
     projects, or activities, including military construction 
     projects, in the budget request and, if so, the specific 
     offsetting reductions recommended by the Secretary of 
     Defense.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. This amendment is a sense of the Senate to establish 
criteria for military construction projects to be added to the bill.


                    on military construction add-ons

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment which will 
ensure that, in the future, military construction dollars are spent 
wisely for the highest priority projects with the greatest utility to 
national security. The amendment establishes criteria for reviewing 
Senators' requests for funding for military construction projects not 
included in the President's budget request.
  The amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that military 
construction projects not included in the President's defense budget 
request should consider approving projects only if four criteria are 
met. These criteria are: The project is consistent with past actions of 
the Base Realignment and Closure process; the project is included in 
the 5-year military construction plan of the military department 
concerned; the project is necessary for reasons of the national 
security of the United States; and a contract for construction of the 
project can be awarded in that fiscal year.
  In addition, the amendment requires the Senate to consult with the 
Secretary of Defense and to obtain his views concerning the relative 
merits of military construction projects which were not included in the 
Department of Defense budget request. The Secretary will be asked to 
comment on the four criteria outlined above, and will also be asked to 
provide an offsetting reduction from another military construction 
project, or from any other program in the defense budget.
  When these steps have been accomplished, the Senate will then be able 
to make an informed decision whether to authorize and appropriate funds 
for any of these unrequested projects.
  The amendment addresses the process of evaluating Members' requests 
for additional military construction funding. I stress that I am not 
condemning every project added by Congress as unnecessary or wasteful. 
Many of the unrequested projects recommended in this bill may very well 
be meritorious and militarily necessary. But I believe that it is 
essential that the Senate formalize the specific criteria to be used in 
reviewing each request.
  I feel very strongly that reductions should be taken in other 
military construction projects to offset the costs of these new 
projects. This year, the Senate Armed Services Committee asked the 
Department of Defense to identify offsetting reductions for the 
unrequested projects included in the bill. DOD failed to do so in any 
but a very few cases. But what incentive does the Department have to 
offer up cuts in other programs when they know full well that Congress 
will add the projects anyway? This amendment expresses the Senate's 
view that DOD should be asked to identify specific offsets for military 
construction add-ons. I trust DOD will do so in the future.

  Mr. President, last week, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee 
held a hearing on the Department of Defense process of budgeting for 
military construction projects. At that hearing, I asked the Department 
of Defense Inspector General to comment on the process of congressional 
add-ons to the military construction budget request. Mr. VanDer Schaaf 
commented that every military construction project in the Department is 
suspect and that military construction projects should be minimized 
until the Base Realignment and closure process is completed. I fully 
agree with the inspector general's comments, and I urge my colleagues 
to heed his caution.
  In addition, as a result of that hearing, I intend to ask, with the 
concurrence of Senator Glenn, that the General Accounting Office 
conduct an audit of all military construction projects underway and 
planned in the Department of Defense 5-year plan to ensure that these 
projects are being executed in a timely and fiscally responsible 
fashion. I also will ask the GAO to review the Department's process of 
reviewing congressional add-ons to the military construction budget 
with respect to the criteria established in this amendment. 
Unfortunately, I believe it is necessary to acquire an independent 
assessment of DOD's ability to screen out unnecessary projects and to 
prioritize all projects within the amount of money allocated for 
military construction each year.
  Mr. President, the criteria in this amendment are essentially the 
same as those I proposed to my collleagues in April of this year. I 
realize that this procedure represents a significant change in the 
Congress' review of the military construction budget. However, I firmly 
believe that Congress must exercise restraint in adding unrequested 
military construction projects to ensure that limited defense dollars 
are spent for high priority military requirements necessary to our 
ability to fight and win any future conflict.
  As I have stated to this body many times, I am seriously concerned 
about the deleterious impact of the rapidly declining defense budget on 
the readiness of our military forces, as well as on the daily lives of 
the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces and their families. The 
practice in Congress of adding unrequested programs and projects to the 
defense budget only serves to exacerbate the difficulty of stretching 
scarce defense dollars to fund military requirements. We must exercise 
restraint in our fiscal practices and instill discipline in our review 
of Members' requests for approval of unrequested military construction 
projects.

  For the past 10 years, the defense budget has declined every year. 
Defense budget authority has declined since 1985 by almost 41 percent. 
At the same time, however, military construction budget authority has 
been reduced only 29 percent. This mismatch of infrastructure funding 
with the topline decline in the defense budget accounts for the pork 
factor of unnecessary military construction projects. Congress' 
proclivity for adding politically advantageous spending to an already 
stretched defense budget has contributed greatly to this funding gap. 
It is time to move forward with the base closure process and to permit 
DOD to maintain its overall budget priorities.
  I doubt that many of my colleagues are fully aware of the magnitude 
of the congressional add-ons in the military construction budget in 
recent years. Let me provide some enlightening information.
  In the past 5 years, from fiscal year 1990 through 1994, Congress 
added over $4.4 billion in unrequested military construction projects 
to the Defense budget. This equates to $880 million every year in 
special interest projects designated for Members' districts or States. 
And every dollar added for these pork barrel projects had to come from 
some other program--weapons procurement, military research and 
development, combat training, or other high-priority military 
requirements.
  This year, the fiscal year 1995 budget resolution cut $500 million in 
outlays from the overall discretionary spending account, all of which 
was taken from the defense bills in the Appropriations Committees' 
allocations. Then, to compound the problem, the Appropriations 
Committees cut the allocation for the Defense Subcommittee and 
increased the allocation to the Military Construction Subcommittee by 
$490 million. This transfer was made solely to accommodate 
congressional add-ons.
  True to form, the House of Representatives has already passed both 
the fiscal year 1995 Defense authorization bill and the fiscal year 
1995 military construction appropriations bill, which include $695 
million in Member add-ons. The fiscal year 1995 Defense authorization 
bill before the Senate today includes approximately $545 million in 
add-ons requested by Senators. The pork barrel is again being filled to 
the brim.
   Mr. President, the $\1/2\ billion in the bill before the Senate does 
little, in my view, to enhance our national security. It goes a long 
way, however, to improving the political stature of the projects' 
proponents in their home states.

  Let me say that I applaud and appreciate the efforts of Senator Glenn 
in shifting funds from nonreadiness-related programs to fund depot 
maintenance and real property maintenance in all of the Services. In 
this bill, $778 million is added to the O&M budget for programs related 
to military readiness.
  However, serious shortfalls remain. The Air Force has reported that 
the depot maintenance backlog is currently at $868 million, and the 
Army's depot maintenance account is only funded at 62 percent of 
requirements. The Marine Corps is suffering severe cutbacks in combat 
training and in sustainability because funds and time are being 
redirected to support peacekeeping operations. Navy afloat inventories 
have been reduced 40 percent since 1989 as a result of a desire to save 
money on spare parts by centralizing storage ashore; but this means 
that a ship at sea requiring repairs will now have to sit idly while 
the necessary parts are transported to their location. The Army's 
aviator training budget is funded at only 76 percent of requirements, a 
level insufficient to make any progress in redressing the shortfall in 
skilled Army aviators identified in Operation Desert Storm. Cuts in 
base operations funding have reduced the standard of living of our 
troops, which translates quickly into lowered morale and reduced 
readiness.
  All of these examples point to the need to increase operation and 
maintenance funding. The $545 million in Member add-ons for unrequested 
military construction projects would go a long way toward offsetting 
the cuts in these vital readiness accounts.
  I firmly believe that military readiness must take precedence over 
military construction pork. I had initially intended to propose an 
amendment to strike out all of the unrequested military construction 
projects contained in this bill, and to transfer the $545 million to 
the operation and maintenance accounts to ensure our future military 
readiness. However, I am a realist. I fully recognize that the Senate 
is not currently inclined to put the brakes on its pork barrel spending 
race. Therefore, I chose instead to work with the chairman of the 
Readiness Subcommittee, Senator Glenn, and the distinguished chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee to 
reach an agreement on a set of criteria which would be used in the 
future to evaluate unrequested military construction projects. This 
amendment reflects our consensus on the appropriate set of criteria.
  Mr. President, this amendment requires a comprehensive review, by 
both the Department of Defense and the Senate, of any military 
construction project not included in the budget request for which 
funding is requested by an individual Senator. These reviews will 
ensure that only the most meritorious and militarily necessary projects 
are funded.
  It is time to stop the congressional building spree. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for the amendment.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator McCain's 
sense of the Senate amendment establishing criteria for evaluating 
military construction projects requested as additions to Services' 
military construction programs. I want to congratulate the Senator from 
Arizona for his earnest efforts in this endeavor and in his continuing 
fight to provide for the readiness of our forces.
  The amendment before us would formalize the process that the 
Subcommittee on Military Readiness and Defense Infrastructure has used 
for this bill to evaluate Members' military construction project 
requests. By including the criteria in this bill, we are advising 
Members and the American people that each of the projects added to the 
military construction program must meet a valid military requirement. 
It opens the process and takes away some of the negative innuendoes 
that are associated with the military construction projects added by 
the Congress.
  Mr. President, I want to emphasize that in my judgment, this 
amendment does not take away any congressional prerogatives. It merely 
provides us with a mechanism to better evaluate the projects that are 
requested to be included in the military construction authorization. 
The Congress will still have the final say on whether or not a project 
is added to the defense bill.
  To highlight the importance of congressional adds to the Services 
military construction programs, let me briefly make two points about 
the projects that we are adding to the defense bill this year.
  First, the Department of Defense reduced the Services' military 
construction request by almost $1 billion to meet final budget targets. 
There was very little consideration of the Services priorities.
  Testimony by all the Services indicated that DOD's MILCON request 
defers high priority projects and is approximately $2 billion below the 
1994 budget. For example, the Air Force stated that it deferred $80 to 
$90 million in new mission and force realignment projects as a result 
of the DOD cuts.
  Second, these projects are important to readiness. Family housing and 
maintenance facilities are as important to the readiness of our 
military as weapons and training.
  If a military family is living in below-standard housing while the 
soldier is deployed elsewhere, it will have an adverse impact on 
readiness. There is no doubt that if our soldiers have to maintain 
sophisticated equipment in substandard facilities, it will not be 
maintained as well as it could have been in the proper facilities.
  Mr. President, the projects added by the Armed Services Committee all 
meet the criteria in Senator McCain's amendment. They add to the 
readiness of our Armed Forces and maximize the precious fiscal 
resources available to defense.
  Again, I congratulate Senator McCain for his good government 
provision and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I join Senator McCain in sponsoring an 
amendment which would express the sense of the Senate that, to the 
maximum extent practicable, the Senate should consider the 
authorization of appropriation of funds for a military construction 
project not included in the annual budget request of the Department of 
Defense only if:
  First, the project is consistent with past actions of the base 
realignment and closure process;
  Second, the project is included in the 5-year military construction 
plan of the military department concerned;
  Third, the project is necessary for reasons of the national security 
of the United States; and
  Fourth, a contract for construction of the project can be awarded in 
that fiscal year.
  In considering these criteria, the Senate should obtain the views of 
the Secretary of Defense. These views should include whether funds for 
a military construction project not included in the budget request can 
be offset by funds for other programs, projects or activities, 
including military construction projects, in the budget request, and, 
if so, the specific offsetting reductions recommended by the Secretary 
of Defense.
  Mr. President, every military construction project added by the 
committee to the fiscal year 1995 budget request already meets the 
criteria contained in this sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
  The criteria I just outlined were developed by the Subcommittee on 
Military Readiness and Defense Infrastructure this year to guide their 
review of military construction programs.
  The committee bill includes additions to the military construction 
budget of $573 million, including $545 million in member requests, 
offset by $273 million in reductions, for a net increase to the budget 
of $300 million.
  This year, in the final stages of preparing the fiscal year 1995 
budget, OSD reduced the military construction accounts by approximately 
$1 billion to meet the final budget targets. As a result, the fiscal 
year 1995 military construction request is $1.1 billion below last 
year's level, a reduction of almost 15 percent in real terms. OSD 
officials have consistently said that the only reason for this large 
reduction in military construction in fiscal year 1995 was the need 
``to absorb a department-wide inflation increase'' in fiscal year 1995.

  All of the services complained in our hearings this year that the 
sharp cut in military construction funding in the fiscal year 1995 
budget request would make it increasingly difficult to meet their 
facility modernization goals.
  The Committee identified savings of approximately $1.5 billion in the 
fiscal year 1995 budget in the O&M area of the budget, principally 
because the drawdown of civilian personnel is occurring faster than 
anticipated in the current fiscal year.
  If DOD had known about the civilian personnel savings when they put 
their budget together, they would not have made the last-minute, deep 
cuts in their budget request for military construction programs.
  The committee received a letter this week from Deputy Secretary 
Deutch, that I would like to make part of the Record, in which he makes 
this very point:

       As I understand from your mark up, you determined that 
     certain funds in our initial request for civilian personnel 
     would not be needed and the committee directed that they be 
     spent on military construction projects. Frankly, had we been 
     able to forecast these reductions in civilian personnel last 
     November when we were preparing the fiscal year 1995 budget 
     submission, we could have avoided the deep reductions in 
     military construction that we ultimately had to propose.

  Secretary Deutch then offered his overall assessment actions of the 
committee's actions in the military construction portion of this bill. 
He said:

       We welcome the disciplined approach the Committee took to 
     reviewing additional military construction projects in fiscal 
     year 1995. My staff has confirmed that all of the additional 
     projects are executable in fiscal year 1995 and are 
     consistent with past Base Realignment and Closure actions. I 
     especially appreciate your limiting the additional projects 
     to those which are included in our five year plan.

  The civilian personnel savings identified by the committee were 
applied to other areas of the budget that the committee thought were 
underfunded.
  Almost $800 million for high priority readiness programs such as 
depot maintenance; real property maintenance; support to operating 
tempo; and recruiting.
  Another $400 million went to pay the costs of increasing the military 
pay raise from 1.6 percent to 2.6 percent.
  $300 million of these savings went to increase the military 
construction request for high priority military construction projects 
in the areas of readiness; soldier welfare; new missions; and 
environmental compliance. I ask unanimous consent to include a 
representative list of military construction projects we added, Mr. 
President.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


                               readiness

       1. Advanced tactical airlift center, St Joseph, MO.
       2. Vehicle maintenance shop, Fort Campbell, KY.
       3. Live fire maneuver range, Fort Knox, KY.
       4. Squadron operations facility, Bangor, ME.
       5. Communications/ electronics training facility, Camp 
     Riley, OR.


                            soldier welfare:

       1. Student pilot dorm, Luke AFB, AZ.
       2. DOD dependent school (section 6), Naval Surface Warfare 
     Center, Dahlgren, VA.
       3. Family housing (replace 126 units), Fort Riley, KS.
       4. Child care center, Kirtland AFB, NM.
       5. Family housing renovation, Fort Richardson, AK.
       6. Child development center, Andrews AFB, MD
       7. Dormitory, Nellis AFB, NV.


                              new mission

       1. T-1 Jayhawk maintenance support facility, Columbus AFB, 
     MS.
       2. Parking apron renovation, Mountain Home AFB, ID.
       3. Army strategic deployment center, Charleston, SC.
       4. Munitions maintenance and storage facility, Great Falls, 
     MT.


                       environmental compliance:

       1. Fuel storage complex, Richmond, VA.
       2. Water distribution system, Kirtland AFB, NM.
       3. Water supply system, Camp Smith, NY.
       4. Water treatment plant, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.

  Mr. Glenn. In concluding, I urge my colleagues to support this sense 
of the Senate and help maintain discipline in this process.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I understand this amendment has been cleared by both 
sides, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. NUNN. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2231) was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 2232

(Purpose: To authorize the use of certain funds for the construction of 
                 military projects and family housing)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senators Boxer, Boren, Bumpers, Campbell, DeConcini, D'Amato, Daschle, 
Faircloth, Feinstein, Ford, Harkin, Hatfield, Johnston, Kempthorne, 
Nickles, Pressler, Sasser, Specter, Stevens, Wellstone, and Wallop, and 
I ask for its immediate consideration. This is on behalf of Senator 
Thurmond and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for himself, Mr. 
     Thurmond, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Boren, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Campbell, 
     Mr. DeConcini, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Faircloth, Mrs. 
     Feinstein, Mr. Ford, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Johnston, 
     Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Sasser, Mr. 
     Specter, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Wallop, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2232.

  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 249, line 21, strike out ``$393,550,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$396,750,000''.
       On page 249, in the table below line 24, strike out 
     ``$5,300,000'' in the ``Amount'' column with respect to the 
     item relating to Fort Knox, Kentucky, and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$8,500,000''.
       On page 252, line 15, strike out ``$1,668,086,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$1,671,286,000''.
       On page 252, line 18, strike out ``$393,550,000'' and 
     insert in lieu there of ``$396,750,000''.
       On page 254, line 22, strike out ``$224,180,000'' and 
     insert lieu thereof ``$239,265,000''.
       On page 254, in the table below, line 25, above the line 
     relating to California insert.

Arizona.....................  Yuma Marine Corps Air          $15,085,000
                               Station.                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       On page 258, line 2, strike out ``$1,492,264,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$1,507,349,000''.
       On page 258, line 5, strike out ``$224,180,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$239,265,000''.
       On page 262, line 1, strike out ``$398,904,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof $412,004,000''.
       On page 262, in the table below line 4, insert:
       (a) after the item relating to Eielson Air Force Base, 
     insert.

                              Elmendorf Air Force Base....    $5,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (b) after the item relating to Peterson Air Force Base, 
     insert

                              United States Air Force         $3,600,000
                               Academy.                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (c) after the item relating to Pope Air Force Base, insert

North Dakota................  Ellsworth Air Force Base....    $4,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       On page 264, line 1, strike out ``$163,348,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``#$172,310,000''.
       On page 264, in the table below line 3, after the item 
     relating to Edwards Air Force Base, insert

                                  Los Angeles Air Force Base.....  50 units.......................    $8,962,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       On page 266, line 1, strike out ``$1,572,801,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$1,594,863,000''.
       On page 266, line 5, strike out ``$398,904,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$412,004,000''.
       On page 266, line 24, strike out ``$234,393,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$243,355,000''.
       On page 268, line 18, strike out ``$397,700,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$413,700,000''.
       On page 268 in the table below line 20, after the item 
     relating to Eglin Auxiliary Field No. 9, Florida insert

                              Fort Bragg, North Carolina..  $16,000,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       On page 270, line 21, strike out ``$3,230,058,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$3,246,058,000''.
       On page 270, line 24, strike out ``$136,700,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$152,700,000''.
       On page 276, line 15, strike out ``$146,447,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$180,312,000''.
       On page 276, line 16, strike out ``$16,470,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$37,870,000''.
       On page 276, line 18, strike out ``$6,955,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$17,355,000''.
       On page 276, line 21, strike out ``$224,053,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$240,003,000''.
       On page 276, line 23, strike out ``$28,190,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$43,840,000''.
       On page 277, line 10, strike out ``$286,693,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$287,958,000''.

  Mr. NUNN. This amendment will authorize for appropriation funds for 
military construction and military family housing projects. All of the 
projects included in this amendment have been thoroughly reviewed and 
meet the criteria the committee established in reviewing and evaluating 
military construction projects added to the budget request for fiscal 
year 1995.


                            hermiston armory

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment which 
would provide funding for the Hermiston Armory.
  The Hermiston Armory has been in the planning process for over a 
decade. Company B, 3d Battalion, 116th Cavalry (Armor) is being 
reorganized. The unit reorganization, as part of a round out brigade 
with the 4th Infantry division, is the primary reason for adding this 
facility. The unit is currently in leased space. It is not cost 
effective nor adequate for the Oregon Guard's training needs. It also 
should be noted that this facility will serve a growing and vibrant 
community as a primary community center.
  This facility borders the Umatilla Army Depot. This depot is closing. 
This armory will be used to enhance the readiness for the community. 
There are tremendous programs going on in the community that require 
many meetings with members of the local community. This armory will 
serve many functions.
  I thank the chairman, the ranking member, as well as the chairman and 
ranking member of the Military Readiness and Defense Infrastructure 
Subcommittee. This is a difficult task that requires much insight and 
patience. I look forward to working with this Committee when we take up 
the defense appropriation.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Mr. President, this amendment authorizes $2.8 million 
for the rehabilitation of the Ruston National Guard Armory in Ruston, 
Louisiana. This is a critical project to sustain the readiness of the 
527th Engineer Battalion, a unit that was mobilized and deployed to the 
Persian Gulf during Desert Storm. The unit is not affected by force 
reductions under ``Quick Silver''. The project calls for renovation/
construction of approximately 57,000 square feet for administrative, 
supply, storage, vault, training and maintenance requirements of an 
engineer battalion headquarters and an engineer construction company.
  Mr. President, I can assure my colleagues that this project is 
sufficiently designed and can and will be executed during fiscal year 
1995. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment provides $6.2 million for 
two necessary military construction projects at the Des Moines Air 
National Guard; $2.3 million of that sum is for an engineering and 
supply facility.
  The current facilities are undersized and environmentally deficient. 
In addition, the existing building lies within the FAA building 
restriction line. Its continued presence will interfere with the 
airport's certification as a category II instrument landing site. 
Funding for an ILS II was provided in the fiscal year 1994 
Transportation appropriations bill.
  The remaining $3.9 million is for a Des Moines Air Guard munitions 
maintenance and storage complex. It is part of the conversion from A-7 
to F-16 aircraft. The existing facility provides only 60 percent of the 
space needed for sufficient training and proper munitions storage. It 
cannot be expanded.
  I appreciate the attention shown to these important needs of the Air 
Guard in Des Moines by Senators Nunn, Thurmond, and Sasser. I urge the 
adoption of the amendment.


       joint mobility ramp and utility projects at elmendorf afb

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment would provide funding for 
phase II of the Joint Mobility Center at Fort Richardson and Elmendorf 
Air Force Base. It also will provide funding for utility upgrades at 
Elmendorf Air Force Base.
  Last year, the Congress provided funds to establish a joint Army//Air 
Force Deployment Center, to serve Fort Richardson and Elmendorf Air 
Force Base. That project is now proceeding. Further site surveys 
indicate that additional ramp reconstruction will be required to fully 
support utilization by C-5 and C-17 aircraft.
  This amendment provides $4 million to complete all necessary ramp 
maintenance and repair concurrent with construction of this new 
facility. Currently, the new joint mobility complex will be adjacent to 
three existing hardstands capable of handling C-141 aircraft only. All 
shipments via C-5 aircraft must be trucked or bussed to a ramp located 
one mile away if you use the available taxiways. If the taxiways are 
not available it is a distance of 2 miles by road.
  The use of transport vehicles on taxiways will disrupt aircraft 
operations and create serious foreign object damage hazards. Use of the 
roadway creates greater security and safety problems than already 
exists. This ramp will help eliminate these problems.
  Regarding the second part of this amendment, the Army-Air Force 
Exchange System [AAFES] and the Defense Commissary Agency [DECA] are 
working to better utilize facilities at installations around the world. 
AAFES and DECA are planning to construct a new combined facility to 
serve Elmendorf AFB and Fort Richardson in Alaska. An upgrade of 
utilities is necessary prior to work on this new facility.
  The present location of the Base Exchange and Commissary provides no 
room for expansion. Parking conditions are overcrowded. This is due to 
the close proximity of the base gymnasium. Also the present facility 
size is inadequate to handle the amount of merchandise delivered and 
sold at Elmendorf AFB.
  This amendment provides $1 million to prepare the base for new 
facilities that will provide a better standard of living for our 
service members and retirees from the surrounding area.
  I thank the chairman, the ranking member, as well as the chairman and 
ranking member of the Military Readiness and Defense Infrastructure 
Subcommittee. This is a difficult task that requires much knowledge 
wisdom. I look forward to working with this committee when we take up 
the defense appropriation.
  Mr. President, in case there is any confusion this amendment 
authorizes an additional $5.0 million for the Military Construction, 
Air Force account. This consists of $4 million for a ramp at the Joint 
Mobility Center and $1 million for utility projects. Both of these 
projects are located at Elmendorf AFB.


                    military construction amendment

  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, this amendment would add $6,233,000 in 
military construction funds for the Army National Guard. These funds 
are to provide a major utilities upgrade at Camp Guernsey, WY. This 
facility is an important training site for the entire region. Active 
and Reserve forces from many States use this vital training facility 
year round.
  Despite the large volume of activity at Camp Guernsey, the basic 
infrastructure there is woefully substandard. The basic utilities are 
so degraded that significant fire and other dangers are now a fact of 
everyday life. Without this project, this dangerous situation will only 
worsen.
  Mr. President, this is a worthy project that deserves the Senate's 
approval. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, this amendment will meet an urgent, 
unmet need for bachelor enlisted quarters at the Yuma Marine Corps Air 
Station. These critically needed facilities will provide adequate 
billeting for up to 450 enlisted personnel.
  Currently, transient, rotational, and deployed personnel at Yuma MCAS 
are billeted in antiquated wooden facilities constructed in 1954. The 
lack of suitable facilities requires doubling up of personnel in rooms 
during the Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron One semiannual 
weapons and tactics instructor course which teaches pilots to become 
instructors in aerial combat tactics. My amendment would authorize 
$15.085 million to fully fund this project--which meets the four 
criteria agreed to by members of the Senate Armed Services Committee 
for proceeding with military construction projects.
  I offer this amendment after carefully considering the military 
construction requirements submitted to the services by the military 
bases remaining in my state. There are a great many projects needed at 
these facilities which have been and continue to be delayed. I would 
like to see them all funded, but that is not realistic. Tough choices 
have to be made. The defense budget is tight and cuts in spending are 
inevitable.
  These are difficult times for the military. We are uncertain which 
bases will remain open. Military families are being asked to make 
deeper sacrifices, greater time is spent training away from families, 
even retiree COLA's are being delayed--this at a time when our Armed 
Forces are being called upon to perform more missions, and more varied 
missions, than ever before. That is why this amendment is so important.
  Yuma is a high quality Marine Corps facility which demands tough 
sacrifices from the men and women stationed there. It is also one of 
the hottest spots in the Nation, so quality quarters are a necessity. 
My amendment would meet this urgent need, even at the cost of further 
delaying other projects elsewhere in Arizona. Some people might call 
this ``pork,'' but to the men and women who will be served by these 
quarters, they will call it ``home.''
  I urge that the amendment be adopted and I thank the chairman and the 
ranking member for their consideration of this amendment.


       military construction amendment, idaho air national guard

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, my amendment would authorize $4 
million for a military construction project for the Idaho Air National 
Guard at Gowen Field. Now many of my colleagues have heard me talk 
about the Idaho Air National Guard before. These guardsmen have 
performed two 6-month deployments to Southwest Asia to enforce the no 
fly zone over southern Iraq. I make this point because some people seem 
to think that helping the National Guard is wasting the taxpayers' 
money. Well, I'm here to tell you that members of the Idaho Guard have 
been on the frontlines defending freedom and I want to do what I can to 
insure that these men and women have the training, the equipment, and 
the facilities they need to do their job.
  In this regard, the Air Guard at Gowen Field has a 40-year-old hanger 
with electrical, heating, life safety code, and fire code deficiencies. 
Ad hoc alterations and systematic deficiencies have greatly reduced the 
useful space in the hangar. A renovated and up-dated hangar is needed 
to facilitate the proper maintenance of the aircraft stationed at Gowen 
Field. The project is a mission/readiness oriented project that is in 
the budget for 1997. I ask my colleagues to move this project forward 
to 1995 so that we can address the safety problems at the hangar as 
soon as possible.
  I understand the budgetary pressures facing the defense budget but I 
believe we must make investments to maintain the facilities we plan to 
rely upon in the future to defend our Nation's interests.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, the additional funds provided by this 
amendment will provide for two important construction projects for the 
Tennessee Air National Guard.
  The amendment will provide $2,300,000 for a much needed vehicle 
maintenance complex at the Nashville Metropolitan Airport. This will 
provide the 118th Airlift Wing with a properly configured building in 
which to repair and maintain organizational vehicles such as sweepers, 
snowplows, refueler vehicles, and trucks. Also, this amendment will 
provide $3,500,000 for a flight simulation facility at the Memphis 
International Airport. This regional training facility is needed to 
house a C-141 flight simulator that is being relocated from an active 
duty Air Force base, and will accommodate training of Air National 
Guard C-141 pilots and copilots.


     niagara international airport fuel systems maintenance hangar

  Mr. D'Amato. Mr. President, the proposed fuel systems maintenance 
hangar is an essential element of the Air Force Reserve modernization 
plan for Niagara International Airport [IAP].
  The current fuel systems maintenance hangar is a 40-year-old wood 
truss building. Dry rot has led to rapid deterioration of the 
structure, calling for constant, and increasingly expensive upkeep. 
Demolition and replacement of the current hangar was originally 
scheduled for fiscal year 1995, but was slipped to fiscal year 1996 due 
to funding constraints.
  I should note that the 914th Tactical Airlift Group based at Niagara 
IAP was one of the few Air Force Reserve C-130 units deployed to the 
Persian Gulf during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. The unit served proudly 
without accident or loss of life, delivering vital supplies throughout 
the theatre.
  I look forward to working with my armed services colleagues to make 
this hangar replacement a reality.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this amendment would authorize the 
construction of phase II of a consolidated three-phase administration 
support complex known as Rushmore Center at Ellsworth Air Force Base in 
South Dakota.
  I would like to begin by commending Chairman Nunn and the members of 
the Senate Armed Services Committee for their diligent work on the 
fiscal year 1995 DOD authorization bill and for the past support they 
have given the Rushmore Center. When the Senate Armed Services 
Committee considered the fiscal year 1994 DOD authorization bill last 
year, it authorized $6.2 million to construct phase I of Rushmore 
Center. I truly appreciated that support and was pleased the final 
version of the fiscal year 1994 military construction appropriations 
bill also included funding for the project.
  As I mentioned, Rushmore Center is a consolidated administration 
support complex. Officials at Ellsworth Air Force Base have proposed 
this important project as a logical step-by-step approach to 
rehabilitate and replace some of their older facilities through self-
help programs, operations and maintenance [O&M] facility projects, and 
military construction projects. While Ellsworth has experienced growth 
in the number of its facilities, it has also experienced a decline in 
O&M funding available to maintain them. Therefore, Ellsworth officials 
have developed a plan to consolidate, where possible, and to demolish 
those facilities that are well beyond their expected lifetimes.
  Funding for phase II of Rushmore Center is critical to Ellsworth's 
ability to achieve these objectives. Rushmore Center will allow 
Ellsworth to consolidate virtually all base support functions, and 
demolish ten World War II facilities. Moreover, I would like to point 
out that the construction of the Rushmore Center will allow Ellsworth 
to build less, but more efficient, square footage than it will tear 
down. Needless to say, the O&M savings accruing to such projects are 
substantial.
  Although Ellsworth has been successful in articulating the need for 
the Rushmore Center, it was unable to get the entire project funded in 
the fiscal year 1994 budget. As a result, Ellsworth officials have 
proposed to phase in the project over 3 years. Phase I required $6.2 
million; phase II will require $4.5 million; and phase III will require 
approximately $7.4 million.
  With phase I behind us, Senator Pressler and I are requesting 
authorization for phase II be included in the fiscal year 1995 DOD 
authorization bill. I strongly believe that the Rushmore Center is 
essential to the future of Ellsworth Air Force Base. Moreover, I am 
confident that its construction will bring many functions that are 
currently scattered throughout the base in substandard structures into 
one attractive, customer service-oriented setting. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to support this important amendment.


       military construction project at tinker air force base, ok

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to thank the Armed Services 
Committee for helping put this important project in the Defense 
authorization bill.
  This $10.2 million upgrade for a ramp and a fuel hydrant system for 
the 507th Fighter Group at Tinker Air Force Base is essential because 
the 507th is in the process of transitioning from F-16's to KC-135's. 
Obviously, the size and weight difference in these planes requires that 
these changes be made. This upgrade will allow the 507th to operate 
their new planes in a safe and efficient manner.
  If the ramp is not upgraded, the unit will not be able to access the 
assigned parking ramp. Additionally, the use of truck refueling, 
instead of the hydrant system, will result in a slow response time 
preventing the unit from supporting its operational and training 
requirements. This in turn impacts the overall readiness of our 
military.
  The announcement of the transition from F-16's to KC-135's was made 
too late by the Air Force to be included in the President's request for 
military construction. Therefore, it was necessary to have this project 
added to the bill for the reasons stated above.
  Once again, I thank the members and staff of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee for working to include this project in the bill.


             support for los angeles air force base milcon

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment authorizes 
approximately $9 million for the construction of 50 units of family 
housing at Los Angeles Air Force Base [AFB].
  After the President's fiscal year 1995 budget request was submitted 
to Congress, the Air Force identified a need for authorization and 
appropriation of approximately $9 million in fiscal year 1995 to 
construct 50 units of family housing at Los Angeles AFB. Secretary 
Widnall stated that the Air Force requires 150 new units for Los 
Angeles AFB and plans to phase the construction in two increments--the 
first phase calls for the construction of 50 units. The Secretary 
stated that the first phase should be completely designed and ready for 
contract in fiscal year 1995.
  This project will help to alleviate the housing shortage encountered 
by personnel at Los Angeles AFB and will assure a high-quality of life 
for military personnel and their dependents stationed at the important 
base.
  I strongly support this amendment and I urge its adoption. I now ask 
unanimous consent that a letter from Secretary Windall to one of my 
House colleagues in support of this authorization be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                   Secretary of the Air Force,

                                      Washington, DC, May 6, 1994.
     Hon. Jane Harman,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Harman: Thank you for your April 26, 1994, letter 
     on Los Angeles Air Force Base. As a result of the drawdown in 
     the Los Angeles area, we explored all existing excess housing 
     as a possible solution to our long-standing shortage at Los 
     Angeles Air Force Base. We carefully considered using excess 
     military family housing available from the Navy. However, 
     this housing does not meet the needs of the Air Force due to 
     its age, condition, location and cost to renovate. Upgrade of 
     existing housing is not economically feasible under current 
     Congressional language which requires replacement if the cost 
     of renovation of existing housing exceeds 70 percent of new 
     housing costs.
       We have also explored other avenues through the Department 
     od Housing and Urban Development and have been unsuccessful 
     in identifying excess units that meet our requirements. The 
     Air Force desires a single housing ``community'' to support 
     Los Angeles Air Force Base and the Fort MacArthur site is the 
     best location to meet our needs.
       As you know, we have signed the lease with the Los Angeles 
     Unified School District for the property offered by the 
     Governor and Mayor. Our requirement remains 150 units and the 
     plan is to phase the construction in two increments, 50 units 
     programmed for $8 million and 100 units programmed for $16 
     million. The early planning, design and environmental work is 
     underway and I expect the first phase to be completely 
     designed and ready for contract award late in Fiscal Year 
     1995.
       I will keep you informed of our progress on this important 
     military family housing initiative.
           Sincerely,
                                                Sheila E. Widnall.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this amendment authorizes two important 
military construction projects for the Army National Guard. The first 
project would upgrade the existing natural gas and electrical 
distribution systems at the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center. 
This facility supports over 900 full time and 4,100 part time citizen-
soldiers. The current natural gas and electrical distribution systems 
were originally installed from 1942 to 1950, and are now in extreme 
stages of deterioration. Over 80 percent of the gas valves are 
inoperative, and most of the electrical wires are frayed and 
substandard. This project will cost $6,847,000.
  The second project would authorize the construction of a combat 
pistol qualification course at Camp Roberts, CA. The California 
National Guard does not currently have a facility to train and qualify 
soldiers to the required standard. This vitally needed project will 
cost $952,000.


            air force academy military construction project

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, the proposed amendment would authorize 
$3.6 million in military construction at the U.S. Air Force Academy. 
The project would renovate would renovate and enlarge a dormitory used 
by cadets at the Academy.
  As most of my colleagues may know, many of the facilities at the Air 
Force Academy are 35 years old and in desperate need of repair and 
modernization. The dormitory project now before the Senate falls into 
this category.
  The dormitory does not meet current fire and safety standards and 
asbestos must be removed as part of the renovation. The dormitory has 
an inadequate ventilation system in the gang latrines and the rooms 
which adds to the health and safety risks. The buildings have not 
received any major upgrades since they were built between 1959 and 
1962.
  This year I became a member of the Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air 
Force Academy and I looked into the issue of the deteriorating 
facilities at the academy.
  The proposed project is in the Air Force's 1996 budget but I think 
that if we can find the funds, we should try to address the health and 
safety standards at this facility this year.
  I want to thank the managers of the bill for their consideration of 
my amendment and I hope they can accept it.


                         to ensure cola equity

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, the Senate is a body of laws and rules. We 
create them and our actions are governed by them.
  Unfortunately, those rules sometimes lead to unintended consequences. 
Such is the case with the cost-of-living increases paid to civilian and 
military Federal retirees. The Senate heard considerable debate on this 
issue last night and this morning.
  The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993--one of the rules we 
live by--required that civilian and military retiree COLA's be delayed 
to achieve deficit reduction targets. But civilian and military pay 
come from different accounts, overseen by different committees. Because 
those accounts are very different in size, and because those committees 
have very different demands on that money, each was required to make an 
independent decision. And each did the best it could.
  But the result of playing by those rules was that the traditional 
parallel between civilian and military COLA's was broken. The civilian 
COLA's were delayed a total of 9 months during fiscal years 1994 to 
1998; military COLA's were delayed a total of 39 months in the same 
period.
  Senator Warner's amendment, passed this morning, resolves the effects 
of this disparity for fiscal year 1995. My amendment builds on that by 
setting a ground rule for the next round of budgeting, following the 
expiration of the current OBRA in fiscal year 1998, that both civilian 
and military COLA's will be effective upon the earlier date of the two.
  Mr. President, the issue here is fairness. When two people serve this 
Nation for equal periods and with equal merit, their retirement should 
not depend on the cut of clothes they wore. My amendment would set a 
new rule above all others: That the Senate puts fairness first.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.


                   ellsworth afb construction project

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I voice my support of the Daschle-
Pressler amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 
year 1995.
  This amendment, submitted by my South Dakota colleague and I, will 
authorize the second part of a three phase military construction 
project to enable Ellsworth Air Force Base in our home State of South 
Dakota to consolidate administrative support, demolish substandard 
facilities, and reduce long-term utility and maintenance costs. 
Currently, Ellsworth Air Force Base needs to replace buildings that 
were constructed during World War II and the Korean war. These building 
have deteriorated past their useful lives and pose a health and safety 
hazard. Also, the problem of widely dispersed buildings adds to the 
inefficiency and high cost of utilizing and maintaining such 
facilities.

  Mr. President, the concentration of our Nation's heavy bomber force 
at Ellsworth Air Force Base is substantial. The B-1 bomber is crucial 
to the ability of the United States to project the air power needed to 
secure our national defense and project American power into the next 
century. If the Air Force is to function with maximum effectiveness and 
within the limited resources now allocated for defense, our personnel 
support must be efficient also. I am a cosponsor of this amendment 
because it illustrates Ellsworth's commitment to be cost-efficient and 
does not undermine the future development and success of the B-1 
bomber.
  Mr. President, upgrading facilities at Ellsworth will ensure its 
place in the Air Force's long range strategic planning. I intend to 
work with my colleague, Senator Daschle, in ensuring appropriate 
investments in Ellsworth. The new construction project will help 
streamline administrative functions and help provide long term 
flexibility for future mission shifts and requirements. Efficient 
administrative support facilities at Ellsworth help make the base a 
stronger component of our Nation's defense.


             support for authorization of fort irwin milcon

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment authorizes a National 
Guard military construction project that was fully appropriated in 
fiscal year 1994. This amendment would authorize $1,265,000 for the 
construction of maintenance pad covers at Fort Irwin, CA.
  Many California National Guard facilities are substandard, and 
authorization of military construction projects are critical to 
providing armories and support facilities with the resources needed to 
accomplish both Federal and State missions.
  Fort Irwin provides vehicle and equipment maintenance support to the 
majority of National Guard units in southern California. Currently, 
there is a severe shortage of space which makes it necessary for 
employees to work outside in extremely harsh conditions. Construction 
of maintenance pad covers will provide the necessary work space to 
permit vehicle and equipment maintenance during extreme weather 
conditions. The maintenance pad covers will allow work to proceed in an 
efficient manner in a much safer working environment.
  This amendment would merely authorize a project that has already been 
appropriated, and I urge its adoption.


          the psychological operations group at ft. bragg, nc

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I am requesting that the 4th 
Psychological Operations Group at Fort Bragg, North Carolina receive 
$16 million in order to modernize their current World War II era 
facility.
  Currently the 4th POG soldiers work in converted facilities which are 
grossly inadequate, undersized, and have significant health and safety 
hazards.
  This $16 million would be appropriated to modernize the Company 
Operations Complex. The World War II temporary buildings, which this 
project replaces, are in dangerous conditions with exposure to 
asbestos, lead based paint, and high levels of lead in the water. There 
have been documented cases where floors, roofs, and ceilings have 
collapsed and fires have started due to electrical overloads.
  As the Army's only Active Component Psychological unit, they played a 
significant role in the success of Operation Just Cause in Panama, 
Desert Shield/Storm in the Gulf, and Restore Hope in Somalia.
  With the increasing role that they are playing in all U.S. missions, 
they require a larger facility that is more accommodating.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I believe there are no other Senators 
who wish to debate this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2232) was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 2233

                (Purpose: To make technical amendments)

  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] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2233.

  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 14, line 12, strike out ``$723,909,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$693,909,000''.
       On page 14, line 15, strike out ``$840,361,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$870,361,000''.
       On page 18, line 5, insert before ``Funds'' the following: 
     ``(a) Lease Authorized.--''.
       On page 18, after line 24, insert the following:
       (b) Waiver Authority.--Section 1024(b) of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 
     (Public Law 102-190; 105 Stat. 1460) is amended by striking 
     out ``section 1439(b)(2)'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``section 1439''.
       On page 27, line 4, strike out ``set forth in title VI of'' 
     and insert in lieu thereof ``and requirements set forth in''.
       On page 106, strike out lines 15 through 21, and insert in 
     lieu thereof the following:
     of section 2535 of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking out subparagraph (G) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       On page 106, line 25, strike out ``transfer,'' and all that 
     follows through ``training school'' on page 107, line 1, and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``transfer to a nonprofit educational 
     institution or training school, on a nonreimbursable basis, 
     of any such property already in the possession of such 
     institution or school''.
       On page 107, line 6, strike out ``September 30,'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``December 31,''.
       On page 107, line 8, strike out ``September 30,'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``December 31,''.
       On page 123, line 13, strike out ``of an Alaska Native'' 
     and all that follows through ``a person in,'' on line 15 of 
     such page, and insert in lieu thereof ``or recognition of an 
     individual referred to in subsection (c) in''.
       On page 123, line 16, strike out ``person'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``individual''.
       On page 123, line 22, strike out ``(1) Subsection (b)(5) 
     applies to an Alaska Native'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``Subsection (b)(5) applies to a member of the Alaska Army 
     National Guard''.
       On page 123, line 25, strike out ``Alaska.'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``Alaska, by paved road.'.''.
       On page 124, strike out lines 1 through 4.
       On page 252, line 15, strike out ``$1,668,086,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof $1,731,286,000''.
       On page 270, line 21, strike out ``$3,230,058,000'' and 
     insert * * *.
       On page 249, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 1068. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Title 10, United States Code.--Title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended as follows:
       (1) Section 113(e)(2) is amended by striking out ``section 
     104'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``section 108''.
       (2) Section 133a(b) is amended by striking out ``Under 
     Secretary of Defense for Acquisition'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
     Technology''.
       (3) Section 580a(a) is amended by striking out ``the date 
     of the enactment of this section'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``November 30, 1993,''.
       (4)(A) The section 1058 added by section 554(a) of Public 
     Law 103-160 (107 Stat. 1663) is redesignated as section 1059.
       (B) The item relating to that section in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 53 is revised to conform 
     to the redesignation made by subparagraph (A).
       (5)(A) The section 1058 added by section 1433(b) of Public 
     Law 103-160 (107 Stat. 1834) is redesignated as section 1060.
       (B) The item relating to that section in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 53 is revised to conform 
     to the redesignation made by subparagraph (A).
       (6) Section 1141 is amended by striking out ``on or after 
     the date of the enactment of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``after November 29, 1993,''.
       (7) Section 1151(h)(3)(B)(v) is amended by inserting 
     ``school'' after ``For the fifth''.
       (8)(A) The heading of section 1482a is amended so that the 
     first letter of the fifth word is lower case.
       (B) The item relating to that section in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 75 is revised to conform 
     to the amendment made by subparagraph (A).
       (9) Section 2399 is amended--
       (A) in subsections (b)(5) and (c)(1), by striking out 
     ``section 138(a)(2)(B)'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``section 139(a)(2)(B)'';
       (B) in subsection (e)(3)(B), by striking out ``solely as a 
     representative of'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``solely in 
     testing for'';
       (C) in subsection (g), by striking out ``section 138'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``section 139''; and
       (D) in subsection (h)(1), by striking out ``section 
     138(a)(2)(A)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``section 
     139(a)(2)(A)''.
       (10) Section 2502(d) is amended by striking out 
     ``Executive'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``executive''.
       (11)(A) Sections 2540 and 2541, as added by section 822(a) 
     of Public Law 103-160 (107 Stat. 1705), are redesignated as 
     sections 2539a and 2539b, respectively.
       (B) The items relating to those sections in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of subchapter V of chapter 148 are 
     revised to conform to the redesignations made by subparagraph 
     (A).
       (12) Section 2865(a)(4) is amended by adding a period at 
     the end.
       (13) Sections 3022(a)(1), 5025(a)(1), and 8022(a)(1) are 
     amended by striking out ``section 137(c)'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``section 135(c)''.
       (14) Section 9511 is amended by striking out ``In this 
     subchapter'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``In this 
     chapter''.
       (b) Public Law 103-160.--Effective as of November 30, 1993, 
     and as if included therein as enacted, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160) 
     is amended as follows:
       (1) Section 507(d)(3) (107 Stat. 1647) is amended by 
     inserting ``note'' after ``10 U.S.C. 1293''.
       (2) Section 551(a)(1) (107 Stat. 1661) is amended by 
     striking out ``Section'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``Chapter''.
       (3) Section 554(b) (107 Stat. 1666) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``Section 1058 of 
     title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a),'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``The section of title 10, 
     United States Code, added by subsection (a)(1)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``1058''.
       (4) Section 931(c)(1) (107 Stat. 1734) is amended by 
     inserting closing quotation marks before the period at the 
     end.
       (5) Section 1314(3) (107 Stat. 1786) is amended by striking 
     out ``adding at the end'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``inserting after subsection (f)''.
       (6) Section 1433(d) (107 Stat. 1835) is amended by striking 
     out ``Section 1058 of title 10, United States Code, as added 
     by subsection (a),'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``The 
     section of title 10, United States Code, added by subsection 
     (b)(1)''.
       (7) Section 1606(b)(4) (107 Stat. 1847) is amended by 
     striking out ``section 1604(e)'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``section 1605(e)''.
       (8) Section 2912(b)(2) (107 Stat. 1925) is amended by 
     striking out ``section 637(d)(1)'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``section 8(d)(1)''.
       (9) Section 2926(d) (107 Stat. 1932) is amended by striking 
     out ``Subsection (d)(1)(2)(C)(iii)'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``Subsection (d)(2)(C)(iii)''.
       (c) Other Laws.--(1) Section 921 of Public Law 102-190 (10 
     U.S.C. 201 note; 105 Stat. 1452) is amended by striking out 
     ``section 136(b)(3)'' in subsection (a) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``section 138(b)(3)''.
       (2) Section 908(c) of title 37, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking out ``section 1058'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``section 1060''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, in the period since bill was reported to the 
Senate on June 14, we have identified a number of technical and 
clarifying amendments that are needed to be made to the bill. These 
changes are embodied in the technical amendment that is now pending. 
This amendment has been cleared on both sides. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2233) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, in reference to all of the amendments we 
have just passed, I ask that they be reconsidered en bloc.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motions to lay on the table were agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank the Chair.


                           amendment no. 2162

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
2162 previously adopted be amended on page 2 by striking out lines 2 
through 10 and inserting in lieu thereof ``by amending subsection (e) 
to read as follows:''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           amendment no. 2234

(Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate that the Bottom-Up Review 
  should in no way be seen as limiting the size of the force military 
commanders planning a campaign on the Korean Peninsula may request and 
                          for other purposes)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, there is one more amendment before we 
finish that we wanted to offer, the Dole amendment. So, Mr. President, 
I send the 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 Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Dole, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2234.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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 insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . MILITARY PLANNING FOR THE SIZE AND STRUCTURE OF A 
                   FORCE REQUIRED FOR A MAJOR REGIONAL CONTINGENCY 
                   ON THE KOREAN PENINSULA.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds as follows:
       (1) Whereas the Administration commissioned the Bottom-Up 
     Review to properly size and structure the Armed Forces of the 
     United States for the Post-Cold-War Era;
       (2) Whereas the Bottom-Up Review itself cites the need for 
     the Armed Forces of the United States to be large enough to 
     prevail in two major regional conflicts, similar in nature to 
     the 1991 war against Iraq, ``nearly simultaneously;''
       (3) Whereas the Bottom-Up Review gives special 
     consideration to a scenario that hypothesizes that the two 
     ``nearly simultaneous'' conflicts would occur in Korea and 
     the Persian Gulf;
       (4) Whereas the United States sent 7 Army divisions, the 
     equivalent of 10 Air Force tactical fighter wings, 70 heavy 
     bombers, 6 Navy aircraft carrier battle groups, and 5 Marine 
     Corps brigades to the Persian Gulf to fight the war against 
     Iraq;
       (5) Whereas the Bottom-Up Review asserts that the forces 
     needed to fight two conflicts similar to that with Iraq can 
     be drawn from a total military force of between 15 and 16 
     Army divisions, 20 Air Force tactical fighter wings, 184 
     heavy bombers, 11 active Navy aircraft carriers (along with 
     one reserve/training carrier), and the equivalent of 12 
     Marine Corp brigades;
       (6) Whereas the Bottom-Up Review recognizes that 
     approximately 100,000 members of the United States Armed 
     Forces will be stationed in Europe;
       (7) Whereas the Bottom-Up Review recognizes that sizeable 
     numbers of U.S. forces could be involved in peace enforcement 
     and intervention operations at any one time;
       (8) Whereas the Bottom-Up Review makes no specific 
     recommendation as to the number of forces to be held in 
     reserve to provide a rotation base either to relieve troops 
     in the event one or both hypothetical conflicts result in 
     lengthy deployments or to replace combat losses;
       (9) Whereas military planners calculate that the number of 
     U.S. forces needed to help defeat an invasion of South Korea 
     by North Korea may exceed 430,000 U.S. military personnel;
       (10) Whereas the size of the force military planners may 
     request to help defend South Korea could exceed the levels 
     that are consistent with the recommendations of Bottom-Up 
     Review if the existing and future force requirements for a 
     presence in Europe, possible peace enforcement operations, 
     and an adequate rotation base, as well as a second regional 
     conflict, must be fulfilled simultaneously;
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the Sense of Congress:
       (1) that the force structure identified in of the Bottom-Up 
     Review may not be used to limit the size or structure of the 
     force United States military commanders may request in 
     preparation for a major regional contingency on the Korean 
     peninsula;
       (2) and that the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House 
     and Senate Committees on Armed Services and Chairmen and 
     Ranking members of the House and Senate Appropriations 
     Subcommittees on Defense should receive regular briefings 
     from the Department of Defense of the situation on the Korean 
     peninsula;
       (3) and that the conclusions of the Bottom-Up Review should 
     be continuously examined in light of the lessons learned from 
     preparation for a major regional contingency on the Korean 
     peninsula and from other military operations.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. This amendment on behalf of Senator Dole expresses 
the sense of the Senate that reinforcements to South Korea should not 
be burdened by force levels in the Bottom-Up Review.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, on October 7, 1993, the administration 
acknowledged that a request for tanks and armored personnel carriers 
from the commander of United States forces in Somalia had been denied. 
The purpose of this request was to protect American lives--the lives of 
American soldiers engaged in peacekeeping operations in Somalia. The 
failure to respond to the on-scene commander's requests, which we later 
discovered were numerous and repeated, was a key factor in the deaths 
of 18 U.S. soldiers.
  I know that none of us want to see a repeat of this tragedy. When we 
send our military personnel into harm's way, we owe them every bit of 
support they request; and our commanders should not be barred from 
requesting the support they need. They are the experts, and the 
ultimate responsibility for the safety of their troops lies with them.
  The amendment I have just introduced expresses the sense of the 
Senate that the force structure allocations outlined in the Bottom-Up 
Review or other planning documents should in no way limit the size or 
structure of the needs deemed necessary by commanders responsible for 
planning or engaged in United States operations in Korea.
    
    
  Let me be clear, no one wants war on the Korean Peninsula. However, 
we have to be prepared if it comes, and right now our military planners 
are preparing for that contingency. Over the past several months there 
have been many newspaper articles and magazine stories speculating on 
the United States response to aggression by North Korea. One thing is 
clear, depending on the duration and intensity of a second Korean war, 
United States military planners preparing for the conflict would 
certainly ask for forces much larger than those allocated by the 
Bottom-Up Review for a single regional contingency. The Bottom-Up 
Review force for one major regional contingency consists of 4 or 5 
divisions, 4 or 5 Marine brigades, 10 Air Force wings, 100 bombers, and 
4 to 5 aircraft carrier battle groups. Now compare this to the force 
used during Desert Storm. The United States sent 7 Army divisions, the 
equivalent of 10 Air Force tactical fighter wings, 70 heavy bombers, 6 
Navy aircraft carrier battle groups, and 5 Marine Corps brigades.
  Because of the difficult terrain, a ground war on the Korean 
Peninsula is likely to be much more challenging than Desert Storm. With 
nearly 90 percent of South Korean and United States troops in Korea 
positioned within 35 miles of the DMZ, a second Korean war would be 
very costly for all sides.
  Certainly, the scenario of a second Korean war is one we all hope 
never becomes reality. But it is a possibility, and we must be prepared 
for it. This amendment will help ensure that our military commanders 
are provided with all of the support they need. I urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I understand this amendment has been cleared by both 
sides.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2234) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 2235

(Purpose: To amend titles 5 and 10, United States Code, to ensure equal 
    treatment of civilian and military retirees when cost-of-living 
     adjustments are delayed by law for budgetary or other reasons)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Robb.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Robb, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2235.

  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:

     SEC. 634. REQUIREMENT FOR EQUAL TREATMENT OF CIVILIAN AND 
                   MILITARY RETIREES IN THE EVENT OF DELAYS IN 
                   COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS.

       (a) Civil Service Annuities.--(1) Section 8340 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b), by striking out ``Except as provided 
     in subsection (c)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Except as 
     provided in subsections (c) and (h)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(h)(1) Whenever, by law, there is a difference between 
     the date on which a cost-of-living adjustment under this 
     section is to take effect and the date on which a 
     corresponding cost-of-living adjustment of the retired pay of 
     members and former members of the uniformed services under 
     section 1401a of title 10 is to take effect, then, 
     notwithstanding subsection (b) and any other provision of 
     law, the date on which the cost-of-living adjustment under 
     this section takes effect shall be the earlier of the two 
     dates.
       ``(2) Whenever, by law, there is a difference between the 
     first month for which a cost-of-living adjustment taking 
     effect under this section is payable and the first month for 
     which a corresponding cost-of-living adjustment of the 
     retired pay of members and former members of the uniformed 
     services taking effect under section 1401a of title 10 is 
     payable, then the first month for which the cost-of-living 
     adjustment under this section is first payable shall 
     (notwithstanding the effective date provided for such 
     adjustment in subsection (b) of this section or in any other 
     law) be the earlier of the two months.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, a cost-of-living 
     adjustment of the retired pay of members and former members 
     of the uniformed services under section 1401a of title 10 
     corresponds to a cost-of-living adjustment under this section 
     when, without regard to any provision of law other than 
     subsection (b) of this section and section 1401a(b)(1) of 
     title 10, the cost-of-living adjustments under this section 
     and under section 1401a of title 10 would take effect on the 
     same date.''.
       (2) Section 8462 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)(1), by striking out ``Except as 
     provided in subsection (c)'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``Except as provided in subsections (c) and (f)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f)(1) Whenever, by law, there is a difference between 
     the date on which a cost-of-living adjustment under this 
     section is to take effect and the date on which a 
     corresponding cost-of-living adjustment of the retired pay of 
     members and former members of the uniformed services under 
     section 1401a of title 10 is to take effect, then, 
     notwithstanding subsection (b)(1) and any other provision of 
     law, the date on which the cost-of-living adjustment under 
     this section takes effect shall be the earlier of the two 
     dates.
       ``(2) Whenever, by law, there is a difference between the 
     first month for which a cost-of-living adjustment taking 
     effect under this section is payable and the first month for 
     which a corresponding cost-of-living adjustment of the 
     retired pay of members and former members of the uniformed 
     services taking effect under section 1401a of title 10 is 
     payable, then the first month for which the cost-of-living 
     adjustment under this section is first payable shall 
     (notwithstanding the effective date provided for such 
     adjustment in subsection (b)(1) of this section or in any 
     other law) be the earlier of the two months.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, a cost-of-living 
     adjustment of the retired pay of members and former members 
     of the uniformed services under section 1401a of title 10 
     corresponds to a cost-of-living adjustment under this section 
     when, without regard to any provision of law other than 
     subsection (b)(1) of this section and section 1401a(b)(1) of 
     title 10, the cost-of-living adjustments under this section 
     and under section 1401a of title 10 would take effect on the 
     same date.''.
       (b) Uniformed Services Retired Pay.--Section 1401a of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting (except as provided 
     in subsection (i))'' after ``Effective on December 1 of each 
     year''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i)(1) Whenever, by law, there is a difference between 
     the date on which a cost-of-living adjustment under this 
     section is to take effect and the date on which a 
     corresponding cost-of-living adjustment of annuities of 
     retired employees of the United States under section 8340 or 
     8462 of title 5 is to take effect, then, notwithstanding 
     subsection (b) and any other provision of law, the date on 
     which the cost-of-living adjustment under this section takes 
     effect shall be the earlier (or earliest) such date.
       ``(2) Whenever, by law, there is a difference between the 
     first month for which a cost-of-living adjustment taking 
     effect under this section is payable and the first month for 
     which a corresponding cost-of-living adjustment of annuities 
     of retired employees of the United States taking effect under 
     section 8340 or 8462 of title 5 is payable, then the first 
     month for which the cost-of-living adjustment under this 
     section is first payable shall (notwithstanding the effective 
     date provided for such adjustment in subsection (b)(1) of 
     this section or in any other law) be the earlier (or 
     earliest) such month.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, a cost-of-living 
     adjustment of annuities of retired employees of the United 
     States under section 8340 or 8462 of title 5 corresponds to a 
     cost-of-living adjustment under this section when, without 
     regard to any provision of law other than subsection (b)(1) 
     of this section and sections 8340(b) and 8462(b)(1) of title 
     5, the cost-of-living adjustments under this section and 
     under sections 8340 and 8462 of title 5 would take effect on 
     the same date.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall take effect on October 1, 1998.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment would ensure that Federal 
civilian retirees and military retirees are treated equitably when cost 
of living adjustments are delayed by law for budgetary or other 
reasons. This amendment would take effect on October 1, 1998.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. We have no objections.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2235) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge third reading of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment. If 
there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on the 
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge passage of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  So the bill (S. 2182), as amended, was passed.
  The text of S. 2182 will appear in a future edition of the Record.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment to the 
title.
  The title was amended so as to read:

       ``To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for 
     military activities of the Department of Defense, for 
     military construction, and for defense programs of the 
     Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for 
     such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other 
     purposes.''.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 2182, as 
amended, be printed as passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________