[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]

 
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I call up the Brown-Simon amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator calling that amendment back 
before the Senate?
  Mr. BROWN. I am.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the regular order.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment and substitute a sense-of-the-Senate resolution dealing with 
the same subject with wording that I believe is acceptable to both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendments Nos. 2152 and 
2153 are withdrawn.
  The amendments, Nos. 2152 and 2153, were withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 2161

  Mr. BROWN. 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 Colorado [Mr. Brown], for himself, Mr. 
     Simon, Mr. Roth, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Levin, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2161.

  Mr. BROWN. 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 CONCERNING PARTICIPATION IN 
                   ALLIED DEFENSE COOPERATION.

       It is the Sense of the Senate that the President should use 
     existing authorities to the greatest extent possible to 
     authorize the provision of the following types of assistance 
     and cooperation to countries like Poland, Hungary and the 
     Czech Republic who are making significant progress in working 
     with NATO:
       (a) Excess defense articles as defined in the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Control Export Act;
       (b) Loan materials, supplies and equipment for research and 
     development purposes;
       (c) Leases and loans of major defense equipment and other 
     defense articles;
       (d) Cooperative military airlift agreements;
       (e) The procurement of communications support and related 
     supplies and services;
       (f) Actions to standardize equipment with North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization members.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the amendment is offered in behalf of 
myself and Senator Simon, Senator Roth, Senator Mikulski, and Senator 
Levin.
  It is basically a sense of the Senate and expresses our strong 
interest in democracy and progress in those countries in Eastern 
Europe, specifically Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic; and, it 
also expresses our interest in developing further contacts with NATO.
  My understanding is that it has been cleared by both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished 
Senator to be listed as a cosponsor.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the Senator. I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Warner be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there further debate?
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for 
sending this substitute amendment to the desk. This is a sense of the 
Senate, as he has observed. It is different from the original amendment 
that he submitted, and yet I think it carries out his overall objective 
in setting forth the sense of the Senate that the President should use 
existing authorities to the greatest extent possible to authorize the 
provision of certain types of assistance and cooperation in countries 
like Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic for making significant 
progress in working with NATO.
  The reason I suggest this amendment be adopted is that it does 
express, I think, an important sense of the Senate relating to the 
partnership from these. It makes it clear that Hungary, the Czech 
Republic, and Poland are countries that are making significant 
progress. But it does not single out these countries. It says countries 
like these, because there are others also making progress. I think that 
the best way for the Partnership for Peace to work is for the countries 
within that partnership to all proceed in connection with NATO and not 
to have those countries right here on the floor of the Senate selected 
in terms of who is making the most progress. I think that has to be 
determined within NATO and be determined by the United States as well 
as our allies and determined in accordance with the criteria NATO and 
the Partnership for Peace are working on. There is very strong 
sentiment toward Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic here. We watch 
them with great pride as they move toward democracy and toward a free 
market. But we also are watching with pride other countries in terms of 
the Partnership for Peace that are making progress.
  I think this is an amendment we should accept. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could add a few words of endorsement. 
I think the President and the others made a proper decision with 
respect to the timing and hope for the eventual admission of these 
countries and others to the Partnership for Peace. However, those 
nations are at this point in time very short on resources with which to 
create within their own structure and nations armed forces such that 
they can become really full partners some day of the NATO alliance. 
This would be an interim record. I would hope this type of materiel, 
military equipment and so forth, would further strengthen the ability 
of our Nation and other nations to work with them in training exercises 
and to begin to recognize their inherent ability to create such 
security forces as they feel are necessary for their respective 
security and for eventual inclusion in NATO.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BROWN. Let me add this: I deeply appreciate the support the sense 
of the Senate received. It does not diminish in any way, my enthusiasm 
for seeing that we reach out a hand of friendship and freedom to those 
countries in Eastern Europe.
  I want to emphasize something here as well. While it may have been an 
inappropriate time to get a record vote on the original resolution, it 
in no way indicates that we do not intend to pursue that option. I am 
one that happens to believe that it is terribly important for us to not 
let this moment in history pass by and not do everything humanly 
possible to make sure they do not slip under the dark clouds of 
totalitarianism. I think prompt action on our part can preclude that. A 
delay on our part can encourage it. The last thing we want to do is see 
their freedom which has been so desperately fought for in this century 
slip under a cloud again.
  To the extent we can move ahead with these measures, it is a step 
forward. These countries are anxious to develop communication systems 
compatible with us, equipment systems that are compatible with us, 
contacts that are compatible with us. I think it is one of the bright 
lights developing in world affairs.
  Mr. NUNN. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am sympathetic to the objectives of this 
amendment--to encourage the President to use existing authorities to 
provide excess defense articles and other benefits to our friends 
participating in NATO's Partnership for Peace. This amendment 
specifically mentions Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic as 
examples of countries eligible to receive certain types of assistance 
and cooperation. Each of those countries has made substantial progress 
in working with NATO. Poland, for example, where President Clinton will 
travel next week, will be the site of the first military exercise under 
Partnership for Peace later this year.
  While I agree that those countries, all three of which are members of 
NATO's Partnership for Peace, are extremely deserving of military 
cooperation and benefits, I would point out that many other countries 
are actively working with NATO. This amendment does not limit the 
provision of assistance to other countries that are members of 
Partnership for Peace. In fact, it encourages the President to extend 
the same benefits to each of those other countries.
  I believe it is important not to draw unnecessary lines in a newly 
undivided Europe. The administration has worked very hard to be 
inclusive in developing NATO's Partnership for Peace. For example, 
Russia joined the partnership with no special conditions--on the same 
terms as other countries. If we begin to differentiate now, we 
undermine the concept of a whole and free Europe. Accordingly, I 
welcome the inclusive spirit of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2161) was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWN. 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. DOMENICI. Before the Senator from Colorado leaves the floor, is 
this the NATO amendment that I had cosponsored with the Senator?
  Mr. BROWN. Indeed, it is, and I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator's name be added as a cosponsor on the sense-of-the-Senate 
measure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to indicate that I totally 
concur in the remarks made by the distinguished Senator from Colorado. 
I think he is absolutely correct. I hope we move expeditiously in this 
regard as a nation.
  Mr. President, shortly, I am going to offer an amendment regarding 
spousal and child abuse in the military. Before I do that, I want to 
indicate that I previously had filed an amendment, an intent to offer 
an amendment, with reference to the language in this bill on the single 
stage rocket technology. I do not intend to do that.
  I will say to the distinguished chairman and ranking member that, 
obviously, the difference between the Senate bill on this and the House 
bill on this subject and the appropriations bill in the House seemed to 
be a different ends of the world, with the House clearly indicating 
they want to continue the program for single stage rocket technology 
within the Defense Department at a $40 to $50 million a year cost and 
not transfer it to NASA.
  In this bill before us there is language both saying we will not 
spend the $40 million that is already appropriated for this program, 
and the program will go to NASA. I am very hopeful when conference 
ensues, between those two extremes, a reasonable compromise will ensue. 
It seems to me, based on what I can find out from the House, that such 
a compromise will have to be the case and concurrence somewhere in the 
middle will have to result. Knowing that, I do not want to burden the 
Senate with a vote. We would need one because I do not believe the 
managers would accept it. That is my explanation on why I will not call 
that amendment up on behalf of myself and Senator Bingaman.
  Mr. President, our Nation's ability to use space for national 
security, civil, and commercial purposes depends on the strength of our 
national launch systems. Other nations are focused on developing their 
own independent access to space, and they now lead in terms of 
responsive, economical, and competitive launch systems.
  But what about the United States? I believe it is in the Nation's 
long-term national security and economic security interest to regain 
preeminence in the area of space launch technology and operations.
  There are widely divergent views on what to be done; however, there 
seems to be a general consensus that reusable launch vehicle technology 
will provide the cheapest and most reliable form of transportation.
  We have reusable vehicles for traveling on land, sea, and air, and we 
need them for traveling in space. Scientists and engineers all over 
this great Nation tell me the technology is now available and that it 
just needs to be demonstrated.
  The Defense Department has already flown five successful test flights 
of a reusable test vehicle, called the DC-X, and I think we need to 
support this vitally important program with continued funding.
  We are on the verge of opening a whole new frontier in the use of 
space including the new emerging market for vast constellations of low 
earth orbit communication satellites that will be an important part of 
the new information highway. Its companion program, a cheap, reliable, 
and reusable form of space transportation infrastructure, is an 
essential part of this new frontier.
  The Defense Department has done an outstanding job of managing the 
single stage rocket technology program, and I believe they should 
continue this effort. The Air Force says they need to do a core 
technology program that includes unique technologies to single stage 
rocket technology. I believe that we ought to let the Department of 
Defense and the Air Force continue to manage this program.
  The DC-X has given the United States a 3-year edge over our 
international competitors. To retain this lead we must continue to move 
ahead with this program of advanced technology flight demonstrators for 
reusable single stage to orbit launch systems, and I encourage those 
who want to regain American preeminence in space transportation to 
support maintaining this program within the Department of Defense.
  Mr. President, let me indicate that while a great deal is being said 
in the United States these days by our citizens and our people about 
spousal abuse, about violence in the families, I hope everybody 
understands that the men and women in the military are not immune from 
these kinds of difficult problems.
  As a matter of fact, just for the record, I, once again, want to 
speak to a serious situation we had in the military that is about two-
thirds fixed. We need to fix an additional one-third today, and we will 
do that.
  Frankly, until the fiscal year 1993 defense authorization bill, we 
had a situation in the U.S. military where if a spouse was beaten by 
her husband and she turned him in and he was found within the processes 
of the military to be guilty of that, her husband could be--and in a 
case I brought to the Senate floor--dishonorably discharged, and even 
if they had served together as a family for 20 years, before that 
dishonorable discharge, at the moment of the discharge, he is 
consistent with the history of our military understanding of 
dishonorable discharge, he is separated from any and all rights and 
privileges with the defense and military of the United States, which, 
incidentally, carried with it the situation where the spouse was thus 
entitled to nothing. If she had been entitled with her two children in 
a case I brought to the Senate, some kind of sharing in his pension 
rights, to hospital rights, perhaps commissary rights, the dishonorable 
discharge precluded her and her children from getting anything.
  Frankly, that may have been years ago a good part of the military 
desire to keep their people only tied to the military if they were 
honorably discharged. But what actually is happening, and we knew it 
was, is that spousal abuse was not being reported because you can 
understand that if someone is abused and she knows that if she turns 
the abuser in and he is discharged, she will get nothing.
  So what we had was a situation where we were almost inviting domestic 
violence to go unreported as to the children who might be abused or a 
spouse who might be abused. So in due course, after a lot of arm 
twisting, the Defense Department went along with language in the 
defense authorization bill in 1993 that essentially covers 20-year 
veterans and longer, such that if spousal abuse or violence occurs and 
they are discharged, the spouses and the children are entitled to a 
portion of the military members' retirement pay and other benefits. 
That is good law.
  I thank the committee for ultimately doing that in conference after a 
long and difficult effort to get the military to acknowledge that we 
ought to do this.
  Now, in 1993 we also put in a study asking the Defense Department to 
study in detail the issues and to also tell us what was happening with 
reference to situations where the military member that is accused has 
not been in the service for 20 years but rather from 1 to 20 years 
because we do not have anybody covered there. In other words, at the 
end of 14 years, abuse could occur, a spouse could turn in the 
offending member who could be dishonorably discharged, and that 13-year 
military relationship would be totally severed with the spouse being 
entitled to absolutely nothing.
  So what we are trying to do is to get the Defense Department to give 
us a total evaluation of this, including the evaluation of whether we 
should add health care and commissary and medical benefits to these 1- 
to 20-year service members who might be discharged dishonorably for 
child abuse or wife abuse.
  I regret to tell the Senate that even though we have been urging the 
Department of Defense to complete the report that we asked them to do 
in the 1993 authorization bill, and I wrote Secretary Edwin Dorn, who 
was in charge of Personnel and Readiness on February 25, 1994, the 
indication was a followup letter. It took until May to get a followup 
letter, and then he said it would be ready near the end of May.
  I also asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs at a hearing if he 
would expedite it, and I was told we would get it by May 27.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those letters 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, February 25, 1994.
     Hon. Edwin Dorn,
     Assistant Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness, the 
         Pentagon, Washington DC.
       Dear Assistant Secretary Dorn: I commend you and your staff 
     on your efforts to comply with Public Law 102-484, which 
     requires a study to provide statistics on abuse-related 
     separations from military service and actions taken or 
     planned to be taken by the Department of Defense to reduce or 
     eliminate disincentives to report the abuse to the 
     appropriate authorities.
       Last Friday, my staff had the opportunity to discuss the 
     status and direction of the study with Col. John Mollino of 
     Legislative Affairs and Col. Will Hatcher. My staff informs 
     me that they are well on their way to producing a meaningful 
     study that will greatly assist in illustrating where the 
     problems lie, what the disincentives are, and what can be 
     done to correct the current situation.
       I have one concern that I bring to your personal attention. 
     The study, which is being prepared, will not be ready in its 
     final form until mid-to-late June. Unfortunately, this gives 
     us little time to adequately analyze the findings during the 
     fiscal year 1995 Defense Appropriations hearings process.
       Anything that you might do to expedite this process would 
     be greatly appreciated. Once again, thank you for your 
     dedication and support on this issue. I look forward to 
     continuing our work together on the behalf of military 
     members, spouses and dependents.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Pete V. Domenici,
                                                     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____

                                                   Chairman of the


                                        Joint Chiefs of Staff,

                                    Washington, DC, 21 April 1994.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Domenici: Based on your recent inquiry to me 
     on the Secretary of Defense's report regarding benefits to 
     family members following the separation of the service member 
     for spouse or child abuse, my staff has been working with the 
     Department of Defense study director. Through allocation of 
     additional resources and speeding the coordination process, 
     we have been able to expedite delivery of a final report from 
     the original June 30 delivery date to May 27.
       Because of your interest in this matter, my staff will 
     ensure that you get a personal copy of the report as soon as 
     it is available. Your continuing concern for our people and 
     their welfare is appreciated. If I can be of any further 
     assistance, please don't hesitate to call. With best wishes,
           Sincerely,
                                            John M. Shalikashvili,
                            Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
                                  ____

                                       Under Secretary of Defense,


                                      Personnel and Readiness,

                                      Washington, DC, May 4, 1994.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Domenici: I have taken the following actions 
     to expedite the abuse victim study the Department is 
     conducting to reduce or eliminate disincentives to reporting 
     abuse of family members:
       First, the contractor has agreed to accelerate the analysis 
     of the Task II data from the intake victim abuse surveys and 
     of the Task III personnel records analysis, once the 
     collection phases from these two tasks are completed. Second, 
     this coordination process will be completed concurrently with 
     the Services as each task report is completed rather than 
     waiting for the final report of the three task reports. This 
     will require more staff effort, but will shorten the time 
     required for the coordination process.
       Together these actions will move the completion date up to 
     the end of May, rather than the end of June as originally 
     planned. I look forward to continuing our work together on 
     behalf of military members and their families.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Labert V. Conte
                                                 (For Edwin Dorn).
                                  ____



                FY93 DoD Authorization Bill, Public Law

                                102-484

       Covers Abused Military Spouses and Children whose member 
     has served at least 20 years and is eligible for retirement 
     benefits.
       Up to 50 percent of retirement benefits can be claimed by 
     abused spouse or child when the 20-yr. military member is 
     dishonorably discharged from the service for the abuse.
       Health care, commissary, medical, and dental benefits 
     covered.
       Requires broad study of all issues (including the under 20-
     yr. members.


                FY94 DoD Authorization Bill, Public Law

                                103-160

       Gives Secretary ``authority'' to cover all abused military 
     spouses and children whose member is dishonorably discharged 
     for abuse, regardless of time in service.
       Provides up to three years of transitional benefits (based 
     upon present Dependent Indemnity Comprensation pay scale).
       No Health care etc.
       Ensures spouses and children receive retirement pay and 
     other benefits during the military member's appeals process. 
     (PVD Amendment)


                        FY95 Domenici Amendment

       Directs Secretary to implement program to cover all abused 
     military spouses and children whose member is dishonorably 
     discharged from the service for abuse.
       Directs same.
       Provides health care, commissionary, dental, and medical 
     for transition period.
       Ensures spouses and children whose member has under twenty 
     years service receive transitional benefits during the 
     appeals process.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I tell the Senate we still do not have 
the report today. I really believe unless there is some absolute 
necessity not to do this that we ought to get it and we ought to get it 
soon.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record two 
additional accounts that relate we do have child abuse and wife abuse 
and domestic violence in the military. Time magazine has an article, 
and I would like it to be made a part of record, where they do go 
through the increases that are occurring in these particular problems 
in the military and a story found that I think is quite accurate on 
domestic violence on the rise in the military. This comes in a New York 
Times article. I ask that those two follow the letters that I just 
asked to be made a part of the record.
  There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Military Struggling To Stem an Increase In Family Violence

                           (By Eric Schmitt)

       Washington, May 22--In a trend that has Pentagon officials 
     deeply worried, domestic violence in military families has 
     increased steadily since the late 1980's, according to 
     Defense Department figures.
       The number of confirmed spouse abuse cases climbed to 18.1 
     per 1,000 spouses last year, from 12 cases per 1,000 in 1988. 
     At the same time, substantiated cases of child abuse have 
     increased slightly to 6.6 per 1,000 children, from 6 per 
     1,000.
       In a grim illustration of the most severe problems, an 
     average of one child or spouse dies each week at the hands of 
     a relative in uniform. Over the last six years, an average of 
     37 children have died each year as a result of abuse in 
     military families. In 1993, the figure was 38 deaths.
       Last Wednesday, in the most recent incident of such 
     violence, Master Sgt. David W. Reynolds, a 20-year Army 
     veteran and member of the Army's Old Guard ceremonial unit, 
     fatally shot his estranged wife, Denise, in a parking lot in 
     Falls Church, Va., and then shot himself to death.
       Shaken by this troubling trend, the armed forces are 
     rushing to add more aggressive prevention programs to 
     existing treatment, and to conduct detailed surveys of 
     military families to pinpoint early signs of trouble. But 
     Pentagon officials argue that budget constraints are 
     hampering their ability to address the problem fully.
       Military experts say the increase in cases of domestic 
     violence can be attributed in part to heightened awareness of 
     the problem throughout society and to improved reporting 
     techniques. But the mounting stresses of life in a military 
     buffeted by shrinking numbers, wrenching social changes, more 
     frequent deployments and nagging uncertainty about careers 
     have also fed family tensions, these officials say.
       ``There's no question that the downsizing has had a real 
     impact on the active-duty military and their families,'' said 
     Peter J. McNelis, a former Army colonel who now heads the 
     Military Family Institute at Marywood College in Scranton, 
     Pa. ``You can't talk to anyone without getting the sense 
     they're tense and feel that the system is letting them 
     down.''
       Congress has also expressed concern. At a closed meeting 
     last week to address the equality of women in the military 
     and steps to prevent sexual harassment, female Senators and 
     the senior leaders of the armed forces traded concerns about 
     domestic violence in military families.


                         Needs to be Realistic

       Part of the problem is that there's let's-sweep-it-under-
     the-rug attitude about all this,'' said Senator Barbara 
     Boxer, Democrat of California. ``The military needs to be 
     realistic and admit there is a problem.''
       The rate of child abuse in the military is less than half 
     of that in the general population, largely because drug and 
     alcohol abuse is less prevalent in the military and because 
     military families are shielded from the kind of abject 
     poverty that is also associated with child abuse.
       Trends in reported spouse abuse are more difficult to 
     compare because there are no reliable national statistics on 
     the problem. But an Army survey of 55,000 soldiers at 47 
     bases indicates that one of every three families has suffered 
     some kind of domestic violence, from slapping to murder. That 
     was twice the rate found in groups of civilians the Army 
     surveyed for comparison. The results of the survey, a 
     continuing study started in 1989, were first reported last 
     week by Time magazine.
       Delores F. Johnson, head of the Army's Family Advocacy 
     Program, said the Army was startled by the figures, but she 
     cautioned against drawing definitive conclusions from them. 
     ``The one-in-three figures certainly are alarming,'' she 
     said. ``But before we go off the deep end, we want to do 
     further analysis of the data.''
       The military services have had programs in place to deal 
     with domestic violence since the early 1980's, for the 
     practical reason that stresses at home tend to spill over to 
     the battlefield, hurting military readiness, recruiting and 
     retention.
       With family violence cases continuing to rise, despite an 
     increase in budgets for treatment to $79 million this year 
     from $15 million in 1989, the military is now trying to 
     improve its prevention programs with these efforts:
       In June the Army will begin assigning trained civilian 
     counselors to hundreds of units, down to the battalion and 
     company level.
       The Pentagon has established a panel that is reviewing 
     child deaths at three major military hospitals in Colorado, 
     California and Washington State. It will eventually 
     investigate child deaths in all military families for signs 
     of abuse.
       The Defense Department has commissioned a yearlong study of 
     7,000 adolescent children of service members at 25 bases to 
     identify stress-creating family problems.
       But just as in civilian life, spouses in the military are 
     often reluctant to report abuse, fearing even more violent 
     attacks or that revealing abuse could imperil the service 
     member's career and the family's finances. Congress has 
     ordered the armed services to investigate disincentives to 
     reporting domestic violence.
       Sandra G. Rosswork, manager of the Navy's Family Advocacy 
     Program acknowledged, ``It's a tough marketing job to get the 
     word out to families that help is available and there are no 
     negative consequences to careers.''
       Military and civilian social workers say child abuse in 
     military families, as in the civilian population, ranges from 
     neglect to battering, while spouse abuse often involves 
     yelling and pushing, assaults and threats.
       The majority of the reported cases involve mid-level 
     enlisted personnel like sergeants in the Army, Marine Corps 
     and Air Force, and petty officers in the Navy. But social 
     workers say abuse also reaches into the officer corps.


                      an equal opportunity plague

       ``We see people of all ranks because domestic violence 
     crosses all lines,'' said William Duke, director of the 
     family violence care center for Cumberland County, N.C., 
     which includes Fort Bragg. ``It's an equal-opportunity plague 
     on our society.''
       Today's military has more married couples and more children 
     than at any other time in its history. The percentage of 
     married service members has increased to 58 percent this year 
     from 47 percent in 1980.
       ``The combination of high work demands, separation from an 
     extended family, many times in a foreign country, and 
     financial stress is a formula for family stress and sets up a 
     formula for family violence,'' said Gary Bowen, a professor 
     of social work at the University of North Carolina and an 
     expert on military families.


                        concerns in marine corps

       It was such concerns that led the Marine Corps to try last 
     year to phase out enlistment by married men and women, a 
     policy that was rescinded almost as soon as it was announced 
     to widespread criticism. The policy directive said that an 
     inordinate number of Marine Corps marriages were failing 
     under the pressures of military life, in ``an all too 
     familiar pattern'' that could ``result in decreased 
     performance and require command attention.''
       Both the Marines and some other experts point in particular 
     to the youth of both partners in military marriages. When a 
     19-year-old marine marries a 17-year-old and then they get 
     moved around the country, trouble is more likely.
       ``A lot of spousal abuse is the result of people getting 
     married young and not knowing their partners well,'' said 
     Rita Campbell, the director of a shelter for battered women 
     near Fort Stewart, Ga.
       Ginny Powell, a clinical social worker at the Navy's family 
     advocacy center in San Diego, said: ``In many cases the 
     parents themselves were abused or neglected. Many of them are 
     now immature parents.''


                          army training cited

       Although some family specialists, both civilian and 
     military, say that troops trained for combat often bring 
     combative behavior home with them, military officials deny 
     any link. ``While we train soldiers to be aggressive, they're 
     not trained to be abusers,'' said Col. Jim Schile, an 
     Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Army for Morale, Welfare, 
     Recreation and Family programs.
       At any rate, overt violence is not the only type of abuse 
     found in military families. In San Diego last June, a 
     neighbor reported a case of child neglect involving the 4-
     month old daughter of a 22-year-old petty officer and his 20-
     year-old wife. By the time civilian authorities arrived, 
     however, it was too late.
       ``The child looked like someone from the Sudan who just 
     starved to death,'' said Lieut. Comdr. Norma Jones, director 
     of the Navy family advocacy center in San Diego. ``It was a 
     family that fell through the cracks.''
       The parents were convicted of second-degree murder earlier 
     this month and face prison terms of 15 years of life.
       This summer, the Navy will train family counselors in a new 
     program to help children who have witnessed spouse abuse in 
     their home.
       ``It's becoming clear,'' said Ms. Rosswork of the Navy's 
     Family Advocacy Program' ``that if we want to prevent 
     domestic violence, then we need to start doing something pro-
     active with children currently in homes where there's 
     domestic violence.''

                       [From Time, May 23, 1994]

                          The Living Room War

                           (By Mark Thompson)

(As the U.S. military shrinks, family violence is on the rise. Can the 
                    Pentagon do more to prevent it?)

       Washington.--Jeromy Willis, an Air Force enlisted man and 
     ex-Army marksman, had been trained to kill the enemy. But 
     when the cold war ended and his base faced closure and his 
     career began looking less secure and his marriage came under 
     strain, the enemy started looking a lot like his wife Marie. 
     First he tried to kill her with a flaming propane torch. 
     Weeks later he tried to strangle her. She fled to her 
     mother's home in Rhode Island, and the Air Force confined 
     Jeromy to his base in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. But when 
     Marie returned to press charges against her husband, he had 
     somehow learned of her supposedly secret appointment. 
     Outraged that she was ruining his career Jeromy confronted 
     Marie inside the waiting room of the base legal office early 
     last year. He fired a pawnshop pistol into her chest. As 
     horrified witnesses watched her yellow dress turn crimson, 
     she screamed, ``Jeromy, no!'' And then he fired a second 
     round into her brain.
       Marie Willis became another victim of an alarming increase 
     in domestic violence on America's military bases. The rise in 
     abuse of spouses and children, researchers and the Pentagon 
     believe, may be connected to the painful reduction in U.S. 
     fighting forces following the end of the cold war. In 1986, 
     there were 27,783 reported cases of violence in military 
     families; last year there were 46,287. Now, a confidential--
     and unprecedented--Army survey obtained by Time suggests that 
     spousal abuse is occurring in one of every three Army 
     families each year--double the civilian rate. Each week 
     someone dies at the hands of a relative in uniform, and 
     nearly 1,000 formal complaints of injury are lodged against 
     family members in the service. Untold thousands may suffer in 
     silence.
       Over the past year there has been gory evidence of the 
     home-front carnage. A soldier in Washington state killed is 
     wife, packed her body into a suitcase and threw it off a 
     bridge. In Southern California a Marine who was a hero in the 
     Persian Gulf War shot and killed his newly divorced wife and 
     their five-year-old daughter. In North Carolina an airman 
     hacked his wife to pieces, wrapped her remains in plastic 
     garbage bags and stored them in the refrigerator. In Hawaii a 
     sailor killed his baby daughter, stuffing her into a duffel 
     bag and tossing her into Pearl Harbor. A soldier in Germany, 
     angered at his wayward spouse, decapitated her G.I. lover and 
     placed the severed head atop his wife's nightstand.
       The new Army survey offers an unvarnished and quantifiable 
     look at the problem. ``The rates of marital aggression are 
     considerably higher than anticipated,'' declared the 
     researchers, who have questioned more than 55,000 soldiers at 
     47 bases since 1989, and continue to do so.The growing number 
     of victims seeking help ``is soon likely to exceed treatment 
     resources.'' And the problem isn't restricted to low-level or 
     poorly performing soldiers. ``Often those in the most 
     responsible and stressful positions,'' the report says 
     referring to noncommissioned officers, ``appear to be more 
     likely to be involved in abusive episodes.'' The violence 
     ranges from kicking, bitting and punching to attacks with 
     knives and guns.
       The Army's efforts to curb such violence--through 
     counseling and other help--are rarely mandatory. That, says 
     the study, leads to two critical failings: few soldiers take 
     advantage of the help, and the worst abusers don't 
     participate. Researcher Peter Neidig, whose company, 
     Behavioral Science Associates in Stony Brook, New York, is 
     conducting the Army survey, believes similar levels of 
     domestic abuse exist in the other services. While Neidig 
     believes the Army is ahead of the civilian world in 
     confronting the issue, Army officials admit they are only 
     starting to understand the extent of the problem. ``We were 
     being very reactionary, explains Delores Johnson, who heads 
     the service's program to combat such abuse. Rather than 
     trying to prevent it, the Army emphasized medical and legal 
     help after the violence occurred. ``We're just beginning to 
     take a look at what prevention means,'' says Johnson. The 
     Army study, which is designed to identify groups at high risk 
     of domestic violence, found evidence that abuse tends to 
     escalate at bases scheduled to shut down. ``We're very 
     interested in that,'' Johnson says, ``because we're in the 
     middle of downsizing.'' Pentagon officials also say their 
     efforts to encourage military families to report such abuse 
     has played a role in the rising number of reported cases.
       But the military is spending only $80 million of the $120 
     million it says it needs this year to fight domestic abuse. 
     That $40 million gap is less than the price of one of the 
     three dozen F/A-18 fighters the Navy is buying in 1994. The 
     shortfall, officials concede, means most of the money will 
     still go toward the medical and legal bills of those already 
     ensnared in domestic terror, instead of focusing on 
     prevention.
       Gail McGinn, a top Pentagon personnel official, says the 
     military family's nomadic existence contributes to the 
     problem. Most move every three years, ripping the military 
     family from the support network of relatives and friends that 
     civilian families count on when times get tough. The long 
     absences of the breadwinner--on lengthy cruises, battlefield 
     exercises or peacekeeping missions--add to familial stress. 
     The military drawdown, from 2.2 million troops in 1987 to 1.5 
     million in 1997, compounds the problem. Soldiers and sailors 
     who once dreamed of a secure, 20-year career and a handsome 
     facing a trunicated career, no pension and bleak employment 
     prospects in the civilian world. ``Everybody is wondering 
     about what their own careers and their own finances will be, 
     and of course, financial issues are major contributors to 
     family violence,'' McGinn says. ``There's a lot of 
     tension.'' Outside experts point to other factors. 
     Compared with civilian society, the military population is 
     younger and drawn from lower socioeconomic ranks, and 
     consequently more violence prone. Alcohol abuse is 
     relatively high, pay tends to be poor and the military 
     attracts men who have authoritarian tendencies.
       Also boosting the opportunity for such violence is the fact 
     that nearly 58 percent of the military are married, perhaps 
     the highest proportion in history. According to Pentagon 
     figures, abuse is largely confined to midlevel enlisted 
     personnel like Air Force, Army and Marine sergeants and Navy 
     petty officers. They're old enough to be married and have 
     children--and the resulting debts--but often earn less than 
     $20,000 a year.
       Some military training contributes to a misogynist 
     attitude, says Joan Zorza, director of the National Battered 
     Women's Law Project in New York City. ``A man is criticized 
     by being told he's acting like a woman--a `pussy'--to 
     humiliate him and make him tougher,'' she says. ``That often 
     translates into seeing women as not being important and 
     therefore easier to oppress.''
       An earlier study had already found a correlation between 
     combat jobs and domestic violence. Troops trained to fight 
     are more likely to batter children than their uniformed 
     colleagues in noncombat jobs, according to a 1979 study of 
     985 case of child abuse among Air Force personnel by the 
     University of New Hampshire, ``There's a spillover from what 
     one does in one sphere of life in one role to what one does 
     in other roles,'' says Murray Straus, a University of New 
     Hampshire family-violence expert who worked on the study. 
     ``If you're in an occupation whose business is killing, it 
     legitimizes violence.''
       The inherent lack of autonomy in a military job also sets 
     the stage for abuse. ``It's all about control,'' says Cindy 
     Zamora, the wife of an Army tanker. She now lives in a 
     shelter for battered women in Killeen, Texas, just outside 
     huge Fort Hood. She moved there after her husband bit her, 
     beat her and threatened her with a knife. ``There's a lot of 
     women in here married to soldiers whose sergeants protect 
     them if they're good soldiers,'' she says. ``They can't 
     control their superiors on the job, so they control us.'' 
     Although her husband admitted under oath last month in a 
     Texas courtroom that he is married to two women, he 
     remains in the Army. ``He was under a lot of stress and 
     was nervous about being kicked out,'' she says. ``He said 
     if he didn't get his sergeant's stripes, I was going to 
     get hurt.'' She's angered that he remains in the Army in 
     good standing even as it investigates his bigamy. ``The 
     military knows he has two wives, but he's still in the 
     Army,'' she says. ``They just sweep it under the rug.''
       Katherine Coleman was married to an Army major and 
     psychologist. ``It's a myth that domestic violence doesn't 
     happen in officers' families,'' says Coleman, now divorced 
     and living in San Antonio, Texas. Her husband went so far as 
     to draft a prenuptial pact detailing sexual obligations and 
     rules governing outside friendships. She recalls him 
     cornering her in the kitchen or bathroom and not letting her 
     leave until she gave in to his demands. ``We argued once for 
     four hours in the kitchen, and he wouldn't let me out,'' she 
     says. ``I had to urinate on the kitchen floor.'' But she had 
     power over him too. ``He hit me a couple of times until I 
     told him his career would be over if he did it again,'' 
     Coleman says. He remains in the Army, training its mental-
     health workers.
       The men involved in such episodes aren't eager to discuss 
     them. But some acknowledge that the prospect of watching 
     lifelong dreams shatter as the military shrinks can make them 
     lash out in rage and frustration. ``It stresses you out, but 
     you can't hit the officers,'' an Army man says. ``So you wait 
     till you get home and take out on her and the kids.'' Another 
     soldier will only say of his wife that ``we abused each 
     other.'' In fact, the Army survey suggests that spousal abuse 
     usually involves violence by both partners. But women, it 
     notes, are far more likely than men to be injured.
       The military has reacted to the problem by creating 
     counseling programs and discipline boards. Military families 
     are told to report any instances of domestic violence they 
     witness, even if it occurs outside their family. But few 
     abused spouses are willing to risk their family's financial 
     future by seeking help through Army channels, because such 
     complaints often end up on the desk of the abuser's 
     commander. ``The military needs to do something to ensure the 
     confidentiality of spouses so the wife can go and get help 
     without hurting his career,'' says Phyllis Lonneman, a 
     Kentucky attorney representing a woman charged with the 
     slaying of her Army husband in August after years of alleged 
     abuse. ``It doesn't matter how good or bad the military's 
     programs are if the spouses are afraid to use them.''
       And the abuser's commander often isn't sympathetic to the 
     battered spouse, according to Sadonna Polhill, who is the top 
     caseworker at the Killeen shelter. ``They'll tell the wife, 
     `This is a bunch of bull--quit making these accusations 
     because you're ruining your husband's career,''' she says. 
     ``They try to make the one who's being battered at fault.'' 
     Anxiety over their husbands' careers has led to a sharp drop 
     in the number of women--from 85% to 50% over the past two 
     years--who permit the shelter's staff to alert military 
     officials to the women's visits. ``A lot of that has to do 
     with the pressures on the soldiers and their families,'' 
     Polhill says. ``And many are deathly afraid of their 
     husbands.''
       While many civilian domestic-violence experts praise the 
     strides the military has made in dealing with the problem, 
     they say follow-through is often lacking. A Pentagon 
     investigation last year surveyed 13 Pentagon prisons to see 
     how many were complying with a 1982 federal law obligating 
     them to alert crime victims, including abused spouses, when 
     perpetrators are released. Not a single one was. In a 1990 
     case, a Kentucky woman, Andrea Turner, was murdered by her 
     husband three days after his release from a military prison. 
     The killer, who had been locked up for abusing her, said he 
     shot her five times in the back because she ruined his Army 
     career. She had made plans to move secretly to a new home 
     before his official release date, but the military neglected 
     to tell her that he was getting out two months early because 
     of accumulated military leave. ``It was a nightmare,'' one 
     Army official involved in the case says. ``Nobody told her.''
       The problem isn't limited to spouses. Child abuse is also 
     on the rise, leading the Pentagon to create a child death-
     review task force that will eventually probe all child deaths 
     in the U.S. military to determine if abuse is to blame. 
     ``After a child dies, people say it was an accident,'' says 
     Army Colonel Will Hatcher, who is helping to launch the 
     program. ``But we want to go back and check.'' For several 
     months the task force has been examining child deaths at the 
     Fitzsimons Army Medical Center in Colorado and at hospitals 
     at the Bremerton naval base in Washington and Travis Air 
     Force base in California.
       Despite the Pentagon's intentions, its sometimes haphazard 
     efforts offer little comfort to victims and their families. 
     Jeromy Willis, for example, was sentenced to life 
     imprisonment for the murder of his wife and is now serving 
     time at Fort Leavenworth Kansas. Yet Marie Willis' family 
     remains bitter, because the military ignored so many warnings 
     that a tragedy was afoot. Her family says Jeromy was confined 
     to base twice because he tried to Kill Marie, but he was 
     allowed to roam freely on the base when the Air Force invited 
     and paid for her to return there and testify against him. 
     ``Abused people should not rely on the military for 
     protection.'' says her father, Eugene Mello, himself an Air 
     Force veteran. Her mother, Marie Mello, puts it more simply: 
     ``The Air Force was an accomplice in my daughter's death.''
  Mr. DOMENICI. Now, Mr. President, I have discussed the amendment that 
I am sending to the desk at this moment and ask that it be immediately 
read. It has been discussed with Senator Nunn and Senator Nunn's staff 
and Senator Thurmond and Senator Thurmond's staff.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be set aside.


                           Amendment No. 2162

   (Purpose: To require the establishment of the program previously 
 authorized for payment of transitional compensation to dependents of 
   members separated for dependent abuse and to improve the benefits 
                              provisions)

  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2162.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 128, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 522. TRANSITIONAL COMPENSATION AND OTHER BENEFITS FOR 
                   DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS SEPARATED FOR DEPENDENT 
                   ABUSE.

       (A) Requirement.--subsection (a) of section 1058 of title 
     10, United States Code, as added by section 554(a)(1) of 
     Public Law 103-160 (197 Stat. 1663), is amended--
       (b) Commencement and Duration of Benefits.--Subsection (e) 
     of such section is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Commencement and Duration of Payment.--(1) Payment of 
     transitional compensation under this section--
       ``(A) in the case of a member convicted by a court-martial 
     for a dependent-abuse offense may commence as of the date of 
     the approval of the court-martial sentence by the person 
     acting under section 860(c) of this title (article 60(c) of 
     the Uniform Code of Military Justice) if the sentence, as 
     approved, includes a dismissal, dishonorable discharge, bad 
     conduct discharge, or forfeiture of all pay and allowances; 
     and
       ``(B) in the case of a member being considered under 
     applicable regulations for administrative separation from 
     active duty in accordance with such regulations (if the basis 
     for the separation includes a dependent-abuse offense) may 
     commence as of the date on which the separation action is 
     initiated by a commander of the member pursuant to such 
     regulations, as determined by the Secretary concerned.
       ``(2) Transitional compensation with respect to a member 
     may be paid for a period of 36 months, except that, if as of 
     the date on which payment of transitional compensation 
     commences the unserved portion of the member's period of 
     obligated active duty service is less than 36 months, the 
     period for which transitional compensation is paid shall be 
     equal to the greater of--
       ``(A) the unserved portion of the member's period of 
     obligated active duty service; or
       ``(B) 12 months.
       ``(3)(A) If a member is sentenced by a court-martial to 
     receive punishment that includes a dismissal, dishonorable 
     discharge, bad conduct discharge, or forfeiture of all pay 
     and allowances as a result of a conviction by a court-martial 
     for a dependent-abuse offense and each such punishment 
     applicable to the member under the sentence is remitted, set 
     aside, or mitigated to a lesser punishment that does not 
     include any such punishment, any payment of transitional 
     compensation that has commenced under this section on the 
     basis of such sentence in that case shall cease.
       ``(B) If administrative separation of a member from active 
     duty is proposed on a basis that includes a dependent-abuse 
     offense and the proposed administrative separation is 
     approved by competent authority under applicable regulations, 
     payment of transitional compensation in such case shall 
     cease.
       ``(C) Cessation of payments under subparagraph (A) or (B) 
     shall be effective as of the first day of the first month 
     following the month in which the Secretary concerned notifies 
     the recipient of such transitional compensation in writing 
     that payment of the transitional compensation will cease. The 
     recipient may not be required to repay amounts of 
     transitional compensation received before that effective date 
     (except to the extent necessary to recoup any amount that was 
     erroneous when paid).''.
       (c) Health, Commissary, and Other Benefits.--Section (e) is 
     further amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (j) and (k) as subsections 
     (k) and (l), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (i) the following new 
     subsection (j):
       ``(j) Health Commissary, and Other Benefits.--(1) A 
     dependent or former dependent entitled to payment of monthly 
     transitional compensation under this section shall, while 
     receiving payments in accordance with this section, be 
     entitled to receive medical and dental care, to use 
     commissary and exchange stores, and to receive any other 
     benefit that a dependent of a member of the armed forces is 
     entitled to receive on the basis of being a dependent of a 
     member of the armed forces to the same extent and in the same 
     manner as a dependent of a member of the armed forces on 
     active duty for a period of not more than 30 days.
       ``(2) If a dependent or former dependent eligible or 
     entitled to receive a particular benefit under this 
     subsection is eligible or entitled to receive that benefit 
     under another provision of law, the eligibility or 
     entitlement of that dependent or former dependent to such 
     benefit shall be determined under such other provision of law 
     instead of this subsection.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--(1) The heading for such 
     section is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 1058. Dependents of members separated for dependent 
       abuse: transitional compensation and other benefits''.

       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 53 of 
     such title is amended by striking out the item relating to 
     section 1058 (as added by section 554(a)(2) of Public Law 
     103-160 (107 Stat. 1066)) and inserting in lieu thereof the 
     following:

``1058. Dependents of members separated for dependent abuse: 
              transitional compensation and other benefits.''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
will significantly contribute to the efforts I have made over the last 
2 years, which the Senate Armed Services Committee have supported, 
relative to the issue of military spouse and child abuse. My colleagues 
will recall in 1992 I introduced the ``Abused Military Dependents 
Protection Act.'' This legislation was adopted in the fiscal year 1993 
Defense Authorization Bill, Public Law 102-484.
  Prior to my legislation, abused military spouses and their dependents 
whose military member had served the requisite number of years to earn 
retirement benefits, but was dishonorably discharged from the service 
for spouse or child abuse, were not eligible to receive any of the 
retirement benefits the military member (and in my view the spouse and 
family) had earned. Section 653(e) of Public Law 102-484 ensures that 
abused military spouses and their children whose military member is 
dishonorably discharged for spouse or child abuse will have access of 
up to 50 percent of the member's retirement benefits, as well as access 
to health care, commissary, and other privileges which they would have 
otherwise maintained if the member was not dishonorably discharged.
  As important, I included language in Public Law 102-484 requiring a 
comprehensive study by the Department of Defense to provide statistics 
on abuse related to separations from military service on a force-wide 
basis and without regard to the number of years of military service of 
the member. In addition, the study will examine the entire scope of 
family violence and the actions taken or planned to be taken by the 
Department of Defense to reduce or eliminate disincentives, including 
the socioeconomic impact on a force wide basis, for dependent members 
of the Armed Forces abused by the member to report abuse to the 
appropriate authorities.
  Regretfully, Mr. President, the Department of Defense has not yet 
submitted its report. In a letter dated May 4, 1994, the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness informed me that I 
would have the report in late May. Unfortunately, and while I 
understand it should be delivered momentarily, I have yet to see it. 
Frankly, I am disappointed. I have tried very hard to obtain this 
report because I knew that it would be very helpful in answering more 
completely the full scope of the problem and possible future remedies.
  Nevertheless, Mr. President, I rise today to take another step 
forward in the fight against military spouse and child abuse. 
Admittedly, this amendment is limited in scope, but I know it will be 
helpful to hundreds of abused spouses and their children.
  Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today will authorize 
health care, commissary, and other benefits that are authorized by the 
original legislation I introduced in fiscal year 1993 that is now part 
of Public Law 102-484. Unfortunately, the legislation that was passed 
last year in section 554 of Public Law 103-160 does not contain these 
benefits. My amendment will make last year's section of Public Law 103-
160 consistent with my original legislation, now section 653 of Public 
Law 102-484.
  Mr. President, military spouse abuse is a serious problem. At this 
point, I would like to ask unanimous consent to place in the Record 
articles from Time magazine and the New York Times entitled, ``The 
Living Room War: As the U.S. military shrinks, family violence is on 
the rise. Can the Pentagon do more to prevent it?,'' and, ``Military 
Struggling to Stem Increase in Family Violence.'' These articles make 
it clear that spouse abuse continues to increase, and we need to do 
more about it. Time magazine reports:

       In 1986 there were 27,783 reported cases of violence in 
     military families; last year there were 47,287. Now a 
     confidential--and unprecedented--Army survey obtained by Time 
     suggests that spousal abuse is occurring in one of every 
     three Army families each year--double the civilian rate.

  The New York Times reports:

       In a grim illustration of the most severe problems, an 
     average of one child or spouse dies each week at the hands of 
     a relative in uniform. Over the last six years, an average of 
     37 children have died each year as a result of abuse in 
     military families, In 1993, the figure was 38 deaths.

  Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today is critical to 
ensuring that the fear factor associated in reporting domestic violence 
cases in the military is significantly reduced. Too often in the past, 
abused military spouses and their children have had no option but to 
endure the abuse. My legislation provides them with a ``way out'' 
without risking financial ruin.
  The soon-to-be released study will provide us the information we will 
need to make additional changes in the system next year, but the time 
for delay has passed. We can no longer afford to wait. Military spouses 
and children are dying. We must direct the Department of Defense to 
implement this program so that we can continue our responsible efforts 
to deal with this problem. I have gratefully, appreciated the Senate 
Armed Services Committee's support on this issue over the last 3 years, 
and I look forward to their continued support, and the support of all 
of my colleagues.
  Mr. President, this amendment says for those situations of 1 year to 
20 years of service and a dishonorable discharge during any of those 
periods for any military member convicted of domestic violence, either 
spousal or child, that the spouse, the nonoffending child and children 
will receive benefits.
  It also says that those benefits will add to them health care, 
commissary, dental, and medical for this transition period.
  The law right now says that we will have a 3-year payment to them for 
3 years of benefits for the transition. We are adding these new covered 
items--health care, commissary, dental, and medical--to the existing 
law.
  Frankly, I was going to try to make this mandatory in the original 
amendment, but I am not doing that because I have the assurance of the 
chairman that he is going to join me here on the floor urging that the 
military take care of this responsibility.
  Clearly, it is something they ought to do and ought to do as quickly 
as possible. They have not yet started the program for the 1- to 20-
year military members that was adopted last year in the defense 
authorization bill. The DOD authorization conference report that passed 
the Senate last year included language that gives the Secretary 
authority to cover abused spouses and children of 1- to 20-year 
military members who were discharged because of these violations, and 
it gives their spouse and their children some benefits. They are not 
even carrying that out yet.
  We add a few benefits here today, and perhaps this colloquy on the 
floor of the Senate will cause them to take it serious enough to get it 
started as quickly as possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, first, let me congratulate the Senator from 
New Mexico for addressing his amendment in a very consistent and, I 
think, very effective way on this problem which he has identified and 
which he has taken the lead in legislative activities to try to deal 
with, the problem that the Senator from New Mexico is addressing, the 
disincentive that has been built into the overall military benefits 
package for spouses and children.
  When a spouse is being abused or children are being abused by a 
military member, there is a disincentive that has existed for them 
reporting that and having it dealt with.
  I think the whole Nation has seen in the last several weeks a great 
deal of attention on this question of spousal abuse, without referring 
to any case, the need to deal with it at the very beginning, and to 
have it reported when it takes place or when children are abused.
  Yet in the military there has been a disincentive because immediately 
if your spouse is reported for any kind of abuse, then basically your 
transitional benefits have not been there, you have not had benefits 
because that individual may be kicked out of the military, and then the 
spouse and the children also suffer.
  So this amendment reemphasizes the dedication of the Senator from New 
Mexico and the importance the Senate of the United States attaches to 
this problem.
  It is my understanding that the military is about to come out with 
their full implementation of this. But this amendment makes it clear 
that the Senate of the United States is going to follow this closely 
and insist that it be done.
  I join the Senator in expressing my support for this concept. This 
amendment, as I understand it, authorizes certain additional transition 
assistance for spouses and children that are found in this situation, 
so that the bottom line is they are not discouraged from making timely 
reports of spousal or children abuse.
  This amendment does not make this program mandatory. I think the 
Senator from New Mexico perhaps more than anybody in the Senate 
understands that we do not need new entitlement programs no matter how 
worthy they are. So this keeps it out of the entitlement or mandatory 
program category. But it does, I think, merit the support of the U.S. 
Senate.
  So I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator 
from New Mexico.
  So the amendment (No. 2162) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, while Senator Nunn, the chairman, is on 
the floor, let me say to him a few hours ago there was a very difficult 
vote here on the floor with reference to a cost-of-living index and the 
way we would treat some of our veterans with reference to cost-of-
living index versus the way we were paying civilians or how we were 
handling civilians or others.
  I did not know that we had finished the debate last night but just 
for a few minutes this morning. So I did not have anything to say. But 
I want to say to the Senate I believe the Warner amendment, in 
principle, is absolutely right. So I voted for it.
  In fact, I have never thought we should treat the men and women--
those who are discharged from the military and get pensions of any type 
or VA benefits--I did not think we should treat them any differently 
than civilians or even Social Security recipients. I thought they all 
should be treated the same.
  In fact, I have introduced legislation to that effect and have had 
many, many supporters for it years ago.
  So in principle, we were right in voting it in. But I also want to 
say that to create a new entitlement and not call it one, but rather 
say we will pay it out of appropriated accounts, is just not the way to 
conduct business here.
  For many, and this Senator is one, I am worried when we take a $300 
million or $400 million cut in defense. In fact, I think we all came to 
the floor, I say to Senator Nunn, on the so-called Exon-Grassley 
amendment. We did not want further cuts in the allocation of defense. 
And even when that amendment went through in its fullest, it probably 
would have been a half a billion dollars or maybe $750 million that we 
would have taken out. But here in one fell swoop we are going to have 
to fund about $360 million, which is what I understand this entitlement 
is worth.
  I want to pledge to the Senate and to all of those concerned about 
defense that I am going to use every bit of my available knowledge and 
information about these processes to find a way to pay for that COLA 
addition, but not to pay it out of the ongoing annual defense program, 
because I think it will affect the personnel and operations and 
maintenance in a very, very dramatic way.
  We have to find a way to pay for entitlements like entitlements are 
paid for out of the entitlement pools that the U.S. Government is 
paying for entitlements in this country. We cannot let this precedent, 
which is a bad precedent, now take hold, and actually pay for it out of 
the operating accounts of an appropriation budget.
  So I will spend as much energy and effort and as much of my staff's 
talent, working with others, seeking to find a way to do this without 
further decimating the defense operations, and maintenance, and the 
personnel of the military who are living day by day defending us.
  I think the veterans would tell us to do it another way. So we owe it 
to them to try.
  I thank Senator Nunn for his efforts and I hope together we will be 
able to find a way to do it.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I welcome the remarks of my friend from New 
Mexico. I hope, too, there are alternative ways to accomplish this 
purpose.
  I agree that there should be equity in these COLA's I do not agree 
that the military should be singled out. And they have been, and that 
is regrettable.
  I made a very long speech on the subject last night and I will not 
repeat it today. If the Warner amendment had failed, I did have an 
amendment that I was going to propose which would equalize the COLA 
sacrifice between military and civilians. That, too, might have failed, 
and probably would have failed. But it is clear, after the Senate 
adopted the Warner amendment, that the amendment I was going to propose 
was not consistent with that amendment. So there was no need to go back 
over the same ground again.
  But what we have done here is we have taken an entitlement restraint 
that was in last year's budget bill and we have decided that we are 
going to compensate that, make it whole, for the people on military 
retirement. And we have done it by taking it right out of the defense 
bill. That is what has been done in this authorization bill.
  What has not been done is the money has not been found.
  I have seen some of the letters put out by the national 
organizations. They say it can come out nonreadiness accounts. I went 
through that very clearly today. It either comes out of readiness, or 
it comes out of procurement, or research and development, or it comes 
out of force structure. No one has identified where this money is going 
to come from. So it has not been appropriated. It has not gone through 
the appropriations.
  The amendment I would have proposed would have taken care of this for 
4 years with some sacrifice, but about half the sacrifice the American 
people are now being asked to undertake.
  This amendment only calls for 1 year, if they find the money. So the 
money has to be found for 3 more years. There is a total of $2.2 
billion. We only dealt with $370-some-odd million this time.
  In order to get $370 million out of procurement, you do not want to 
do it to programs that are already underway, so you do it out of the 
front-end of procurement programs just getting started. In order to do 
that, because of the slow spendout rate on initial programs like ships, 
to get $376 million in outlays, which is what we are talking about, 
expenditures this year, you have to cut about $8 billion in 
procurement. So if we do this every year we are talking about 
astounding cuts in the overall defense of our country.
  We already are on a downslide. We are already cutting defense too 
much. So I welcome the comments of the Senator from New Mexico and I 
welcome his help. I hope this program can be worked out.
  I have managed, I am sure, to offend every group around town during 
the course of my opposition to this amendment. But that is all right, 
too, because at some point you have to tell the facts as they are. And 
the people out there in the field who contact me, military retirees, 
are astounded when they find out what they are advocating has to come 
out of the defense budget. That is not what they want. The 
organizations here in town, like every other organization--and they are 
certainly no different in this respect--are seriously guarding every 
single penny in entitlement programs.
  It is no mystery why entitlement programs are running away from us. 
It is not just health care. That is the main culprit. But the reason is 
because people are very vigilant in protecting those programs.
  It is no mystery why we have the kind of deficits we have. All you 
have to do is look at the charts--and I will not go back through those 
again. But I think the exercise we have been through in the last 24 
hours on this particular matter is as clear a demonstration as anyone 
will find about why we have the fiscal problems we have in this country 
today.
  So I welcome the assistance of the Senator from New Mexico here. I am 
sure, if anyone can find a way to do this without damaging the defense 
of the country, and maintaining the equity and fairness to the military 
retirees, and without increasing the deficit, I am sure he will find a 
way. But that is not an easy path to probe. I will be working with him 
to try to accomplish that.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Harkin). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would just add to this.
  As you look at what is being contemplated between now and the end of 
the year, or now and the end of the year for health care, and maybe 6 
months into next year for welfare reform, I do not have the exact 
numbers, but you see we have a law that if you want to add to an 
entitlement, you have to subtract from an entitlement, or you have to 
pay for that increase with taxes.
  My best estimate over the next 5 years, between welfare reform and 
health care reform, is that we probably are going to cut entitlements 
of one type or another in excess of $150 billion between Medicare, 
Medicaid, and those that we want to either cut or end as part of 
welfare reform.
  Frankly, it seems to me, if we are going to reduce entitlements that 
much for those programs, maybe a small portion right off the top ought 
to go to pay for the COLA's for veterans. That might be one way to look 
at it. And I will explore that before too much more time expires.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, what is the pending business on the floor 
of the Senate, if I might inquire?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Nunn amendment to the Warner amendment is 
the pending business.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be set aside temporarily so I may proceed with an amendment 
which I am sure is going to require some debate--I hope not much 
debate.
  I am going to make a very short opening statement. I know Senators 
are trying to leave for the Fourth of July break, and I will be very 
brief.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2163

    (Purpose: To prohibit government-to-government transfers of the 
   Airborne Self-Protection Jammer [ASPJ], or any related software, 
                                abroad)

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, today I rise to offer an amendment with 
Senator Roth of Delaware to prohibit the U.S. Government-sponsored sale 
of the very troubled airborne self-protection jammer. This is known as 
the ASPJ, and Senator Roth and I do not want to see the foreign 
military financing program go forward with this sale abroad.
  The Senate has heard me on this issue on several occasions with my 
colleague, Senator Roth. I originally intended to offer an amendment 
banning any sale, either FMS or commercial, of the ASPJ but, Mr. 
President, today I have a much more modest proposal that I hope will be 
accepted by the Senate. Our amendment that we offer today simply 
forbids any use of the FMS to export the ASPJ.
  The ASPJ dates back to the 1970's, when our country first decided we 
needed to update and improve our radar jammer technology. After years 
and years of problems, the system actually failed its operational 
tests. Then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Atwood wrote, in July of 1989, 
that the ASPJ ``* * * has not satisfactorily passed the test relative 
to cost, performance, or reliability. This is a clear case of not 
meeting the exit criteria for a transition from the full-scale 
development phase to the production phase.'' That was by Deputy 
Secretary Atwood.
  In subsequent investigations by the inspector general, the Pentagon 
Operational Test Director, and the General Accounting Office, all found 
that the ASPJ was tested fairly, the jammer badly flunked its 
operational test, and that the ASPJ should not be produced. The U.S. 
Air Force came forward and said: We no longer desire to have this 
particular radar jammer on U.S. Air Force planes.
  In December 1992, the Defense Secretary killed this entire $2 billion 
program. Despite the fact that the ASPJ has failed operational tests, 
and despite the fact that the DOD terminated production of the ASPJ in 
December of 1992, the ASPJ is one of those weapons systems that refuses 
to die.
  We have heard about a cat with nine lives. Mr. President, this is a 
turkey with nine lives.
  The latest episode in the ASPJ saga involves the potential sale of 
the ASPJ to foreign countries, specifically Switzerland and Finland. 
Are these sales from the manufacturer or the contractor to the 
Governments? No, these are Government-to-Government sales. FMS sales, 
if I may be more specific.
  Originally, I was told that the ASPJ would not be sold abroad. I 
received two letters from the then Under Secretary of Defense assuring 
me that the ASPJ would not be approved for sale under the FMS program. 
Last September, Mr. Deutch wrote, and I quote:

       I am not approving ASPJ for the Foreign Military Sales 
     Program.

  In March 1994, Mr. Deutch again wrote me, and I quote:

       The department's position remains that foreign military 
     sales funds will not be used to cover sales of ASPJ to 
     foreign countries because the department does not want to 
     apply a warranty on a system that will not be procured for 
     U.S. aircraft.

  I repeat that, Mr. President, because I think it encapsulates what 
our Department of Defense's position was in March 1994.

       The department's position remains that foreign military 
     sales funds will not be used to cover sales of ASPJ to 
     foreign countries because the department does not want to 
     apply a warranty on a system that will not be procured for 
     U.S. aircraft.

  Only a few months later, it now appears that the Department of 
Defense has changed its tune. At a hearing that I held on March 22 of 
this year, I was assured that while sale of the ASPJ abroad would be 
allowed, I was also assured at the same hearing that these exports were 
so-called commercial sales, not Government-to-Government sales. This 
means that the contractors, and not the U.S. Government, would become 
the exporter of these units. I was told by Miss Colleen Preston, the 
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Reform on March 22 
before the Federal Services Subcommittee of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee:

       What we have done is said to foreign customers that the 
     ASPJ may be sold as a commercial item by the company to the 
     contractor or another Government.

  This is our own Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition 
Reform, Colleen Preston. She concludes:

       However, because the system did not pass operational 
     testing, DOD will not allow a purchase of the ASPJ system as 
     an FMS sale.

  Frankly, Mr. President, this amazes me. This radar jammer that costs 
$2.5 to $3 million per system, this jammer that failed operational 
test, this jammer that the Air Force says it does not want, this jammer 
that is so bad that the Pentagon canceled it, is being sold now by our 
Government to foreign countries.
  I was not happy to hear that a failed system was being sold abroad. I 
originally intended to offer an amendment to block all commercial 
sales. I am not doing that today. I must say that I was relieved that 
at least the U.S. Government was not providing the jammer to these 
other particular countries.
  However, DOD has changed its tune again. In direct contradiction to 
this testimony before our subcommittee, as well as a contradiction to 
the letters from Deputy Secretary John Deutch assuring me that ASPJ 
would not be sold through the FMS program, the Pentagon now plans to 
sell the software component, which is the heart of the system, of the 
ASPJ, and integrate the ASPJ through the FMS system. Contractors will 
export only the ASPJ hardware, which is basically nothing more than the 
box that the software is in.
  In short, Mr. President, while the ASPJ contractors are going to be 
responsible for exporting the hardware on the ASPJ, the U.S. Government 
will be the exporter of the all-important ASPJ software. And this 
software, which is the brains and the heart of the ASPJ, is what could 
not pass muster, it could not pass tests, it could not get by the 
operational testers in all of the tests conducted between 1989 and 
1992. This jammer simply does not work. It has never worked.
  According to the General Accounting Office in a report entitled ``Use 
of FMS in Proposed Commercial Sales of Airborne Self-Protection 
Jammer,'' I quote:

       While the United States is relieved of any legal or 
     financial liability for problems occurring under a foreign 
     military sale, it would be expected to resolve contract 
     disputes. Foreign Government officials state that they expect 
     items to meet the specifications included in the LAO [letters 
     of offer and acceptance] to look at the United States rather 
     than the contractor to ensure performance.

  Mr. President, who is going to be holding the bag if these systems do 
not work, according to the General Accounting Office? My interpretation 
is the old U.S. taxpayer. If we sell the ASPJ through the FMS system, 
the U.S. Government has a long-term obligation. GAO goes on to say:

       Use of separate procedures for hardware and software sales 
     might make such disputes more contentious because experience 
     has shown that it is often difficult to trace system 
     performance problems to a discrete hardware or software 
     problem.

  Our simple amendment, offered by the distinguished Senator from 
Delaware, Senator Roth, and myself, does nothing to stop the export of 
the ASPJ systems to foreign countries. While I personally think that we 
would be better off selling this system to our enemies and not our 
friends, this comes down to a case, I think, of caveat emptor: ``Let 
the buyer beware.''
  What this amendment does say in its simplicity and in its directness 
and, hopefully, speaking to a theme of common sense, is that the ASPJ 
contractors--Westinghouse and ITT--and not the U.S. taxpayers should 
bear the full burden of this particular export.
  We know that the jammer does not work. It has never worked. Our 
amendment says that the Government should not be in the position of 
selling a failed weapon system to other nations. I am urging my 
colleagues to support this amendment offered by Senator Roth and 
myself.
  Mr. President, in conclusion, let me state a suggestion. We today 
have 95 of these $3 million radar jammers stored somewhere in a 
warehouse. It would be my suggestion that Westinghouse and ITT--who I 
think have hired almost every high-paid lobbyist in Washington, DC, to 
defeat this amendment--it is my suggestion that we call up 
Westinghouse, we call up ITT and we say, ``Ladies and gentleman, we 
have 95 of these systems. We would like to sell them back to you. We 
will discount these systems 15, 20, 30 percent.'' We have already paid 
them a good price for them. They made them; they manufactured them. 
They have gotten their money. So let them buy them back, let the 
taxpayer recoup some money, and then if Westinghouse and ITT want to go 
to the State Department and get a license that costs $200, then they 
can go to Finland, Switzerland, South Korea or wherever, and they can 
sell these 95 ASPJ's. The taxpayer will have recouped some money and we 
will be rid of this system that has not worked now for over 20 years.
  A second suggestion, Mr. President, if that suggestion is not 
accepted by Westinghouse or by the Department of Defense, ITT, and all 
the other parties. If you want to create some jobs and think the ASPJ 
is good, that it works; you think our allies will buy this system even 
though it does not work, that is fine and good. Go out and start 
manufacturing these ASPJ's. Build all you want. But the conractors 
should take the risk. Do not burden the American taxpayer further. We 
have already spent well over $2 billion for a system that does not 
work.
  The amount of money we have spent on this system Mr. President--and I 
just left the Finance Committee where we are about to be arguing about 
long-term health care--could begin to fund long-term health care, what 
we have spent on this system that has never worked and is not going to 
work, that our own Air Force says they will not put on an Air Force 
plane.
  Mr. President, I hope our colleagues will not vote to continue to 
make the Government party to selling this system abroad to friendly 
nations, making the taxpayers potentially obligated for the obligations 
or troubles that are going to occur relative to these foreign military 
sales. Let us stop the Government's involvement in this matter and let 
us return to common sense.
  Mr. President, at this point I am going to yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in very strong opposition to this 
amendment. I am mystified by this continuous fixation on the part of 
some Members of this body with the ASPJ. It is really the ardor of the 
zealot that is involved here with respect to this amendment, and let me 
go through and just try to detail why.
  Also let me say to my good friend from Arkansas, I do not know where 
these high-paid lobbyists he referred to are. None of them have come to 
see me. The people we talk to from Westinghouse are the Westinghouse 
people. I know that it makes for good rhetoric and a lot of theater on 
the floor of the Senate to make that allegation. But to the best of my 
knowledge, there is no substance to it I want to say to the 
distinguished Senator from Arkansas. I know it is a nice rhetorical 
debating flourish to make that assertion, but as far as I know there is 
no substance to it, and I certainly have not encountered it. People we 
have been talking to are the Westinghouse people, of course, a 
significant employer and a very responsible corporate citizen in our 
State and in many other States in the country.
  Now, the Senator from Arkansas has in effect knocked the ASPJ off the 
American procurement list. Some of us differ with him on that. We think 
the testing was inadequate, that it was not accurate, and that it 
needed to be redone. We think the ASPJ is a state-of-the-art system 
which could serve our own forces very well indeed. But that issue is 
not the issue that is now before us.
  What we are now faced with is not the question of the U.S. 
procurement of the ASPJ. It is, rather, the question of whether this 
system can be sold to friendly countries that are fully aware of all of 
the things that the Senator from Arkansas is asserting on the floor. In 
fact, to be certain that they are aware of them, he has been in touch 
with them himself in order to make sure it is brought to their 
attention.
  Now, the two countries involved here are Finland and Switzerland, 
both neutral countries but both close friends of the United States.
  The Department of Defense has adopted a policy which they have 
adhered to prohibiting foreign military sales of the ASPJ until the 
system passes U.S. operational testing.
  However, Westinghouse was granted a license by the Department of 
Defense to market the ASPJ hardware under a direct commercial license, 
with the software and integration remaining eligible under FMS.
  Now, I must say to the Senator, I resent this reference to the 
hardware as just a box. It is a very sophisticated box. It takes a lot 
of technical skill in order to put it together. And it represents a 
significant technological achievement, I would say to my colleague.
  Now, the Senator may want to put it down, but I do not think it is 
fair to a lot of highly skilled engineers and scientists and technical 
people who produce that item. Now, operating in good faith under DOD's 
marketing license, Westinghouse and ITT have been negotiating with 
Switzerland and Finland, both neutral nations but with longstanding 
friendly relations with the United States, for the sale of the ASPJ and 
its integration software under the limits imposed by the Department of 
Defense.
  In fact, it has been a very difficult political decision on the part 
of both Finland and Switzerland to buy fighter aircraft made in this 
country and to reject their European counterparts.
  Let it be very clear. One of the things that is at issue here is 
where is this acquisition going to be made--in the United States or in 
Europe? At the moment at least, if the distinguished Senator from 
Arkansas does not prevail here, the acquisition is going to be made in 
the United States. If he prevails, I think it is pretty clear it is 
going to be made in Europe. One would think that given that an 
acquisition is going to be made, you would want to market U.S. products 
abroad. But that is not the case with the proposer of this amendment.
  Now, I know that behind it lies an assumption, well, if this line 
keeps producing, they may come back and try to get U.S. sales--I assume 
that is the motivation here--hence the effort to block this sale, 
although I think there is really no argument whatever against this 
sale.
  However, the question here is simply are we going to prevent U.S. 
companies that have developed state-of-the-art systems from selling 
them competitively abroad? Why would we drive Finland and Switzerland 
to make their acquisitions in Europe rather than make them in the 
United States?
  Now, Finland and Switzerland are aware of all of the goings on that 
have surrounded the ASPJ. They are aware of the test results, which 
many of us think were erroneous and should be redone. The Senator from 
Arkansas thinks not, and he used those test results to kill the U.S. 
procurement. Nevertheless, these countries want to go ahead. They know 
the history of this system. There is no concealment or deception here. 
In fact, the Senator from Arkansas has been in touch with these 
countries in order to make sure they know about it.
  The system meets their needs. If we now block the sale, these 
countries will go to a foreign supplier.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, if my friend from Maryland will just yield 
for one quick observation, I am not even going to ask him a question.
  My friend from Maryland has mentioned on two occasions in his speech, 
Mr. President, that the Senator from Arkansas has been in touch with 
these countries. The Senator from Arkansas has never been in touch with 
any country about this sale. The General Accounting Office I think has 
put them on notice as to the test results. And I would appreciate the 
Senator taking that--
  Mr. SARBANES. Did the GAO do that at the Senator's instance?
  Mr. PRYOR. I do not know. I have no knowledge. I do not recall asking 
the GAO to contact these countries. I imagine they did it on their own. 
I do not know who asked the GAO to contact these countries.
  Mr. SARBANES. It was not at the Senator's instance?
  Mr. PRYOR. No.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator yield? Did the Senator not write 
letters to these countries? Did the Senator write letters to these 
countries?
  Mr. PRYOR. This Senator did not request GAO that these countries be 
contacted by the General Accounting Office.
  I would be glad to read into the Record--and I apologize for 
interrupting my friend.
  Mr. SARBANES. No, no. If the Senator is being misrepresented, he 
ought to interrupt and we ought to get it straight. Our report is that 
the GAO contact with these countries to bring these matters to their 
attention was in effect at the instance of the Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. That GAO planned interviews to respond to a letter from 
Senator Roth and myself which included questions such as: ``Did the 
Department of Defense violate the policy of our own Defense Department 
in attempting to go forward with these sales?''
  I do not know how the Senator from Maryland draws a conclusion that I 
contacted these governments or that I suggested that GAO contact them. 
The Senator from Arkansas did not do that.
  I just wanted my friend from Maryland to be aware of that.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, both of these countries are aware of the 
ASPJ test results. They want to buy it. They regard it as the best 
system in the world. They see the system meeting their needs.
  If this sale is blocked, it is going to go to European competitors. 
The net result is that system will not be allowed to be marketed 
anywhere. Our allies are the friendly neutral countries, such as 
Finland and Switzerland.
  The GAO recently finished a study--yet another study at the request 
of the ASPJ opponents--which concluded that the software sale done 
through the FMS program is consistent with the U.S. Department of 
Defense standard practice and would not present either a national 
security problem or a problem of U.S. financial liability.
  Here is what you have. The hardware is not going to be done through 
FMS; that will be on a commercial basis. The software and integration 
will be done through FMS. Because of the sensitivity of the mission 
computer software source code, that has to be done that way. It cannot 
be done on a commercial basis. But that is because of the sensitivity 
of the computer software source code.
  As the GAO said, this is being done consistent with the Department of 
Defense standard practice. It does not present a national security 
problem. It does not present questions of U.S. financial liability.
  The Finns and the Swiss undertook to purchase the F-18's with the 
understanding they would get a complete weapons system package 
including the key equipment to identify, prioritize and jam enemy 
threat signals. They want the ASPJ. They know all the facts about the 
ASPJ, facts which the Senator from Arkansas has laid out on the record 
time and time again, and which have influenced the decision in this 
country about the acquisition. Despite all of that, they want to go 
ahead. They perceive it as a state-of-the-art system, and they want to 
proceed with it. It is being done consonant with U.S. law and FMS 
restrictions.
  This amendment which would terminate the negotiations over this sale 
would be ill-advised. It would merely shift hundreds and hundreds of 
jobs out of this country and into Europe.
  I very strongly urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I, too, join with my colleague, my 
senior Senator from Maryland, in rising to oppose the Pryor amendment.
  I oppose the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas because it is bad 
for the security of our country, bad for our allies, and a bad business 
decision for our country.
  The Senator from Arkansas wants to prevent the sale of ASPJ through 
foreign military sales. He says his amendment will not prevent 
commercial sales but, Mr. President, it most certainly will. The U.S. 
Government for security reasons will not permit the sale of defense 
systems software commercially. Our Government requires that all 
software for security systems like these be sold as foreign military 
sales. Do you know? We do this for good reason. Why? Because it will 
ensure that the United States of America keeps control over the 
software and the secrets contained in the software. Our allies insist 
that software be sold and integrated as foreign military sales. They 
want the assurances provided by a foreign military sale that the system 
is integrated properly, that it is updated to meet the threat posed by 
potential foes, and they want their equipment to have the same 
characteristics as ours so they can operate with us.
  Integration of the foreign military sales does not guarantee ASPJ 
system performance. But it does verify aircraft safety issues. It has 
been a longterm U.S. policy to provide hardware commercially. But for 
national security and for safety of flight reasons, integration in 
software is provided by way of the FMS program.
  Why does the Pryor amendment single out the ASPJ, Mr. President? It 
makes no sense to restrict the sale of software and the integration of 
the ASPJ to foreign military sales. But we do not do that for other 
electronic warfare systems.
  This amendment hurts the ability of American business to compete. If 
a foreign government cannot purchase the software from the U.S. 
Government government-to-government, then they are going to turn to 
software manufacturers outside the United States.
  Who are these foreign governments? They are not evil empires. They 
are not Darth Vaders. They are Switzerland. They are South Korea where 
just a few weeks ago we were terrified that we could be going to war. 
We voted in this body on the fact that we should be ready to repel any 
invasion of South Korea.
  Let me tell you. If we are out there flying on the 38th or 39th 
parallel, I would like the South Koreans to have the jammer.
  Much has been said about how flawed the jammer is; that it is a 
``Heck, no, turkey,'' and that this debate would be portrayed as we 
Senators standing up for the taxpayer, and then two Senators from 
Maryland, hacks advocating pork barrel for some corporate guy. That is 
not the case. All you need to do is read Aviation Week and Space 
Technology, which I know many of the Senators do. On January 4, 1993, 
they wrote an editorial on this.
  I ask unanimous consent that this editorial and the subsequent 
article by Phil Klass that talks about the jammer also be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       [From Aviation Week and Space Technology, January 4, 1993]

                  Don't Kill the ASPJ Jammer, Fix It!

       On December 10, most U.S. Navy combat flight crews probably 
     were focused on the holiday season and therefore oblivious to 
     the fact that death warrants may have been issued for some of 
     them. On that day, the Navy notified ITT and Westinghouse it 
     was terminating the ALQ-165 Airborne Self-Protection Jammer 
     program. Intended to protect F/A-18s and F-14Ds against 
     modern antiaircraft missiles, the ASPJ development effort was 
     dropped ``for the convenience of the government.'' This is a 
     serious mistake that needs to be corrected.
       The Navy said it terminated ASPJ because it had failed its 
     operational test and evaluation and that provisions in the 
     Fiscal 1993 Defense Authorization Act left no alternative 
     (see p. 27). In reality, it seems Navy and Pentagon officials 
     abandoned the ASPJ ship to avoid further antagonizing Sen. 
     David Pryor (D.-Ark.), and his close friend, President-elect 
     Bill Clinton. Pryor, who has waged a long vendetta against 
     ASPJ, chairs the Governmental Affairs Committee's 
     subcommittee on federal services, post office and civil 
     service. He opened subcommittee hearings on ASPJ last March 
     by characterizing it as a ``faulty radar jammer'' and ``an 
     embarrassing example of Pentagon mismanagement, blatant 
     inconsistencies and internal deception.''
       After spending $1.5 billion and 15 years to develop the 
     world's most capable airborne self-protection jammer, after 
     several limited-production contracts to demonstrate the 
     system could be built and after the most rigorous testing and 
     debugging any EW system has undergone prior to full-scale 
     production, the program was killed because it failed to pass 
     operational tests.
       Did ASPJ fail to detect or respond properly to simulated 
     enemy radars on the Air Force and Navy test ranges? Hardly. 
     Those who have seen the data say the system detected 98% of 
     nearly 300 threat-emitters it encountered. And each time, 
     ASPJ correctly identified the type of threat, selected the 
     proper countermeasures and radiated appropriate jamming 
     signals.
       ASPJ's problems arose when actual flight test data were 
     used in simulations intended to model a variety of real-world 
     combat scenarios. This permitted more threats to be generated 
     than the Navy and Air Force could afford to install on their 
     EW ranges. But, did this make the simulation unrealistic 
     enough to skew the assessment of ASPJ effectiveness? We think 
     it may have.
       During the simulations, ASPJ-equipped aircraft had to 
     demonstrate a 30% greater survivability than aircraft without 
     jammers. But in one simulation scenario, 90% of the ``naked'' 
     aircraft survived, which meant 117% of the ASPJ-equipped 
     aircraft had to survive if ASPJ was to achieve the required 
     Measure of Effectiveness.
       Through nearly 500 hrs. of operational flight tests, the 
     ASPJ hardware had nine failures. There were an additional 12 
     ``no-fault-later-found'' removals attributed to loose 
     connections in aircraft mounting racks. During operational 
     tests, ASPJ's built-in-test (BIT) experienced some false 
     alarms, but the latest BIT software was not installed. 
     Operational testers also complained they lacked instruction 
     manuals, but the contractors had delivered the manuals two 
     years earlier.
       Pryor notwithstanding, it would have been more logical to 
     analyze deficiencies identified during the tests, correct 
     them and delay fullscale production of the system for a year. 
     This more sensible approach would have enabled the Navy to 
     outfit a substantial portion of its F/A-18 fleet and F-14Ds 
     before the end of the decade.
       The Navy now is back at square one. Several alternatives 
     exist--such as the Loral ALQ-178 or Raytheon ALQ-187--but 
     time will be needed to adopt them to the F/A-18 and F-14D. 
     And because neither has the broad capabilities of ASPJ, the 
     Navy will have to downgrade its requirements. In the 
     meantime, F/A-18s and F-14Ds will have to depend on the 
     Lockheed Sanders ALQ-126B, which was developed more than 20 
     years ago to meet the less sophisticated threats of the 
     1970s.
       If the U.S. faces another Desert Storm situation in the 
     coming decade and Navy combat crews have to cope with modern 
     threats, Pryor's comments at this hearing could haunt him: 
     ``The public should be mad at government today,'' he said. 
     ``. . . when a failed system like the ASPJ is put into a jet 
     fighter, it risks the life of the brave American pilot who it 
     is supposed to be protecting. The Pentagon should be 
     ashamed.'' If Navy pilots fly into another Desert Storm 
     situation without an ASPJ-type jammer, others will share the 
     Pentagon's shame.
       There still is time for Defense Secretary Richard B. 
     Cheney--who has demonstrated his willingness to bite the 
     bullet by terminating the Navy's A-12 program--to delay the 
     ASPJ termination, convene an expert panel to assess 
     corrective actions and get on with fixing ASPJ.
                                  ____


      [From the Aviation Week and Space Technology, Jan. 4, 1993]

                    ASPJ Cut Leaves Fighters Exposed

                          (By Philip J. Klass)

       The U.S. Navy's decision to terminate the AN/ALQ-165 
     Airborne Self Protection Jammer program leaves its F/A-18s 
     and F-14Ds vulnerable to recent-vintage radar-guided missiles 
     until the end of this decade or later.
       The action was triggered by a report from the Pentagon's 
     director of operational test and evaluation that ASPJ failed 
     to demonstrate the required ``measure of effectiveness'' 
     (MOE) in combat simulation studies. Other, less consequential 
     short-comings also were cited.
       However, during the flight test portion of the operational 
     evaluation at USAF and Navy electronic warfare ranges, ASPJ 
     reportedly detected 98% of the nearly 300 enemy radar-type 
     emitters it encountered. Every detected threat was correctly 
     identified by type, and the system reacted by transmitting 
     the intended jamming/deception signal, according to one 
     electronic warfare specialist.
       The decision to terminate the program, on which the 
     Pentagon has spent about $1.5 billion--rather than defer 
     full-scale production until simulation results could be 
     independently evaluated and minor deficiencies corrected--
     resulted from provisions in the Fiscal 1993 Defense 
     Authorization Bill.
       By the time the bill emerged, Senate and House conferees 
     had learned the preliminary results of operational tests. The 
     bill said that if ASPJ failed to pass operational tests 
     ``none of the funds available to the Department of Defense 
     for fiscal year 1993 or any fiscal year before Fiscal 1993 
     may be used for the procurement of the Airborne Self 
     Protection Jammer system except for the payment of the costs 
     of terminating existing contracts * * *.''
       ITT Avionics and Westinghouse, which jointly developed ASPJ 
     starting in 1981, have nearly completed delivery of 100 
     systems under Lot 1 of a Limited Rate Initial Production 
     (LRIP) contract and were about to start delivery of Lot 2 for 
     36 more systems. Pentagon lawyers interpreted the 
     authorization bill language to mean that they could not pay 
     for Lot 2 systems.
       The termination order, ``for the convenience of the 
     government,'' was issued Dec. 10. The action is expected to 
     result in layoffs of 400-500 employees at ITT and a 
     comparable number at Westinghouse.
       The Senate-House conference report said, ``The conferees 
     continue to believe the Navy needs a jammer system'' and 
     recommended that the Navy should ``determine if the existing 
     ASPJ program might be restructured to provide an effective 
     and suitable system, or if elements of the ASPJ program might 
     be adapted for use in a new jammer program. If such a course 
     proves impossible, the Navy should * * * procure an 
     alternative jammer system.''
       The General Accounting Office is surveying electronic 
     warfare manufacturers for potential ASPJ replacements. Two 
     leading candidates are the Loral ALQ-178, a version of which 
     is used in Israeli and Turkish air force F-16s, and the 
     Raytheon ALQ-187, an advanced version of the Aspecs system 
     developed for Greek F-16s. But neither system presently 
     offers the full capabilities of ASPJ, such as being able to 
     counter coherent pulse-Doppler interceptor radars.
       According to one former Pentagon EW specialist, ``by the 
     time the Navy develops specifications for an ASPJ 
     replacement, holds a competition, flight tests the contenders 
     and selects a winner, five years will have elapsed. Add 
     another two years to get into production and modify F/A-18s 
     in the fleet to accept the new jammer, and it could be well 
     into the 21st century before the fleet is equipped.''
       Critics of the simulation scenario and criteria note that 
     an ASPJ-equipped aircraft was required to demonstrate a 30% 
     increase in survivability over a ``naked'' (unequipped) 
     aircraft. In one simulation scenario, where the naked 
     aircraft came in at very low altitude and all enemy early 
     warning radars were assumed to have been countered by 
     standoff-jammer aircraft, the naked aircraft achieved 90% 
     survivability.
       If ASPJ were to meet its specified 30% increase in 
     survivability, ``117% of the aircraft had to survive the 
     mission. In other words, 17% more aircraft had to return than 
     were launched to attack the target--which obviously is 
     impossible. Thus, ASPJ had failed to meet the specified 
     MOE,'' according to one observer.
       One of ASPJ's harshest congressional critics has been Sen. 
     David Pryor (D.-Ark.), who has held several hearings on the 
     jammer. Last spring he accused top Pentagon officials of 
     violating an earlier commitment by authorizing follow-on Lot 
     2 LRIP production for $89.3 million before receiving the 
     results of operational tests (AW&ST Apr. 13, 1992, p. 62).
       At the hearing, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition 
     Donald J. Yockey defended the Lot 2 contract award. However, 
     he restated his earlier commitment not to approve full-scale 
     production until ASPJ had successfully completed operational 
     tests.
       When the results of the operational evaluation, conducted 
     by the Navy's VX-5 test squadron at China Lake, Calif., were 
     circulated in the Pentagon, the Navy's ASPJ program office 
     requested an opportunity to challenge test report 
     conclusions. But this request was rejected. When word of 
     possible termination reached commanders of the Atlantic and 
     Pacific fleets, both reportedly sent in messages confirming 
     their support for ASPJ.
       Acting Navy Secretary Sean O'Keefe, in his previous 
     position as Pentagon comptroller, had not been an ASPJ 
     supporter. It was recognized that Pryor, a close friend of 
     President-elect Bill Clinton, would be an influential voice 
     with the new Administration. One industry observer speculates 
     that ``top Navy brass decided that the service, whose image 
     had suffered because of the Tailhook scandal and its handling 
     of the A-12 program, needed to placate Pryor to enhance its 
     relations with the new Administration.''
       In response to a request by the Korean air force, which 
     earlier expressed interest in buying ASPJs for its F-16s, the 
     USAF's F-16 System Program Office has evaluated the recent 
     ASPJ test report. Based on Navy operational test data and the 
     results of current USAF tests of ASPJ in an F-16 the F-16 SPO 
     reportedly has endorsed the system's operational 
     effectiveness. ITT and Westinghouse are expected to try to 
     sell ASPJ to Finland and to Switzerland for use on their F/A-
     18s.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. What did they say? They say:

       On Dec. 10, most U.S. Navy combat flight crews probably 
     were focused on the holiday season and therefore oblivious to 
     the fact that death warrants may have been issued for some of 
     them. On that day, the Navy notified ITT and Westinghouse it 
     was terminating the ALQ-165 Airborne Self-Protection Jammer 
     program. Intended to protect F/A-18s and F-14Ds against 
     modern antiaircraft missiles, the ASPJ development effort was 
     dropped ``for the convenience of the government.''

  This editorial goes on to say:

       This is a serious mistake that needs to be corrected.

  They said:

       The Navy said it terminated ASPJ because it had failed 
     operational test and evaluation and that provision in Fiscal 
     1993 Defense Authorization left no alternative. In reality, 
     it seems Navy and Pentagon officials abandoned the ASPJ ship 
     to avoid further antagonizing Sen. David Pryor of Arkansas.

  This is the editorial from Aviation Week and Space Technology. This 
is not Senator Barb Mikulski who has never, ever been in the pocket of 
some high-paid lobbyist. The people are my advisers. And I turn to the 
technical people.
  What do they say? They say this:

       Did ASPJ fail to detect or respond properly to simulated 
     enemy radars on the Air Force and Navy test ranges? Hardly. 
     Those who have seen the data say the system detected 98% of 
     nearly 300 threat-emitters it encountered. And each time, 
     ASPJ correctly identified the type of threat, selected the 
     proper countermeasures and radiated appropriate jamming 
     signals.

  So this technology is able to play offense and defense.
  They say further that:

       ASPJ's problems arose when actual flight test data were 
     used in simulations intended to model a variety of real-world 
     combat scenarios. This permitted more threats to be generated 
     than the Navy and Air Force could afford to install on their 
     EW ranges. But, did this make the simulation unrealistic 
     enough to skew the assessment of ASPJ effectiveness? We think 
     it may have.
       During the simulations, ASPJ-equipped aircraft had to 
     demonstrate a 30% greater survivability than aircraft without 
     jammers.
  But in one simulation scenario, 90 percent of the ``naked'' aircraft 
survived, which meant 117 percent of the ASPJ-equipped aircraft had to 
survive if ASPJ was to achieve this measure of effectiveness.
  I could go on about this, but the editorial says:

       Pryor notwithstanding, it would have been more logical to 
     analyze deficiencies identified during the tests, correct 
     them, and get full-scale production of the system for a year.

  Why do they say that?

       If the United States faces another Desert Storm situation 
     in the coming decade and Navy combat crews have to cope with 
     modern threats, Pryor's comments at his hearing could haunt 
     him: ``The public should be mad at Government today,'' he 
     said. ``. . . when a failed system like the ASPJ is put into 
     a jet fighter, it risks the life of the brave American pilot 
     it is supposed to be protecting.''

  Those who analyzed the technology say that putting it in will protect 
those Navy pilots as in Desert Storm. It will protect the Norwegian 
pilots, it will protect the Swiss pilots, and it will protect the South 
Korean pilots. But only if the foreign military sales are allowed to go 
forward.
  And the sham, the smokescreen, this illusion of compromise by doing 
it commercially is there. Every Senator here knows that we cannot lose 
control of our software because of the secrets it contains. I hope that 
we will defeat the Pryor amendment and that we will settle this issue 
once and for all. I hope one day the jammer is back on American 
aircraft. But, for God's sake, allies, knowing the history of this 
Senate debacle and debate, derailing, and obstructionism, I think they 
ought to be able to buy it according to the same rules of the game we 
have established for everyone else.
  I could go on with GAO reports and so on. I know the hour is late. I 
did not pick this fight. I want to yield the floor now and see what the 
chairman of the committee wants. If they want a longer fight, I am 
prepared to do it. For the people who work here and at Westinghouse and 
at ITT, for the Navy pilots having to rely on this, I am willing to 
stand here all night and all day tomorrow to jam the Pryor amendment.
  Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I think it is time for the Senate to go 
home and celebrate the Fourth of July. I want to say to my good friend 
Senator Mikulski and my friend Senator Sarbanes from Maryland that I, 
too, feel the pain when they are talking about a loss of jobs. If they 
are talking about Westinghouse or ITT, wherever the facilities are 
located, I understand and share the pain. I remind the Chair and our 
colleagues today that in the State of Arkansas, the county that has 
been hardest hit by defense cutbacks has been the County of Ouachita, 
my hometown, my home county. We have been hit so hard that our 
unemployment rate is the highest in the State of Arkansas.
  Mr. President, this cannot become a jobs program, and I hope it will 
not become a jobs program. I want to repeat once again the statement 
from Mr. John Deutch in a letter sent to Senator Roth and myself on the 
15th of March this year when he concluded his list with regard to the 
ASPJ by stating finally:

       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 
     and the specific approval of the Under Secretary of Defense 
     for Acquisition and Technology.

  This policy, according to Mr. Deutch, of March 15, 1994, remains in 
effect today.
  Mr. President, also, I would like to answer our colleagues from 
Maryland, our very good friends, I might add, by stating that as of 
March of this year, the Department of Defense said the ASPJ could be 
sold through commercial sales. They did not think FMS was necessary. 
Software codes can be scrambled and, according to the GAO report, the 
Swiss and the Fins will buy the F-18's from the United States 
regardless of the ASPJ purchase.
  Also, I think it is worth noting that my friends from Maryland have 
both questioned whether or not the testing was fairly done or whether 
the results were fair. Let me state for the benefit of our colleagues 
that our own independent Office of Operational Testing has said, ``No, 
this system does not work.'' Our own inspector general of the 
Department of Defense said, ``No, this system does not work.'' The arm 
of this great institution, the General Accounting Office, has stated 
time and time and time again that, ``No, this system does not work.''
  Once again, Senator Roth and I are not trying to ban commercial 
sales. If ITT and Westinghouse want to reengineer these lines and 
continue manufacturing the ASPJ software and hardware and sell these 
systems overseas, this amendment would do nothing to impede the free 
enterprise system. But it would remove the American taxpayer, who has 
already been out well over $2 billion for these systems that do not 
work, it would remove the American taxpayer from further liability in 
this particular area of the radar jammer.
  Mr. President, one final word, and it is somewhat of a personal word. 
This is to my friend from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, who implied on 
the floor a few moments ago that this Senator from Arkansas had become 
a zealot on this issue. How many times, Mr. President, have I watched 
my good friend in his eloquence; how many hours with charts and graphs 
and a pointer stick has he eloquently stated what the deficit situation 
is, our budgetary situation, our fiscal situation, the international 
monetary problems. And I have listened to him, I have watched him, I 
have admired him, I have respected him, and I have followed him time 
and time and time again. But I have never--never once--thought he was a 
zealot. I might have thought he was a passionate individual, a caring 
Senator, but never a zealot for taking the floor of the U.S. Senate and 
expressing that passion on what he believes in so deeply. I just hope 
my colleague and good friend will allow the Senator from Arkansas that 
same passion to express himself on an issue that he feels as deeply 
about as the Senator from Maryland feels about his issue.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have great respect for the work my 
good friend from Arkansas has done in the area of defense procurement. 
He has been a crusader for the ``fly before you buy'' principle which 
saves our Government time, money and, most importantly, lives.
  More than anyone else, Senator Pryor is responsible for creating the 
position of the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 
[DOT&E], which has helped ensure objective evaluation of new systems 
independent of undue influence of industry, the military services, and 
weapons developers in DOD's acquisition community.
  But in this case we disagree. Mr. President, what I argue for is the 
American manufacturer's right to market and export its product as long 
as prospective buyers have access to enough information about the test 
results to make an informed decision.
  I understand Finland is very interested in the ASPJ for its new 
United States-supplied F-18's. Finland is well aware of the ASPJ's test 
results and has been consulting with both DOD and the contractors prior 
to making their final decision. I also understand Switzerland and South 
Korea are potential customers.
  Mr. President, DOD's longstanding position has been to approve 
marketing and commercial sale of systems which have completed OT&E--
successfully or not--to qualified customers. Such is the case with 
Finland and the others. I believe my colleague from Arkansas has no 
more interest in thwarting this legitimate American business than I do.
  Where we part ways is on the question of whether the integration of 
the hardware and software into U.S.-origin aircraft should be 
accomplished via a Foreign Military Sales [FMS] case--in other words, 
government to government.
  As then Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Deutch wrote to 
Senator Bradley and me in February:

       It has long been the DOD view that when significant 
     modifications or integration efforts on U.S. military 
     aircraft are made, we should control and/or oversee that 
     process. Crucial issues involving safety of flight, aircraft 
     performance and security strongly recommended DOD 
     involvement.

  Mr. President, I think these are sound reasons for maintaining 
control over system integration via the FMS process. As Navy officials 
point out--and I now quote from a draft GAO report on the ASPJ 
requested by Senator Pryor and Roth:

       The F-18 is a highly integrated aircraft in which all 
     systems such as radars, avionics, mission control, 
     navigation, and jammers are linked together through the 
     aircraft's operational flight program. These systems undergo 
     continuous updating and modification due to changes in threat 
     or technology. A change in one system could have a cascading 
     and possibly negative effect on the others. As a result, 
     close government oversight of both the aircraft and ASPJ's 
     software components is required.

  The GAO preliminary report goes on to agree that authorization for 
FMS transfer of the ASPJ software is a standard practice.
  If I understand my friend from Arkansas' concerns correctly, I 
believe he is worried that even this peripheral U.S. Government 
involvement implies some form of warranty or official support for a 
failed system. I can fully understand and sympathize with that concern.
  But I accept the word of current Deputy Secretary of Defense Deutch, 
who wrote to Senator Pryor in March, saying:

       The Department's position remains that Foreign Military 
     Sales (FMS) funds will not be used to cover sales of ASPJ to 
     foreign countries because the Department does not want to 
     imply a warranty in a system that will not be procured for 
     U.S. aircraft.

  With regard to integration, Deutch goes on to say:

       Consideration of any FMS support for integration of a 
     commericially purchased system into an American FMS item will 
     be made on a case-by-case basis. The intention is not to 
     promote the sale of any commercial system--on that the 
     Department's policy is quite clear.
       Instead, the integration of any commercial procurement will 
     be considered only if such support is essential to support 
     the FMS American aircraft. Practical considerations of safety 
     of flight, aircraft performance, and security can also affect 
     the decision to integrate commercially procured systems under 
     FMS.

  Mr. President, the GAO report requested by Senators Pryor and Roth 
did not find any violation of U.S. policy in the decision to allow FMS 
integration of ASPJ. Specifically, GAO found no breaching of what is 
commonly called the Yockey policy, which requires specific approval of 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition before the foreign 
military sale of any major weapons system that has not successfully 
completed operational test and evaluation. To again quote the GAO 
report:

       DOD's decision to permit the sale of the ASPJ software 
     through FMS procedures * * * does comply with the Yockey 
     policy because the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 
     for Acquisition approved the sale. In implementing this 
     decision, Navy officials noted that national security, safety 
     of flight concerns, and the interactive nature of the jammer 
     and aircraft software components dictated the need to sell 
     the ASPJ's software and integration into the aircraft through 
     the FMS process.
       This decision was consistent with long-standing DOD policy 
     on the need to protect classified information and address all 
     safety-of-flight concerns.

  If the DOD is prevented from integrating the ASPJ software via FMS, 
Finland and other prospective buyers are almost certain to look 
elsewhere for their jammers. I understand that the Finns' second choice 
is produced overseas.
  Mr. President, Senator Pryor's amendment would thus take business 
away from an American business in New Jersey and drive it overseas. I 
applaud the Senator's principles regarding procurement, but in the case 
of software integration, I think the DOD makes a compelling case. I 
also accept Dr. Deutch's assurance that such integration does not imply 
official warrenty or support for the ASPJ. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this amendment.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Pryor 
amendment to restrict overseas marketing of the airborne self-
protection jammer [ASPJ].
  The manufacturers of the ASPJ have played by the rules in marketing 
their product abroad. They have provided full information on the 
system's performance to potential buyers and have accepted the Defense 
Department's ruling that FMS funds could not be used to purchase the 
system. Despite these obstacles, several foreign countries are 
interested in purchasing the ASPJ for their F-18 aircraft.
  These countries legitimately want assurances they will be able to 
secure FMS for integrating ASPJ into their F-18 aircraft, for the 
reasons I have already described. They do so knowing that the U.S. 
Government bears no responsibility for their choice, even with FMS 
funding for integration. Indeed, under the contract, it is the 
contractor, not the U.S. Government, that bears responsibility for any 
problems.
  I can, therefore, see no justification for Congress now to try to 
insert itself into the process and prevent foreign sales of the ASPJ by 
banning use of FMS.
  The Department of Defense has posed no obstacle to exporting the 
ASPJ. In a letter to me of February 2, 1994, then-Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition John Deutch stated:

       After the status of the U.S. ASPJ program was determined, 
     munitions licenses were approved for foreign commercial sale 
     of the ASPJ. * * * to have refused to approve them after that 
     determination would have unfairly penalized your constituent, 
     particularly in light of strong international interest in the 
     system.

  The ASPJ has not been a trouble-free program. I needn't go into the 
details of the disputed tests. The point is that the manufacturers have 
successfully marketed the ASPJ, foreign governments are interested in 
buying it, DOD has no objection, and we have an obligation not to 
impede a legitimate sale.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, live fire and operational testing are keys 
to the Congress' fly-before-buy policy. The policy states that a weapon 
should not be produced until testing shows that it works. Independent 
operational and live fire testing are objective checks and balances on 
the Defense buying system. In a system where bureaucratic interests 
carry more weight than results, realistic tests are vital to making 
sure weapons work before they are given to those who must depend on 
them in battle.
  I am concerned about the office of operational testing not having a 
director since the Clinton administration took office. Without a 
director, there is no one in the Pentagon to fight against those that 
want to procure weapons even if they do not work. Almost every month 
last year, the GAO identified weapons programs that are being produced 
even though they have not proven their worth, and in some cases have 
failed, in operational tests.
  Mr. President, too many systems have been circumventing the 
congressional policy of fly-before-buy. There are 183 weapons that 
currently require operational testing to determine whether they can 
fulfill their mission requirements and are suitable for fielding. I 
asked the GAO to give me an accounting of the commitment represented by 
those programs. The GAO obtained data for 107 of those programs. The 
107 programs represent $872 billion in taxpayer dollars.
  Unfortunately, many of these programs are entering production, and 
continuing to be produced, before they have proven their worth. 
Recently, I received a new GAO report on a special computer system that 
the Army is buying despite the fact that it failed operational testing. 
Current Pentagon practice allows anywhere from 25 to 100 percent of the 
production to be completed before the Pentagon knows if a system works. 
This is clearly at odds with the Congress' policy of fly-before-buy.
  Mr. President, it has been over 10 years since Senator Pryor and I 
first joined forces to convince our colleagues to adopt the policy of 
fly-before-buy. Throughout the 1980's, we were successful in getting 
testing legislation put into law. We were able to get the Congress to 
establish an independent office of operational testing and evaluation 
to implement the fly-before-buy policy. Now, it is time to make 
improvements in that legislation.
  Earlier this week, I received a new General Accounting Office report 
that Senator Pryor and I commissioned. This report recommended ways to 
streamline the operational testing statutes, while preventing the 
production of weapons that do not work. Senator Pryor and I had hoped 
to use the GAO's findings in an amendment prepared for the fiscal year 
1995 defense authorization bill. Unfortunately, there has been 
insufficient time to fully develop the legislative proposal. However, I 
intend to continue to work with the Senator from Arkansas to improve 
the operational testing laws.
  I still believe that live and operational testing are the keys to 
judging results. Several provisions of the Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act that I authored would integrate such testing early in 
the acquisition process. The legislation that Senator Pryor and I are 
working on is needed to more fully implement that approach. Adopting 
this approach would reduce the difficulties associated with finding 
problems late in the acquisition process. It would reveal serious 
design problems before money was wasted producing systems that do not 
work and have to be fixed.

  There is a strong push for Congress to enact procurement reform 
legislation, and the administration has endorsed a bill that includes 
proposals to weaken the testing statutes. The Senate's procurement 
reform bill contains provisions developed by Senator Pryor and me, with 
the help of our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee. However, 
the House versions of the defense authorization and procurement reform 
bills contain provisions that will weaken the bill.
  In March, Senator Pryor held hearings on the testing legislation, 
including the proposals made by the House bills. At that hearing, which 
I attended, we received testimony strongly opposing the provisions in 
the bill. In other hearings on procurement reform, the General 
Accounting Office and the Defense inspector general strongly opposed 
the provisions relating to operational and live fire testing.
  I intend to watch these legislative proposals very closely. In this 
regard, we have had a good working relationship with our colleagues 
from Armed Services. Accordingly, the Senate passed several important 
testing reforms as part of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, in just a moment I will be asking --in fact, 
I think I will do it right now because I think the question is 
pertinent at the moment.
  Do we need a rollcall vote on this amendment? Senator Smith, a little 
while ago, was gracious enough not to ask for a rollcall. Of course, 
that amendment was being agreed to. I am not sure who is going to 
prevail in this amendment if it is a voice vote. We are trying to 
expedite this bill. I ask my colleague from Arkansas whether he needs a 
rollcall vote?
  Mr. WARNER. If I might add a word, I say to my chairman and others 
listening that I have talked to Mr. Smith, and indeed he did, as a 
matter of convenience to the Senate, forego the clear option he had to 
have a rollcall vote. And if there is a necessity to have it here, I 
would like to state that it seems to me he has a right to reinstate his 
amendment and consider a rollcall vote.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I certainly have no objection to the 
Senator from New Hampshire having a rollcall vote on his amendment--I 
have been told we are going to be here all night, so I have been in the 
Finance Committee markup--if he wants to have a rollcall vote. Looking 
at the geography and lay of the land, I think if I had a voice vote, I 
do not think the Senator from Arkansas would prevail. I do not know 
what would happen if we had a rollcall vote, but I think my chances 
would be better. I do not want to inconvenience the Senate, and I hope 
I am not one who is being an obstructionist.
  But I would like for a rollcall vote to be had on this particular 
amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, the Senator is certainly not an 
obstructionist. He has a right to have a rollcall vote. I think based 
on that we should have a rollcall vote.
  I will speak only 1 minute on the amendment.
  Mr. President, I agree with the Senators from Maryland on this 
amendment. It is, of course, important from my point of view in terms 
of the precedent because the F-18 aircraft software is classified as 
secret. The U.S. Government under classified materials needs to 
maintain control of both the F-18 and ASPJ software for security 
reasons.
  Because of that, the FMS process is the appropriate mechanism to 
handle it. I think the U.S. Government should basically not be 
precluded from handling these foreign military sales under FMS.
  I do not believe we should arbitrarily deny sales of defense products 
that our allies in their own opinion want to buy. The potential foreign 
customers have been provided, as far as I know, full disclosure of the 
operational test results. The contractors agreed to accept full 
liability for any problems of maintenance or performance.
  As far as I am concerned, this is a legitimate business proposition 
that we should not interfere with on the floor of the Senate. I see no 
reason to. If foreign countries wanted to buy another jammer 
commercially, we would manage that sale through FMS even if it had not 
passed the full operational evaluation.
  I agree with the Senators from Maryland on this one, and I have to 
disagree with my friend from Arkansas.
  I am prepared to move to table the amendment after the Senator from 
South Carolina makes a comment, or I would give the Senator an up-or-
down vote on the amendment.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I will take 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Pryor amendment to 
restrict the transfer of airborne self-protection jamming equipment to 
foreign purchasers of American fighter planes, such as the F-18.
  Mr. President, the ASPJ passed its developmental tests, and foreign 
buyers of American-made aircraft want to acquire the system to provide 
protection for those aircraft. We should let them buy it. In some 
cases, such as Korea, we have made agreements to let them buy the 
equipment. We should not cancel those agreements because we disagree 
over American test standards.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Pryor amendment to restrict the 
transfer of airborne self-protection jamming equipment, to foreign 
governments.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, have I properly sent the amendment to the 
desk? The amendment has been sent to the desk, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] for himself and Mr. 
     Roth proposes an amendment numbered 2163.

  Mr. PRYOR. 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 200, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 1017. PROHIBITION ON GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS 
                   OF AIRBORNE SELF-PROTECTION JAMMERS (ASPJ) (AND 
                   RELATED SOFTWARE) ABROAD.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Airborne 
     Self-Protection Jammer (ASPJ), or any software or other 
     component thereof, may not be sold or financed under the Arms 
     Export Control Act to any foreign country.

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on No. 2163.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment.
  The PESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia moves to table the 
amendment.
  Mr. PRYOR. I believe the yeas should be ordered.
  Mr. NUNN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, Senator Roth and I planned to offer an 
amendment that would at long last truly bring ``Fly Before You Buy'' to 
fruition. However, due to the time constraints in considering the 
fiscal year 1995 DOD authorization bill, we will offer the amendment 
today.
  Our amendment, called the Fly Before You Buy Act of 1994, would 
ensure that major weapon systems are tested and proven before they are 
purchased and sent to our troops. Fly Before You Buy would be 
accomplished by conducting operational testing earlier in the life of 
new weapons, and by ensuring that we limit the number of units produced 
until testing has been successfully completed.
  Fly Before You Buy is not a new concept. It was first promoted in the 
wake of the Vietnam War, after thousands of American soldiers lost 
their lives because of weapons that failed to perform as expected.
  Mr. President, the Congress and the Department of Defense have taken 
steps to promote Fly Before You Buy. In 1983, Congress passed 
legislation creating an independent operational testing office in the 
Pentagon. This office has been charged with making sure weapons are 
tested and proven before they reach our fighting forces. The DOD's 
operational testing office has become the internal champion of Fly 
Before You Buy.
  Operational tests are specifically designed to prove that military 
hardware will perform as expected in combat. There is one major 
problem, Mr. President. Our acquisition community is waiting too long 
to conduct operational testing. In fact, many new weapons are currently 
being built and sent to our troops before any operational testing can 
be conducted. Mr. President, this is not Fly Before You Buy.
  Mr. President, current law allows weapons to be sent into combat 
without any operational testing. We will never be able to truly 
practice Fly Before You Buy until we change the law that guides the 
acquisition of new weapons.
  Operational testing is of little or no use if it is conducted after 
the weapon system has been purchased. We simply cannot afford to buy 
now and fix later. Time and time again, DOD has purchased weapons 
before operational testing has shown that they work.
  Mr. President, 100 percent of the Air Force's B-1B bombers were 
purchased before operational testing for a total cost of $23 billion. 
Sixty-four percent of the Air Force's ALQ-135's, a radar jammer, were 
bought before operational testing was completed. Mr. President, let me 
repeat that: the Air Force planned to buy 514 jammers. 331 or 64 
percent were produced before operational tests proved that they work. 
The total cost of the ALQ135 is $1 billion. The list goes on: The Navy 
purcahsed 37 percent of its T-45 trainer aircraft before operational 
testing (total cost $2.7 billion); the Air Force purchased 33 percent 
of its C-17 airlift plane before operational testing (total cost 
$15 billion). Mr. President, this cannot be allowed to continue.

  The General Accounting Office has prepared a report on the use of 
operational testing at DOD, entitled ``Low-Rate Initial Production Used 
to Buy Weapons Systems Prematurely.'' GAO found that DOD allows low-
rate production to begin without the performance of any operational 
testing. In other words, under current law, we can buy all the weapons 
that we want without ever triggering operational testing. GAO says that 
this has resulted in the procurement of substantial inventories of 
unsatisfactory weapons requiring costly modifications to achieve 
satisfactory performance and, in some cases, the deployment of 
substandard systems to combat forces.
  Mr. President, I mentioned earlier that 37 percent of the Navy's T-45 
plane were bought before operational testing. This plane needed major 
design changes. Tests showed it needed a new engine and new wings, Mr. 
President. These planes are sitting on an air field waiting for the 
contractor to come back, take the original wings off, and attach new, 
improved, workable wings to these planes.
  I also mentioned that 33 percent of the Air Force's C-17's were 
purchased before operational testing. GAO found that the C-17's 
reliability is significantly less than expected and it does not meet 
its payload and range specifications. In other words, Mr. President, it 
cannot carry as much or go as far as the Air Force thought it would. 
GAO also noted that while the wings, flaps, and slats are all being 
fixed, other problems continue to be identified.
  The GAO recommends that Congress require that certain operational 
testing requirements be met before low rate production begins and that 
Congress put a limit on the number of units produced during low rate 
production.
  Mr. President, that is exactly what the Fly Before You Buy Act does. 
It contains two simple but important changes to the way DOD conducts 
its business: First, it says that an early operational test must be 
done before low-rate production begins and second, that no more than 10 
percent of the total number of weapons to be built can actually be 
produced before final operational tests are completed.
  Our amendment would force earlier operational testing. If the 
acquisition proponents believe the system is ready for low-rate 
production, they first have to check the initial operational test 
results. If the operational test results are favorable and the system 
is allowed to move into low-rate production, then our amendment would 
allow the establishment of a production line but at a slower, lower 
rate of production. We should not be producing most or all of the 
weapons in low-rate production, before operational testing is complete.
  One of the questions that has been asked of me regarding this 
amendment is how can operational testing go forward if the production 
line is not up and running? The answer is quite simple. Production 
units are not necessary for initial operational testing. Currently, 
operational testing is almost performed on ``production verification 
units'', what you and I would call a prototype, Mr. President. In other 
words, the system that is developed and used during developmental 
testing can be used for the early phase of operational testing.
  Another concern has been raised: will this amendment slow down the 
process of getting weapons to our troops? The answer again is simple: 
No. 1, I admit our amendment might slow down the access to flawed, 
unproven weapons. Our amendment would force early operational testing 
before low-rate production begins and weapons start rolling off the 
production line. It would prevent another C-17 or T-45, where planes 
sit and wait for new wings and in the end will speed up getting good 
weapons into the field.
  This amendment could save money by identifying flaws in the system 
design before most or all of the weapons have been produced. It could 
eliminate many of the costly and time-consuming retrofitting that we 
currently see in so many of our weapon systems.
  Two of our best known military experts, the Chairman and the Ranking 
Minority Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee both supported 
this concept in statements made in 1990. Senator Sam Nunn said:

       In the past we spent billions and billions of dollars 
     because we rushed weapons systems into production before they 
     had been tested. We now have time to do it: We have time to 
     do it right. I support a fly before you buy policy.

  Senator Strom Thurmond stated:

       Fly before you buy will provide us more capable equipment 
     at less cost. It will enhance the credibility of the 
     procurement process and will give us more bang for the 
     buck.

  Mr. President, this amendment would put real teeth in Congress' 
commitment to Fly Before You Buy. Meaningful, early operational testing 
would finally be a reality.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Georgia to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from Arkansas. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I announce that the Senator from California [Mrs. 
Boxer], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], the Senator from 
Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], the 
Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], the Senator from Connecticut 
[Mr. Lieberman], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum], the Senator 
from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon], 
are necessarily absent.
  Mr. DOLE. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], the 
Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown], the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen], 
the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], the Senator from Texas [Mr. 
Gramm], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], the Senator from 
Arizona [Mr. McCain], the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], and the 
Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bryan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 14, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 185 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wofford

                                NAYS--14

     Biden
     Bumpers
     Feingold
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Mathews
     Pryor
     Roth
     Sasser
     Smith
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bennett
     Boxer
     Brown
     Campbell
     Cohen
     D'Amato
     Dodd
     Ford
     Gramm
     Helms
     Johnston
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Metzenbaum
     Murkowski
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2163) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I know Senators want to know what the best 
estimate is, and the best estimate I have now is that we can finish 
this bill in another couple of hours if we get cooperation and if we do 
not get bogged down on a long debate on an amendment.
  There are two or three amendments out that people disagree on, and 
even if the managers were to agree with them they would still be 
disagreed to. One of them involves the gulf war problem and the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee is now working with Senator Riegle on that. 
Senators Rockefeller and Riegle are working on that, and I believe we 
would be best served by letting them work for a few minutes on that one 
because they may be able to come to some agreement.
  In the meantime we have a number of amendments that have been agreed 
to on both sides--both sides, Democrats and Republicans. I propose we 
bring those up now. But I do not want to interfere with anyone who may 
want to bring up an amendment, particularly one that may be contested, 
because everyone would like to get the rollcall votes over with as soon 
as possible, including the managers.
  So it would be my intent to begin going through some amendments that 
have been agreed to on both sides. But if anyone has an amendment they 
feel compelled to offer at this point in time we certainly would be 
amenable to that.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Thurmond, 
is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, if anyone has an amendment and desires a 
rollcall, I wish they would let it be known now so we can make plans. A 
great many Senators want to catch planes. I have to catch a plane at 
7:10, if we are not going to have any more rollcalls. I am sure the 
others feel the same way. We can take up these amendments with no 
contests after that. But if nobody else wants a rollcall we will go 
ahead now with these amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will inform the Senate that the 
question that next occurs, unless set aside, is the Nunn second-degree 
amendment, No. 2160, to the Warner amendment No. 2359.
  The Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, 
and I, and others I suspect, have been somewhat unprepared for an 
amendment by our distinguished friend from Virginia on the ABM Treaty. 
I understand there has been an attempt to work out the amendment of our 
friend from Virginia, Senator Warner. But I have just seen the language 
of the amendment, as has the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. 
Clearly I do not speak for him, but I suspect he feels as I do.
  We have a serious, serious problem with what seems to be an amendment 
of the ABM Treaty on the floor at this moment, from our perspective.
  I am delighted to attempt, along with the Senator from Massachusetts, 
to try to clarify this matter. Maybe we have misunderstood it. But if 
it is as it appears--although it has been years and years and years; I 
have been here 22 and I do not think I have ever done this in a late 
hour--I would be very reluctant to go to a vote on this amendment 
tonight.
  I may be mistaken about how I read this amendment. So what I would 
like to do, if the Warner amendment is the pending business, is maybe 
move on to something else for a few minutes and give the Senator from 
Massachusetts and myself, and others who may have an interest, an 
opportunity to confer with our friend from Virginia.
  Again, I want to move this along as rapidly as anyone else. One of 
the paragraphs seems pretty profound, but I may be mistaken.
  I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Warner 
amendment be temporarily laid aside so we can take up amendments that 
have been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. NUNN. I urge the Senators from Delaware and Virginia to get 
together to see if we can work this out.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, momentarily I would like to reserve the 
right to object so I can address my colleague from Delaware.
  The Warner amendment was not intended in any way to be an amendment 
to the ABM Treaty. This is a subject which I and a number of other 
Senators, particularly the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] and the 
Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] and others have been working on 
for some period of time.
  It is a very simple principle which we are endeavoring to achieve. 
The Senator from Virginia sent an amendment to the desk. The Senator 
from Georgia, quite properly, second degreed it. We have worked with 
the Senator from Georgia and have reached a new draft which the Senator 
from Virginia is prepared to accept.
  In the course of preparing ourselves to bring it to the Senate, it 
was discovered, in a very objective and fair way, that there could be a 
constitutional issue in the revised amendment respecting the rights of 
the executive branch versus the legislative branch. I was endeavoring 
to say to Senators that we would leave the revised amendment with this 
constitutional question, and in good faith, I and others would try to 
work it out in the context of a conference between the House and the 
Senate, at which time customarily, members of the Foreign Relations 
Committees of both branches of Congress participate in those 
conferences.
  In that way, we would convenience the Senate so as to not bring up at 
this late hour an issue which I feel is very important and one on which 
I feel very strongly.
  Having said that, in a few sentences, the purpose of the Warner 
amendment, now amended by the Senator from Georgia, is simply to 
guarantee that this body in no way forgoes its authority under the 
Constitution--namely, the advise and consent clause--to have such 
review as this body determines is necessary of any revisions to the ABM 
Treaty now being negotiated between the United States and Russia with 
two of the other new countries participating as if they were partners. 
But, nevertheless, primarily between the United States and Russia.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WARNER. Momentarily. As it relates to the theater ballistic 
systems, in 1972, when the ABM Treaty was adopted, no one--and I 
repeat, no one--had in mind theater ballistic missiles.
  At that time, quite properly, the full concentration of all involved 
was on the strategic systems.
  Each Senator now understands fully the evolution of technology where 
today we have theater ballistic systems. We saw it in the gulf. The 
Scud missile inflicted the greatest degree of damage of any weapons 
systems on our troops and, therefore, it is imperative, in my judgment, 
that this country move forward, as it is, with a series of systems to 
ensure that we have a deterrence and, indeed, a defense against future 
theater ballistic systems.
  The purpose of the amendment is to preserve the right of the U.S. 
Senate to review any agreement, particularly that one now being 
negotiated within the framework of the SCC, known as the Standing 
Consultative Commission. That is the purpose of the Commission.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WARNER. I saw the distinguished manager seeking recognition. 
Perhaps he would like to speak, and then I will be glad to address the 
Senator from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I will just suggest to my colleagues on this 
amendment that they have a discussion, because I believe if they have a 
discussion, we have a chance of working something out. I do not think 
we are going to get it worked out in dialog.
  The Senator from New Jersey has an amendment and has to go back to 
the Finance Committee in just a few minutes for their markup. I believe 
he would be willing to enter into a 30-minute time agreement equally 
divided with no amendments--we may want to reserve the right to a 
second-degree amendment on that. Anyway, we can work that out. I would 
like to be able to go ahead with that amendment, if we can.
  Mr. KERRY. The Senator from Virginia reserved the right to object, 
and I am not sure whether he said he would not object at this point in 
time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would not object. I simply wish to 
express to the Senate as a body the subject of the discussion which 
will now take place between myself and other Senators who are 
interested.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would just like the Senator from Virginia 
to note that neither the Senator from Delaware nor I disagree about the 
interpretation with respect to theater defenses and, obviously, we want 
them. The danger is that the language, as currently framed, embraces 
the notion that the Senate might be codifying an actual breakout from 
the treaty because it, in fact, embraces the notion, referring to 
currently deployed missiles.
  And because China has sold some missiles to Saudi Arabia, which 
currently pushed the envelope of what is theater versus strategic, you 
run into a possibility of ratifying the notion that those missiles are, 
therefore, within our interpretation of the ABM treaty which would, in 
effect, nullify the ABM Treaty or present enormous problems of 
interpretation.
  So it is our hope that we can articulate what the Senator from 
Virginia wants without doing violence to the ABM Treaty itself.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am quite agreeable to meet with all 
Senators on this subject who are interested.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a unanimous consent proposal that is 
pending before the Senate to temporarily set aside the Nunn amendment. 
Is there any objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey, I believe, has 
an amendment. Could the Senator just very briefly describe the 
amendment so I can determine if we need to reserve the right to a 
perfecting amendment?
  Mr. BRADLEY. The amendment would eliminate the Selective Service 
System.
  Mr. NUNN. Pure and simple. It is elimination.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be a 30-minute period of 
time, equally divided, on the Bradley amendment on Selective Service, 
with no second-degree amendments in order; and that the vote occur at 
the expiration of 30 minutes on or in relation to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the Senator yield? I have an amendment in the 
Finance Committee at 7 o'clock. I need 3 minutes. I wonder if the 
Senator from New Jersey would be willing to----
  Mr. NUNN. If we can get the unanimous consent agreement, we can yield 
to the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
proposal propounded by the Senator from Georgia? Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller.
  Mr. NUNN. I ask that the Senator from West Virginia be recognized for 
a time equally divided between the two.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. A period which might exceed slightly more than 3 
minutes, but not by much.
  Mr. President, I want to give my thanks to the Senator from Virginia 
for working this out. It is an excellent amendment.
  This is an amendment that the ranking Member, Senator Murkowski, 
Senator Jeffords, and Senator Dodd support. It has the support of the 
VFW, the American Legion and the AmVets, and these are the only 
Veterans Service Organizations we have contacted so far. So it has good 
support.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, thousands of Persian Gulf war 
veterans are ill as a result of being over there.
  This amendment would support two comprehensive studies, one an 
epidemiological study, and, secondly, research on something called 
pyridostigmine bromide, an experimental drug which was given to 400,000 
Persian Gulf war troops. It will also support research on the causes, 
treatment and possible transmission of gulf war illnesses.
  We had a hearing back on May 6. On that day, my own veterans 
committee staff, which has been working for 9 months on this, promised 
that we would follow this through.
  Senator Riegle has also been active on this issue and his suggestions 
are incorporated in this amendment.
  In any event, what we know is that in the gulf war we had toxic 
chemicals which when combined with other chemical agents can be 
dangerous. Some of these are insecticides which are commonly used by 
U.S.soldiers all across this world, and they are used in homes all 
across America.
  New research, which is not yet published, shows that the use of this 
experimental drug pyridostigmine could have made commonly used 
insecticides, which were used in the Persian Gulf war, potentially 10 
times more lethal. DOD should do this research as soon as possible, and 
they want to. Since these insecticides are found everywhere, we need to 
move forward quickly.
  The $20 million for this amendment will help us learn how to treat 
the soldiers who were affected by this and also will teach us more that 
we absolutely need to know.
  I hope that the amendment will be accepted by both sides.
  That would conclude my remarks.
  It is my understanding that Senator Riegle, who has been an integral 
part of working out this arrangement, is not here at this point. 
Unfortunately, I have to leave at this point because I have to get back 
to the Finance Committee.
  I will take the advice of the Senator from Georgia, the Chairman of 
Armed Services Committee, and I will simply postpone the vote on this.


                           Amendment No. 2164

       (Purpose: To prohibit registration under the Selective 
     Service System and to terminate the activities of civilian 
     local boards, civilian appeal boards, and similar local 
     agencies of the Selective Service System.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized 
pursuant to the previous unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Bradley), for himself, Mr. 
     Hatfield, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Kerry and Mr. 
     Bumpers, proposes an amendment numbered 2164.

  Mr. BRADLEY. 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 128, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 522. TERMINATION OF ACTIVITIES UNDER SELECTIVE SERVICE 
                   SYSTEM.

       (a) Termination of Registration Requirement.--
       (1) Termination.--Section 3 of the Military Selective 
     Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 453) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) After September 30, 1994, no person shall be required 
     to present himself for and submit to registration under this 
     section.''.
       (b) Termination of Activities of Selective Service System 
     Boards.--Section 17 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 
     U.S.C. App. 467) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     after September 30, 1994--
       ``(1) the President may not appoint a person as a member of 
     a civilian local board, civilian appeal board, or similar 
     local agency of the Selective Service System; and
       ``(2) any such board established as of that date may not 
     meet.''.

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of 
myself and the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Senator Hatfield, 
Senator Feingold, Senator Kerry, Senator Feinstein, and Senator 
Bumpers. It is an amendment that would prohibit draft registration and 
terminate the activities of the Selective Service boards.
  Last year, 41 Senators voted for an amendment we offered to the 
fiscal year 1994 VA/HUD Appropriations Act which would have eliminated 
all but termination funding for the Selective Service System. The 
arguments we made then are every bit as relevant today. I will not 
repeat them in detail, but it is still worthwhile to review them 
briefly.
  I yield myself 8 minutes.
  The Selective Service System is a dinosaur in the post-Soviet world. 
It is made obsolete by two welcome developments--the All-Volunteer 
Army, and the end of the Soviet threat.
  Our All-Volunteer Force is a remarkable success story. Backed by 
reserves, it is capable of handling the types of conflicts we are 
likely to see, the Somalias, the Bosnias, and yes, the Desert Storms of 
the foreseeable future. Desert Storm provided that our volunteer force 
backed by Reserves, can put a half-million men on the ground and 
support them, without resorting to conscription.
  We will not need a flood of draftees for any conflict we are likely 
to fight in the foreseeable future. I do not ask you to take my word 
for this; the Pentagon's own ``1993-1999 Defense Planning Guidance 
Scenario Set'' found that only 1 to 7 scenarios lasted long enough to 
require--or allow for--conscription. This was a scenario involving a 
reunified, rearmed Soviet Union.
  Such a conflict is simply not on the horizon. Were this scenario to 
develop we would have a long lead time, both to try to counteract this 
development by diplomatic and economic means, and to develop a system 
to identify our 18 year colds, without paying millions of dollars per 
year in the meantime.
  Finally, the Selective Service System is not performing well. A 
November 1992 study by the U.S. Army Forces Integration Agency 
uncovered severe overstuffing, poor morale, and overgrazing in the work 
force. It found employees reading newspapers and magazines, and freely 
admitting that they had no meaningful work to perform while on duty.
  In last year's debate, opponents of our effort to cut funding for the 
Selective Service System cited a number of arguments. Let us look at 
these arguments in light of another 9 months' experience.
  One argument was ``civic responsibility.'' According to this line of 
reasoning, we should encourage our young men to register as an act of 
patriotism. Mr. President, if we define good citizenship by the one-
time act of filling out a card on our 18th birthday, we are in deep 
trouble.
  Civic responsibility is voting. It is paying taxes. It is being 
informed about the important issues shaping our communities, our 
country, and our world. I would argue that it lies for us in voting 
only for responsible spending.
  Mr. President, civic responsibility means participating in our 
communities and taking responsibility for ourselves and our fellow 
citizens. I might note that this type of civic responsibility is not 
limited to young men turning 18 years old, but is open to every adult, 
man and woman, every day.
  Another objection we heard last September was the quite legitimate 
concern that, if the unthinkable did come to pass and we needed to 
identify our 18-year-old men, we would need the Selective Service's 
records. Well, the Defense Department itself has put that concern to 
rest. In a report to the President and Congress dated last December, 
DOD noted that the Selective Service System already identifies young 
men who do not comply by obtaining names from records kept by State 
drivers license bureaus, high schools, country voter registrars, Social 
Security, DOD, HHS, Department of Transportation, INS, the Office of 
Personnel Management, and the Postal Service. Given these sources of 
information, we do not need to spend millions of dollars every year 
collecting postcards.
  A more serious concern we heard last year was that, while draft 
registration might not be necessary, we should wait for the 
administration to review the issue. Well, the administration has 
spoken--twice--and the result only confirms what we have been saying. 
We do not need the Selective Service.
  The Secretary of Defense's December 1993 report, provides a wealth of 
evidence that draft registration serves no useful purpose. In the 
interests of time, let me just quote one passage:

       Peacetime draft registration could be suspended with no 
     effect on military mobilization requirements, little effect 
     on the time it would take to mobilize, and no measurable 
     effect on military recruitment. * * * suspending peacetime 
     registration could be accomplished with limited risk to 
     national security.

  That is the DOD's own document.
  The May 18, 1994, letter from President Clinton following an NSC 
review of this issue falls into the same trap. After finding that 
``tangible military requirements alone do not currently make a mass 
call-up of American young men likely,'' it tries to justify continued 
registration with three weak arguments: First, registration is a cheap 
insurance policy; second, abolition would send the wrong signal to 
potential adversaries; and third, registration provides a link between 
civilians and the All Volunteer Force.
  Mr. President, I do not think these arguments fly. The DOD report 
that I have quoted demolishes the insurance policy argument. Not only 
does it conclude that registration is not necessary for military 
mobilization requirements, but it also lists alternative ways to 
identify draft eligible men that I mentioned earlier.
  The administration's resolve argument is also off the mark. America 
does not demonstrate its resolve by asking its young men to fill in a 
postcard on their 18th birthday. America shows its resolve through 
vigorous goal-oriented foreign and security policy.
  Finally, I simply do not believe that civilian support for our 
military depends on draft registration. If that were true, that would 
be a sad commentary on our society. No. I believe that civilian support 
for our brave servicemen and servicewomen comes from an understanding 
and appreciation of the vital job that they do. It does them a 
disservice to claim that draft registration is a significant 
underpinning of America's support for its military.
  Mr. President, I know I have gone on too long. But there are so many 
arguments against wasting our money on the Selective Service System 
that I would like to close with one more direct quotation from the 
Department of Defense report:

        The end of the cold war and the dissolution of the Soviet 
     Union have permitted downsizing the military and reducing its 
     demands on the Federal Treasury. With reduced force levels, 
     combined with two decades of successful experience with 
     raising and maintaining an all-volunteer force, improved 
     total force policy, recent victorious wartime experiences, 
     and the quality of active and reserve personnel, it is highly 
     unlikely that we will have to reinstate the draft in the 
     foreseeable future. Consequently, peacetime draft 
     registration could be suspended without irreparable damage to 
     national security.

  Mr. President, let us on the Senate floor stop temporizing and show 
some leadership and prove to our constituents that we can eliminate at 
least one outdated program.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes and 48 seconds under the control 
of the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BRADLEY. I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, after considerable footdragging, the 
Pentagon in February finally completed its study of peacetime draft 
registration.
  To quote from the Pentagon's report:

       Peacetime draft registration could be suspended with no 
     effect on military mobilization requirements, little effect 
     on the time it would take to mobilize, and no measurable 
     effect on military recruitment. Suspending peacetime 
     registration could be accomplished with limited risk to 
     national security considering the low probability of the need 
     for conscription.

  Despite the fact that the Pentagon told the President and Congress 
that there is no military requirement for draft registration, the 
President announced that he has decided to continue this requirement.
  President Clinton's decision is deeply disappointing. In his letter 
to Congress the President argues that taxpayers should continue to pay 
$23 million a year or an unnecessary program because it is an insurance 
policy against underestimating a threat our Armed Forces may face.
  The United States of American retains the finest-equipped, best 
trained military in the world. Our Nation spends one-half of its total 
discretionary budget on defense and spends over $30 billion more on its 
military than the combined defense budgets of the other 15 NATO 
countries, Japan and Russia.
  The war with Iraq proved that our all-volunteer force works and the 
Pentagon expects minimal or no effect on mobilization or recruiting if 
draft registration is eliminated.
  And yet the President tells us that ``terminating the Selective 
Service System and draft registration now could send the wrong signal 
to our potential enemies who are watching for signs of U.S. resolve.''
  I do not understand this logic. How does forcing America's 18-year-
old men--men only, not all Americans--to the post office to register 
for the draft send a signal to a potential enemy? And who is this 
enemy?
  The President's transmittal to Congress goes on to argue that, ``as 
fewer and fewer members of our society have direct military experience, 
it is increasingly important to maintain the link between the All-
Volunteer Force and our society at large.''
  Like many fellow Senators, I am a veteran. I volunteered for duty 
during World War II. Yet I find abhorrent the message that the threat 
of conscripted service is somehow the best way we, as a nation, can 
instill patriotism. Our Nation was founded upon the principles of 
individual liberty and our Nation has responded with honor and duty 
when our national security was threatened.
  Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed with the notion that once 
again this program is being promoted as a symbol of national security 
and an integral part of our military manpower system. It is not. The 
draft will not aid our Nation in times of crisis. We do not send men 
from the recruiting station to the battlefield. They must have 
training.
  Our insurance policy in times of crisis are the Guard and the 
Reserve. The Pentagon report to Congress calculated that suspension of 
draft registration would increase the induction period from 13 to 43 
days. That report concluded that such a delay is acceptable. And our 
experience in the war with Iraq was that the total force structure is 
sound.
  Yet the President has turned aside the military's own analysis and 
ignored the fact that draft registration is a relic of the past. He has 
embraced weak and subjective justifications for continued registration 
at the expense of our children's liberty. Many young Americans will be 
punished for their failure to register, whether they forget or whether 
they purposely fail to sign up.
  In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee, an official 
from the American Civil Liberties Union warned that draft registration 
is a ``heavy intrusion into the lives of Americans when the government 
requires them to sacrifice years of their lives, and possibly their 
lives themselves, against their will. This intrusion cannot be taken 
lightly even when the country is involved in a large-scale conflict.''
  As testimony to Congress has indicated, there exists grave 
constitutional concerns, including the argument that compulsory service 
violates the prohibition of involuntary servitude and the possible 
violation of the first amendment guarantee of freedom of association.
  In the many times I have debated this issue, I also have raised the 
matter of equity. We know that during the Vietnam War, minorities were 
drafted disproportionately. We know that men and women are not treated 
equally by the draft. And those who do not choose to register for 
reasons of conscience are either deemed lawbreakers or must go through 
a rigorous or sometimes onerous process to prove their belief.
  The fate of the Selective Service program, which is not even funded 
by the Department of Defense, is indicative of our unwillingness to see 
our national security needs as they really are. Are we really so 
vulnerable that it is better to continue to run roughshod over the 
rights of our young men than to end a program which even the Pentagon 
says is unnecessary? I think of the words of the late Senator Robert 
Taft, who spoke eloquently about individual liberty and against 
compulsory service. Just before American entered World War II, Senator 
Taft said:

       If the emergency is as great as alleged, then we should 
     adopt a completely socialized state and place ourselves and 
     our property at the disposal of the Government. This is 
     fascism. It could only be justified if it were the only 
     possible alternative to the subjugation of the United States 
     by fascism from without.

  Even when considering our most important task, the retention of our 
national defense, we, as Federal representatives, should be vigilant 
against the creep of authoritarianism. Our Nation is separated from 
those under the fist of totalitarianism by our freedom and by our long 
history of voluntary support of our national defense structure.
  Only when we have become mired in an insupportable war have we turned 
to conscription. The Vietnam war remains one of the most tragic 
examples of the use of the draft to continue an action which failed to 
have the support of the American people. Draft registration is not a 
symbol of national strength. The draft is a symbol of weakness: Either 
a weakness of purpose or weakness of our willingness to safeguard our 
liberty above all else.
  I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Bradley in ending this 
wasteful program.
  Mr. President, let me highlight two or three points.
  The Pentagon itself has indicated peacetime draft registration could 
be suspended without any military mobilization requirement impact. In 
effect, they said we could have the induction period extended from 13 
to 45 days if it had to be indicated later on.
  This is an opportunity to save some $23 million in our appropriations 
because here is the Pentagon saying it is not necessary. Second, I do 
not understand the President's logic when he says it is an insurance 
policy against underestimating a threat our Armed Forces may face.
  Mr. President, this actually carries no basic logic to it for the 
simple reason of who our enemies are. Who are our adversaries? Today, 
if we want to look at what we are spending, we are spending over half 
of our discretionary funds in our budget for military purposes. We are 
spending $30 billion more for military and defense preparation than all 
of the NATO allies, plus Japan.
  So I do not understand this logic. Plus the fact: How are a few 
recruiting people going to have an important message to our so-called 
adversaries of registering at the Post Office?
  It is not an insurance policy for emergencies. We do not send 
recruits or draftees from the draft station to the battlefield. There 
has to be a period of training. So what we rely upon in emergencies are 
the Guards and the Reserve.
  So this idea that somehow a draft system is an answer to emergencies 
is just not valid.
  Mr. President, lest we think that this is a matter of philosophy, let 
me suggest that the most powerful statement ever made on the question 
of the draft was made by the high apostle of conservatism, the late 
Robert Taft of Ohio, one of the truly great Senators who is honored out 
there today in our reception room.
  Listen to what Robert Taft said as we were getting ready to go into 
World War II, and all those arguments about the draft and so forth. He 
said:
       If the emergency is as great as alleged, then we should 
     adopt a completely socialized state and place ourselves and 
     our property at the disposal of the Government. This is 
     fascism. It could only be justified if it were the only 
     possible alternative to the subjugation of the United States 
     by fascism from without.

  Those are pretty strong words.
  Mr. President, I submit that this is not needed at this time. It is a 
time to save money.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by the 
Senator from New Jersey, and I do it because the President of the 
United States is for Selective Service. The House of Representatives 
voted recently in behalf of Selective Service. They defeated a simpler 
amendment offered by Congressman Dellums that paralleled the Bradley 
amendment. It was defeated 273 to 125.
  This time last year, the distinguished Senator from New Jersey 
offered in my Appropriations Committee, the VA, HUD, Independent 
Agencies, which appropriates the funds for the Selective Service an 
amendment to strike Selective Service. It was defeated 58 to 41. In 
respect for him, I asked--and others who felt the same way, the 
distinguished Senator from Oregon, the distinguished Senator from New 
Jersey, and 39 others--for the President of the United States to make a 
determination whether he felt it was in our national security interests 
to continue the Selective Service in light of the end of the cold war.
  The answer came back from the White House in a letter addressed to 
the House of Representatives and to all of us on May 18, 1994 in which 
the President of the United States asked that Selective Service be 
continued, and that we fund it at the request of $23 million.
  He says it is important to our defense needs and ``Maintaining the 
SSS and draft registration provide a hedge against unforeseen threats 
and a relatively low-cost insurance policy.''
  The President believes that ``Terminating the SSS and draft 
registration now could send the wrong signal to our potential enemies 
who are watching for signs of U.S. resolve.''
  And he says, ``As fewer and fewer members of our society have direct 
military experience, it is increasingly important to maintain the link 
between the All-Volunteer Force and our society at large.''
  I will not read the entire letter of President Clinton, but I ask 
unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                     Washington, DC, May 18, 1994.
         Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker, on February 18 of this year I transmitted 
     then Secretary of Defense Aspin's report on the continued 
     requirement for peacetime draft registration. At that time, I 
     advised you that peacetime draft registration. At that time, 
     I advised you that draft registration and the Selective 
     Service System (SSS) would be continued while the National 
     Security Council conducted an interagency review of the SSS.
       That review has now been completed. I have decided that it 
     is essential to our national security to continue draft 
     registration and the Selective Service System. While tangible 
     military requirements alone do not currently make a mass 
     call-up of American young men likely, there are three reasons 
     I believe we should maintain both the SSS and the draft 
     registration requirement:
       Maintaining the SSS and draft registration provide a hedge 
     against unforeseen threats and a relatively low cost 
     ``insurance policy'' against our underestimating the maximum 
     level of threat we expect our Armed Forces to face.
       Terminating the SSS and draft registration now could send 
     the wrong signal to our potential enemies who are watching 
     for signs of U.S. resolve.
       As fewer and fewer members of our society have direct 
     military experience, it is increasingly important to maintain 
     the link between the All-Volunteer Force and our society at 
     large. The Armed Forces must also know that the general 
     population stands behind them, committed to serve, should the 
     preservation of our national security so require.
       As part of this decision, I am directing the Secretary of 
     Defense to update our mobilization requirements and 
     timeliness for the SSS based upon current threat scenarious, 
     re-examine the timeliness for how quickly manpower must be 
     provided, consider the possibility of selective call-up of 
     skilled personnel (such as medical personnel) and continue to 
     review the arguments for and against continuing to exclude 
     women from registration now that they can be assigned to 
     combat roles other than ground combat.
       I believe our FY 1995 request of $23 million is essential 
     to our defense needs and urge Congress to approve this 
     request. At the same time, we will continue to seek 
     additional economies and operating efficiencies at the 
     Selective Service System.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, therefore, the Pentagon and the task 
force chaired by the National Security Council, and now the President 
of the United States, endorse the maintenance of Selective Service for 
the reasons that the President has outlined.
  The Selective Service involves over 11,000 volunteers and 
considerable infrastructure. If peacetime registration is terminated, 
the Selective Service should not be dismantled until a better, 
efficient use of those resources could be determined.
  The Selective Service does more than register 18-year olds for the 
draft. It also keeps other forms of registration and data in which we 
call up, for example, health personnel so that in the event of a 
national disaster, a catastrophic situation, possibly another 
earthquake or several hurricanes affecting the east coast, we would be 
able to mobilize much needed health personnel and emergency management 
people.
  We need the personnel and Selective Service to be fit for duty for 
our military needs and other ancillary materials that they keep that 
would help mobilize us for other risks affecting the United States of 
America.
  Let me conclude on the night before the Fourth of July when we 
celebrate the Declaration of Independence: We ask so little and we give 
so much as a nation. We no longer convey the sense of patriotism, a 
sense of civic obligation that for every opportunity there is an 
obligation, for every right there is a responsibility, and calling 
people forth to register for the draft says that somewhere along the 
line you have to know that there is a United States of America, and 
maybe someday you will be called upon to defend not only the 
Constitution but the very territory of the United States of America.
  The registration is an important tool for conveying citizenship.
  Probably on another issue, we will talk about women registering. This 
is not the time for debate on that issue.
  But registration is such a modest, modest request to be able to 
convey, number one, a readiness, the ability to mobilize, the ability 
to organize, that I encourage the Bradley amendment be adopted, that 
the Selective Service System continue to stand, and for those who have 
given so much, we should also say: Of those to whom much has been 
given, much should be asked.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Indiana, Senator Coats.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). The Senator from Indiana is 
recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, if Senator Bradley's amendment were 
adopted, we would effectively end the registration under Selective 
Service on September 30, 1994. Selective Service has been serving the 
Nation since it was established in 1940, although conscription goes all 
the way back to the Civil War.
  Since 1940, the Selective Service System has been allowed to lapse 
several times. Each time, Congress and the American people have 
recognized later that when faced with a crisis, we needed a system 
which could support the transition from peace to war when the country 
was thrust into a world crisis.
  In the event of full mobilization or national emergency, the 
Selective Service System will have the first registrants reporting for 
duty within 13 days and would provide an additional 100,000 inductees 
within 30 days. The purpose of peacetime registration is to provide a 
capability for rapid augmentation of the total force.
  Mr. President, last year, the Secretary of Defense completed a study 
of the continued requirement for draft registration. The bottom line 
was that the registration should be continued pending a further review. 
That further review was undertaken and completed in May of this year, 
and the bottom line conclusion was the same: continue the Selective 
Service System. Quotes from the review are going to be made on this 
floor, but the conclusion needs to be stated.
  The conclusion is: retain the system.
  Mr. President, I do not often quote favorably the President of the 
United States from this floor, but he sent a letter to us dated May 18, 
1994, which says:

       That review has now been completed. I have decided that it 
     is essential to our national security to continue draft 
     registration and the Selective Service System for three 
     reasons:

       1. Maintaining the Selective Service and draft registration 
     provides a hedge against unforeseen threats and a relatively 
     low-cost ``insurance policy'' against our underestimating the 
     maximum level of threat we expect our Armed Forces to face.
       2. Terminating this Selective Service System now could send 
     the wrong signal to our potential enemies who are watching 
     for signs of U.S. resolve.
       3. As fewer and fewer members of our society have direct 
     military experience, it is increasingly important to maintain 
     the link between the All-Volunteer Force and our society at 
     large.

  Mr. President, for reasons stated here this evening, for the fact 
that the House of Representatives, by a more than 2-to-1 margin, has 
concluded we should retain the system. For the reasons stated by the 
President in his letter to this body, I believe we should reject the 
amendment offered by Senator Bradley.
  The request that is made for continuation of Selective Service is 
essential to our defense needs, and I urge Congress to approve the 
request submitted to us by the President of the United States, and I 
urge rejection of the Bradley amendment.
  Mr. GLENN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, Senator Bradley's amendment would 
terminate the Selective Service System and the requirement for any 
person to register for the draft effective on September 30, 1994.
  Mr. President, the Selective Service System is needed to undergird 
the national military strategy. It is consistent with the concept of 
service to the Nation. It is an important backstop against an 
unexpected need for large numbers of military personnel. In the 
President's words,

       Maintaining the Selective Service System and draft 
     registration provide a hedge against unforeseen threats and a 
     relative low cost ``insurance policy'' against our 
     underestimating the maximum level of threat we expect our 
     Armed Forces to face.

  The Selective Service System is just one of the signals this country 
sends to potential adversaries around the world that we are ready and 
able to protect our vital national interests. It also represents a 
responsibility to rally to the defense of the Nation for our young men, 
if needed. This is a small part of the responsibility of full 
citizenship in a free nation. A full 97 percent of America's young men 
comply with the requirement to register. I am not surprised that our 
young men accept this important responsibility. It is the American way.
  The Secretary of Defense studied the continued requirement for the 
Selective Service. The study concluded that the Selective Service 
System should be continued in order to provide the infrastructure 
necessary to reestablish the capacity to garner age-eligible personnel 
in a timely manner, when necessary. I also concluded that the Selective 
Service has a symbolic value beyond its practical value. This symbolic 
value demonstrates to friend and foe, as well as our own youth, that 
America is willing to make broad sacrifices to maintain freedom. On 
February 18, 1994, the President concurred with this study and ordered 
an interagency review of the requirement for peacetime draft 
registration.
  On May 18, 1994, the President announced the results of this second 
review. He decided that it is essential to national security to 
continue draft registration and the Selective Service System. The 
President cited three specific reasons for his decision. First, he said 
the Selective Service System is a low-cost insurance policy against 
unexpected threats. Second, he said terminating the Selective Service 
System would send the wrong message to potential enemies. Last, it is 
important to maintain a link between the All-Volunteer Force and our 
society at large. This last reason is the responsibility of full 
citizenship of which I spoke earlier.
  Mr. President, there are many examples of Government waste. Any 
Member of the Senate can point to several without detailed study. The 
Selective Service is a valuable part of the national defense team and 
is certainly not a waste of taxpayer dollars.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has 39 seconds 
remaining.
  The Senator from New Jersey has 1 minute 36 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, if we cannot eliminate this program, I do 
not know what program we can eliminate. The Selective Service System is 
overmanned, overgraded. People in levels 13, 14, and 15 are performing 
jobs that levels 7, 8 and 9 can perform. There is poor morale and 
antiquated equipment. There are 267 full-time jobs. That is what this 
is all about.
  The arguments offered in support of it--civic responsibility? If we 
are reduced to having a Selective Service System where somebody 18 
years old fills out a card and that is the limit of his civic 
responsibility, where are we in terms of being a hedge against the 
future, when the only possible hedge it could be against, that the all-
volunteer Army could not counter, is a rejuvenated, hostile, 
reconstituted Soviet Union? It is not in the cards.
  In terms of a signal, I do not really think filling out postcards 
sends a very threatening or ominous signal to anyone.
  There was a remark made that it was on the eve of July 4; on the eve 
that we celebrate the Declaration of Independence we do not want to 
eliminate the Selective Service System.
  Mr. President, July 4 celebrates not only the Declaration of 
Independence but the Revolutionary War. There was no draft in the 
Revolutionary War.
  On the eve of the battle of Princeton, George Washington with the 
troops in tattered clothes, he did not have a draft. He asked them 
would one good man step forward. One did. Another did. And enough 
stepped forward to win the Revolutionary War.
  We do not need the draft. It should be abolished. Save the money.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor 
of Senator Bradley's amendment to terminate the Selective Service 
System.
  While I believe that maintaining a strong and prepared military must 
be a top priority for this country, I do not believe that it is 
necessary to continue spending millions of dollars each year to 
preserve a cold-war relic that requires all young men to register for 
the draft. This is particularly true during this time of tight budgets. 
It is crucial that we invest our scarce defense dollars in cost-
effective, versatile programs that are vital to U.S. national security 
in the post-cold-war world.
  In a December 1993 report issued by the Defense Department, the 
Secretary of Defense stressed that

       because of the reduced global threat together with improved 
     total force readiness and the Department's proven ability to 
     maintain a quality volunteer force, the effects of 
     eliminating draft registration on our ability to meet 
     mobilizations requirements are expected to be minimal.

  The report goes on to say that

       peacetime draft registration could be suspended with no 
     effect on military mobilization requirements, little effect 
     on the time it would take to mobilize, and no measurable 
     effect on military recruitment.

  In the case of a national emergency, the Defense Department report 
lists several alternative ways to identify draft-eligible men that are 
already in use and that will ensure greater compliance. For example, 
Social Security records, driver's licenses, DOD records, INS documents, 
and the U.S. Postal Service are all viable options that will cut 
Government bureaucracy and save U.S. taxpayers over $20 million in 
fiscal year 1995 alone.
  Just as I see this amendment as one way to reinvent Government into a 
more efficient and cost-effective entity, I also see it as a chance to 
follow through on the efforts of the Defense Department, the President, 
and Congress to reinvent out military into a strong, modern-day force. 
We should spend our defense dollars on higher Defense Department 
priorities to ensure the readiness of our troops and modernization of 
our weapons.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to terminate a draft 
registration system no longer needed in today's world, one that costs 
the U.S. taxpayer tens of millions of dollars annually.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of our time.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President's letter be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                     Washington, DC, May 18, 1994.
     Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
     President of the Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: On February 18 of this year, I 
     transmitted then Secretary of Defense Aspin's report on the 
     continued requirement for peacetime draft registration. At 
     that time, I advised you that draft registration and the 
     Selective Service System (SSS) would be continued while the 
     National Security Council conducted an interagency review of 
     the SSS.
       That review has now been completed. I have decided that it 
     is essential to our national security to continue draft 
     registration and the Selective Service System. While tangible 
     military requirements alone do not currently make a mass 
     call-up of American young men likely, there are three reasons 
     I believe we should maintain both the SSS and the draft 
     registration requirement.
       First, maintaining the SSS and draft registration provide a 
     hedge against unforeseen threats and a relatively low cost 
     ``insurance policy'' against our underestimating the maximum 
     level of threat we expect our Armed Forces to face.
       Second, terminating the SSS and draft registration now 
     could send the wrong signal to our potential enemies who are 
     watching for signs of U.S. resolve.
       Third, as fewer and fewer members of our society have 
     direct military experience, it is increasingly important to 
     maintain the link between the All-Volunteer Force and our 
     society at large. The Armed Forces must also know that the 
     general population stands behind them, committed to serve, 
     should the preservation of our national security so require.
       As part of this decision, I am directing the Secretary of 
     Defense to update our mobilization requirements and timelines 
     for the SSS based upon current threat scenarios, re-examine 
     the timelines for how quickly manpower must be provided, 
     consider the possibility of selective call-up of skilled 
     personnel (such as medical personnel) and continue to review 
     the arguments for and against continuing to exclude women 
     from registration now that they can be assigned to combat 
     roles other than ground combat.
       I believe our FY 1995 request of $23 million is essential 
     to our defense needs and urge Congress to approve this 
     request. At the same time, we will continue to seek 
     additional economies and operating efficiencies at the 
     Selective Service System.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I congratulate Senators Bradley and 
Hatfield for this amendment to abolish the Selective Service System and 
end the anachronistic requirement for all 18-year-old men to register 
for the draft. This outdated program costs U.S. taxpayers millions of 
dollars a year while doing virtually nothing to enhance our national 
security.
  Arguments that the draft provides a low-cost insurance policy, or 
that ending the draft would send a signal of weakness to our enemies, 
or potential enemies since we no longer have a superpower adversary, 
simply do not hold water. The Secretary of Defense, in a December 1993 
report, concluded that draft registration could be suspended with ``no 
effect on military mobilization requirements, little effect on the time 
it would take to mobilize, and no measurable effect on military 
recruitment.'' The National Security Council also reviewed the 
registration process and concluded that current military requirements 
make a mass callup unlikely.
  As for sending a signal of weakness, it is our real military 
capabilities that will impress our potential enemies, not an expensive 
list of names. We should concentrate our efforts on maintaining the 
most capable, highly trained, and well equipped fighting force in the 
world. And we have built exactly that with the All Volunteer Force, not 
by conscripting young men as do many other countries. Ensuring that we 
keep our military strong and capable is exactly what the Senate is 
doing in acting on this bill.
  Instead of contributing to the readiness of our military, the current 
Selective Service System siphons off precious dollars that could be 
used to support our troops in the field. This amendment will save an 
estimated $23 million a year that can then be channeled into the active 
duty military to meet real national security requirements.
  I should point out that I have no opposition to the concept of using 
the draft in a national emergency. I would strongly support the swift 
reactivation of a registration process if the world situation pointed 
toward a possible prolonged conflict. But such a likelihood is so 
remote at this point as to be almost unimaginable. However, if such a 
scenario were to arise in the next few years the Defense Department has 
already explored various other effective ways of identifying draft age 
men, such as Social Security records and drivers license applications.
  Once again I commend the sponsors of this amendment for challenging 
the status quo and moving to eliminate the needless expenditure of 
millions of dollars a year.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I was in the Senate gallery, as a young 
teenager, when they passed the draft act many, many years ago.
  I remember being very impressed with it then. It served us well 
through the years.
  It may have some problems, as the Senator from New Jersey indicates 
but, by and large, I think it serves us pretty well, and we have some 
11,000 volunteers in it.
  I can also remember the pride I took in signing up under the 
Selective Service. Maybe we decry such feelings today. But I felt that 
and carried that card with me and was quite proud of it.
  So, I think for all the reasons that have been given by my colleagues 
on this side we should oppose this, and I move to table the amendment 
of the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Ohio to lay on the table the amendment of the Senator 
from New Jersey. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, 
and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I announce that the Senator from California [Mrs. 
Boxer], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], the Senator from 
Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], the 
Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], the Senator from Connecticut 
[Mr. Lieberman], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum], the Senator 
from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] 
are necessarily absent.
  Mr. DOLE. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], the 
Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. 
Brown], the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen], the Senator from New York 
[Mr. D'Amato], the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], the Senator from 
North Carolina [Mr. Helms], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], the 
Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. 
Simpson], and the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 30, as follows:

                      {Rollcall Vote No. 186 Leg.

                                YEAS--50

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                                NAYS--30

     Baucus
     Boren
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mathews
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Reid
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Campbell
     Cohen
     D'Amato
     Dodd
     Ford
     Gramm
     Helms
     Johnston
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Metzenbaum
     Murkowski
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2164) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                   amendments numbered 2160 and 2159

  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison.
  Mr. KERRY. Parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. WARNER. Parliamentary inquiry. What is the pending matter before 
the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Texas wish to make an 
inquiry?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yield for an inquiry?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending questions are amendments No. 2160 
and No. 2159.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could clarify through the Chair, the 
pending business as I understand it is the Warner underlying amendment 
as amended by the second-degree amendment of the Senator from Georgia. 
That is the pending business before the body?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I wish to accommodate other Senators in their inquiry to 
the Chair. However at a certain point in time I would like to clarify 
the status of the pending business for the benefit of the Senate.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Virginia yield 
for a question?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, absolutely.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator from Virginia be willing to lay the 
amendment aside for a quick amendment that is acceptable to both sides?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will be delighted to accommodate the 
distinguished Senator from Texas. I would, however, wish to advise the 
Senator that there are about four Senators at the moment focusing on 
the pending business. In deference to them, I would like to know what 
their wishes were before I acceded to that request.
  Mr. President, my understanding is I believe several Senators, namely 
myself, the Senator from Delaware, the Senator from Massachusetts, and 
the Senator from Georgia, and such others who may be interested--and I 
know the Senator from Wyoming is--we are about to reach an agreement, I 
believe, with respect to the text of an amendment which the Senator 
from Virginia would send to the desk as a modification to the 
underlying amendment. Shortly thereafter I presume the Senate would 
like to turn its attention to that business so it can go on with the 
other amendments.
  It may well be we could accommodate the Senator from Texas in the 
period of time it takes to reconcile any differences that remain among 
the four of us.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me just make a statement. I am 
perfectly willing to wait for the pending business that is on the floor 
to be finished if it is ready to be finished. But I would like to have 
recognition immediately thereafter. I did have permission from the 
manager of the bill to do so, not knowing that the amendment might be 
ready.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Will the Chair please advise the Senator from Arizona 
who has the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has the floor.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, so the Senator from Texas has the 
floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. She can proceed as she so wants?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. It is the understanding of the Senator from Virginia I 
had the floor pursuant to the matter before the Senate, and I then 
yielded to the Senator from Texas to hear her inquiry to the Chair, and 
the same for the Senator from Wyoming. I do not know that I lost the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized, and 
giving inquiry to the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, has there been unanimous consent to waive 
the pending business? Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendments were set aside, but 
they never recurred.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, point of parliamentary inquiry?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for an inquiry.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that they were set 
aside prior to the previous vote, but on the disposition of the 
previous vote that the amendment of the Senator from Virginia is now 
the pending business before the Senate and has not been set aside at 
this point; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KERRY. If the pending business is the amendment of the Senator 
from Virginia, and the Senator from Texas has agreed already that she 
would be willing to let the Senator from Virginia proceed, it would 
seem to me we could quickly resolve this by proceeding to the pending 
business with the understanding by unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Texas would proceed immediately to have the floor on the 
completion of the pending business. Is that correct?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I so move.
  Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. WARNER. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. If I may restate what I have understood, and consistently 
understood, to be the pending business, it is the amendment of the 
Senator from Virginia, as amended by an amendment in the second degree 
from the Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. And further there that has been no unanimous consent 
granted by the Chair to lay that aside? In which case I will proceed 
now to address the pending amendment.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President, just to clarify 
for the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has the floor.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for an 
inquiry.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Not withstanding what the Senator from Virginia said, 
and I understand the pending business is the Warner amendment as 
amended, but the Senator from Texas has the floor. Then there is a 
unanimous consent request by the Senator from Massachusetts that the 
Senator from Texas yield so that the pending business can be taken up; 
is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts began to make a 
request.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I think we can solve all of this if the 
Senator from Virginia is recognized, and we can deal with his 
amendment. We do not need unanimous consent.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized by the 
Chair.


                    Amendment No. 2159, As Modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, with the cooperation of the Senators from 
Massachusetts, Delaware, and Georgia, I am prepared to send to the desk 
an amendment and ask that the underlying amendment of the Senator from 
Virginia be so modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, with its modification, is as follows:
       At the end of subtitle C of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 224. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT ON AGREEMENTS THAT MODIFY 
                   THE ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE TREATY.

       (a) Requirement for Advice and Consent of Senate.--Whenever 
     the President negotiates an international agreement that 
     would substantively modify the ABM Treaty, the United States 
     shall not be bound by such agreement unless the agreement is 
     entered into pursuant to the treaty making power of the 
     President under the Constitution (which includes a 
     requirement for advice and consent of the Senate).
       (b) ABM Treaty Defined.--In this section, the term ``ABM 
     Treaty'' means the Treaty Between the United States of 
     America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the 
     Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, signed in 
     Moscow on May 26, 1972, with related protocol, signed in 
     Moscow on July 3, 1974.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the amendment at the desk represents an 
amendment sent by the Senator from Virginia, and I believe the Senator 
from Georgia still remains to be the principal cosponsor; am I correct?
  Mr. NUNN. I will be pleased to be a cosponsor, if the Senator from 
Virginia so desires.
  Mr. WARNER. I think the Senator from Delaware desires to be a 
cosponsor; am I correct?
  Mr. BIDEN. That is correct, I say to my friend from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. And do I understand the Senator from Massachusetts wishes 
to be a cosponsor?
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. KERRY. I believe that in order to perfect this correctly, the 
Senator from Georgia would have to withdraw the second-degree amendment 
first.
  Mr. WARNER. I thought that was implicit in the request of the Senator 
from Virginia. Very well.
  Mr. NUNN. I withdraw the second-degree amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  So the amendment (No. 2160) was withdrawn.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, pending before the Senate is an amendment, 
and I shall add additional cosponsors: Senators Wallop, Thurmond, Dole, 
and Smith.
  I shall read the amendment very briefly:

       (a) Requirement for Advice and Consent of the Senate.--
     Whenever the President negotiates an international agreement 
     that would substantively modify the ABM Treaty, the United 
     States shall not be bound by such agreement unless the 
     agreement is entered into pursuant to the treaty making power 
     of the President under the Constitution (which includes a 
     requirement for advice and consent of the Senate).
       (b) ABM Treaty Defined.--In this section, the term ``ABM 
     Treaty'' means: the Treaty Between the United States of 
     America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the 
     Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, signed in 
     Moscow on May 26, 1972, with related protocol, signed in 
     Moscow on July 3, 1974.

  Mr. President, to save time, the Senator from Virginia has had more 
than adequate opportunity to state his objective. It is a matter of 
record. I, therefore, yield the floor so other Senators can speak to 
this matter.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Delaware and I 
also have no need to give any lengthy explanation. We are very 
appreciative to the manager of the bill and to Senator Warner for 
working with us to come to an agreement as to how best to protect the 
interests of the ABM Treaty and the Senate's prerogatives therefor. We 
thank both of them for their efforts on this. We have made our point.
  I ask unanimous consent, as a matter of courtesy, that the Senator 
from Texas be recognized at the completion of this business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I think this is a good amendment. We have 
worked on it for the last several hours. We had good minds from the 
Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee working 
together. The Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Delaware 
have spent an enormous amount of time in the treaty business.
  I think this is the amendment we need to adopt. I think it will give 
us an opportunity to look carefully at whatever the administration 
produces and then the Senate of the United States can make a judgment 
about how to proceed on that.
  I am sure all of us will be watching that very carefully because it 
is of great importance. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleagues.
  I express my appreciation to the members of the Armed Services 
Committee staff, Tom Moore and Mr. Eric Thoemmes.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
by the Senator From Virginia. This amendment would affirm a basic 
Senate pregrogative--the requirement for Senate advice and consent of 
arms control treaties.
  Since November 1993, the administration has been engaged in 
negotiations with the former Soviet Union to update and clarify 
specific provisions of the ABM Treaty. First, the administration is 
attempting to identify who, in fact, this treaty is with--a question 
left unanswered since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In an 
attempt to deal with this dilemma, the administration has proposed that 
the treaty be multilateralized, to include any former Soviet State that 
wants to become a party to the ABM Treaty.
  The second area of negotiation has to do with defining the 
demarcation between antiballistic missile systems, which are limited by 
the treaty, and theater missile defense systems, which the treaty does 
not specifically limit. On this point the treaty itself is extremely 
ambiguous--it states merely that it is prohibited to give non-ABM 
systems ``capabilities'' to counter ``strategic ballistic missiles'' or 
test them in ``an ABM mode.'' But the treaty does not define any of 
these key terms.
  Mr. President, as a general principle and for specific reasons that 
relate to these two areas of negotiation, I believe that the 
administration must seek the Senate's concurrence on these important 
matters. In my view, any agreement that substantively modifies or 
creates new legal obligations for the United States under the ABM 
Treaty must be submitted to the Senate as a treaty for its advice and 
consent to ratification.
  As they now stand, the administration's proposals on theater missile 
defense demarcation and treaty succession would, in fact, represent 
substantive changes to the ABM Treaty or new legal obligations for the 
United States under the treaty. Let me address each of these briefly.
  There can be no question that the administration's approach to 
succession would constitute a clear and substantive change to the 
treaty. It would fundamentally alter the rights and obligations of the 
original treaty partners. Moreover, such a change has broad 
implications for U.S. policy well beyond the narrow limits of the ABM 
Treaty. For example, multilateralizing the treaty would have the effect 
of perpetuating the old boundaries of the Soviet Union, and give Russia 
extraterritorial rights and a military presence coextensive with the 
former Soviet Union.
  In examining relevant precedents, it also is abundantly clear that 
such a major change to the treaty would require Senate advice and 
consent. In 1974, for example, when the ABM Treaty was changed by 
protocol to reduce its limitations from two permitted deployment sites 
to one, the agreement was submitted to the Senate, which advised 
ratification on November 10, 1975. When the START Treaty was in a 
similar situation as the ABM Treaty now faces, the sides negotiated a 
multilateral protocol, which was submitted for advice and consent as 
part of the START I ratification package. These precedents are clear 
and compelling.
  The TMD demarcation issue is less clear than the succession issue. 
Whether a TMD demarcation agreement constitutes a substantive 
modification of the ABM Treaty or entails new legal obligations for the 
United States under the treaty depends on the form of the agreement. It 
certainly would be possible to clarify this issue without making a 
single change to the text of the ABM Treaty itself. Moreover, it would 
be possible to make this clarification without establishing new legal 
obligations for the United States under the ABM Treaty.
  In fact, the proposal that the United States presented in November 
1993 on this subject did not, in my view, establish any new legal 
obligations for the United States under the ABM Treaty. It very simply 
clarified a key term in the treaty--that is, what constitutes a 
strategic ballistic missile. Such clarifications have taken place on 
several occasions over the years in the standing consultative 
commission without Senate approval.
  I would also note that the administration's November 1993 proposal on 
TMD Demarcation was consistent with the congressional finding contained 
in last year's Defense Authorization Act, which states that TMD systems 
are not prohibited by the ABM Treaty unless they ``are tested against 
or have demonstrated capabilities to counter modern strategic ballistic 
missiles.'' In other words, as a practical matter, Congress has already 
given its advice and consent to a TMD demarcation agreement based on 
the so-called ``demonstrated capabilities standard,'' which does not 
include specific performance limitations on TMD systems or components.
  Unfortunately, the administration has now complicated matters by 
accepting such specific performance limitations. These are no longer 
clarifications. They are new, binding limitations on missile defense 
systems not previously constrained by the ABM Treaty. I would note that 
the ABM Treaty does not even limit ABM interceptors in this manner. In 
effect, this approach creates a fundamentally new treaty--an ABM/TMD 
Treaty. Such a radical departure from the existing limitations will 
certainly require Senate advice and consent.
  The Senate has every reason to guard its constitutional prerogatives 
in the area of treaty ratification. As the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee will recall from our 1987 debate on the Nunn-Levin 
amendment, this body has traditionally taken these matters extremely 
seriously. As the chairman stated on the floor at that time, allowing 
the President to reinterpret a treaty, subsequent to ratification, 
without the Senate's approval, would reduce the Senate to, in the 
chairman's words, ``A potted plant. * * * An ornament in the national 
security arena, adorning but not influencing.''
  If we still take this responsibility seriously, as I believe we must, 
then the Warner amendment should be adopted.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2159), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2165

 (Purpose: To authorize transfer and use of not more than $43,000,000 
  for purchase of up to seven roll-on/roll-off vessels for the Ready 
          Reserve Force of the National Defense Reserve Fleet)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself and Senators Sarbanes and Mikulski and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for herself, Mr. 
     Sarbanes, and Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2165.
  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 110, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

     SEC. 357. ROLL-ON/ROLL-OFF VESSELS FOR THE READY RESERVE 
                   FORCE.

       (a) Transfer Authorized.--To the extent provided in 
     appropriations Acts, in order to provide for purchase of up 
     to seven roll-on/roll-off vessels for the Ready Reserve Force 
     of the National Defense Reserve Fleet maintained under 
     section 11 of the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C. 
     App. 1744), the Secretary of Defense may transfer to the 
     Maritime Administration not more than $43,000,000 out of 
     funds authorized by this Act to be appropriated to the 
     Department of Defense for fiscal year 1995, other than funds 
     for procurement of national defense features for vessels.
       (b) Use by Maritime Administration.--Funds transferred to 
     the Maritime Administration pursuant to subsection (a) shall 
     be used only for the purpose set forth in such subsection.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the amendment grants the Department of 
Defense the authority to reprogram $43 million for the procurement of 
roll-on/roll-off ships for the ready reserve. The congressionally 
mandated mobility requirement study called for the acquisition of 19 
ready reserve force roll-on/roll-off ships. This would bring the ready 
reserve force roll-on/roll-off to a total of 36.
  These ships are essential, Mr. President, to early deploying heavy 
divisions that must move from the continental United States to a 
distant theater of operations. This just gives some flexibility in the 
Department of Defense.
  I thank the managers of the bill, and I urge the adoption of the 
amendment.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague 
from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], in offering this amendment to the defense 
authorization measure.
  I thank Senator Hutchison for her work on this important issue and I 
want to express my sincere appreciation to the chairman, Senator Nunn, 
and the ranking minority Member, Senator Thurmond, for allowing the 
consideration of this amendment.
  The ``Mobility Requirement Study'' emphasized our need for a 
strategic mobility program. According to the recommendations released 
in early 1992, it is imperative that we increase our Ready Reserve 
Force of roll-on/roll-off ships to a total of 36.
  With funding from fiscal 1993, 12 ships have been added to the force 
for a total of 29. The amendment we are offering today, along with 
funding already provided to the Maritime Administration, will allow the 
acquisition of the seven additional ships needed to complete the fleet. 
They will give our Armed Forces the surge capability to move Army heavy 
divisions to a regional conflict anywhere around the world.
  The Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology reiterated the need for these ships on Tuesday. In a letter 
to the distinguished chairman, Secretary Longuemare stated:

       Acquisition of used RO/ROs for the RRF is the only near-
     term means to meet the DoD surge sealift capability shortfall 
     which is critical to early combat force deliveries. These 
     forces must be available in the early stages of a conflict to 
     secure ports and airfields necessary for the continued 
     buildup of combat forces.

  The amendment we are offering simply allows the Department of Defense 
to transfer funds from any source except the National Defense Features 
Program to the Maritime Administration for the purchase of up to seven 
roll-on/roll-off vessels for the Ready Reserve Force. It requires that 
such transfer be made within 60 days after passage of an appropriations 
measure for fiscal 1995 and mandates that the Maritime Administrator 
obligate the funds by September 30, 1995.
  Our amendment does not in any way change the committee's intention, 
specified in the report to accompany the authorization, to provide 
additional funding to the National Defense Features Program. That 
program, while still conceptual, appears to have potential to provide 
sustainment sealift following the initial surge. It cannot replace, 
however, our need for early surge and it is for that reason that I have 
joined in offering this amendment to secure that critical capability in 
our Ready Reserve Force.
  Mr. President, while I share the hope of every Member of the Senate 
that our men and women in uniform will never face another conflict, I 
know that we must be ever on guard. I am pleased that we are 
considering this amendment that will provide us with the capability to 
respond quickly to regional threats whenever and wherever they occur. I 
again thank the chairman and urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment of the 
Senator from Texas. I believe the additional sealift represented by the 
ships that could be added by this amendment would help our deployment 
capability, which is one of our most serious needs.
  This does, through the normal procedures, permit the reprogramming of 
these funds to the sealift requirement, and this is, of course, 
assuming the Secretary of Defense makes that kind of decision and 
defines that reprogramming of those funds. I hope that will be 
available.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2165) was agreed to.
  Mr. DeCONCINI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

                          ____________________