[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 110 (Wednesday, August 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all floor 
amendments in order to H.R. 4650, the defense appropriations bill, must 
be offered by 7 p.m. this evening; that at the hour of 6:50 p.m., 
Senator Stevens will be recognized to offer amendments for Republican 
Senators who have not had a chance to offer, and at 6:55 p.m., Senator 
Inouye be recognized to offer amendments for Democratic Senators who 
have not had a chance to offer; that no votes occur prior to 9 p.m. 
this evening; that the two leaders or their designees have until 9 p.m. 
to offer amendments that are in response to possible nonrelevant 
amendments that may be offered; that when the Senate considers the 
Nunn-Mitchell Bosnia amendment and the Dole Bosnia amendment No. 2479, 
there be 2 hours for debate on both amendments under the control of 
Senators Dole and Nunn, or their designees, with an additional 30 
minutes under Senator McCain's control; that when all time is used or 
yielded back, the Senate vote on the Nunn-Mitchell amendment, followed 
by a vote on Senator Dole's amendment No. 2479; that no amendments be 
in order to either of these two Bosnia amendments; that when the bill 
has been read a third time the Senate vote on passage of the bill; that 
the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the 
House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be 
authorized to appoint conferees, with the preceding all occurring 
without any intervening action or debate; that the Senate resume 
consideration of S. 2351, the health care reform bill, at 9 a.m. on 
Thursday, August 11, for 4 hours of debate only, with the time equally 
divided between the two leaders, or their designees, and that at the 
conclusion of that time, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 4650, 
the defense appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am informed that there is no objection 
on this side at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I had intended at this time to offer an 
amendment that dealt with a study of the transportation of chemical 
weapons. More specifically, included in the bill as it came over from 
the House is a provision that prohibits a study on the feasibility of 
transportation of unitary chemical weapons.
  I thought that it was appropriate to study a slightly different item 
related but dissimilar--that is, the transportation and destruction of 
neutralized portions of unitary chemical weapons. The difference, quite 
clearly, is that one is neutralized and not as able to do damage. The 
other, a unitary chemical weapon being transported, has a much greater 
potential for damage. The problem is basically this: The Defense 
Department has been unsure that the prohibition on the study of 
transportation of unitary chemical weapons which was included in 
appropriations legislation prevents them from studying the feasibility 
of transportation and destruction of neutralized portions of those 
unitary chemical weapons. Defense Department lawyers, quite naturally, 
want to follow the law, want to follow the guidelines, and are cautious 
in this regard.
  My intention simply had been to clarify the existing provision in the 
bill by offering an amendment to ensure that studying transportation 
and destruction of parts of those weapons that have been neutralized 
already is permitted.
  In discussions of this matter with the distinguished chairman and his 
staff, I have been assured that their intention is to allow the study 
of the transport of neutralized portions of unitary chemical weapons. 
My intention would be to include within the Record a colloquy with the 
chairman that deals with this clarification, rather than offering the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to express my gratitude and 
appreciation for the accommodation of the Senator from Colorado. I 
think we can work this out.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the chairman for his help.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  If the Senator will withhold one moment, if I might inquire of the 
Senator from Colorado his intentions with respect to his amendment No. 
2495.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the amendment, we believe, will be cleared 
on both sides. There is one Member from whom we have not been able to 
get a final word on that clearance. My hope is that the body will 
proceed with other matters while we attempt to get that cleared.
  Mr. INOUYE. I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be 
temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


             Modular Airborne Firefighting Systems [MAFFS]

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of 
the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in a brief colloquy regarding 
an important National Guard equipment issue: replacement of the Modular 
Airborne Firefighting System [MAFFS].
  As a Senator representing a state which has been especially hard-hit 
by the damage and destruction of wild fires, I am particularly aware of 
the importance MAFFS play in National Guard and U.S. Forest Service 
fire fighting efforts. In 1992 for example, MAFFS were used on 163 
occasions to successfully combat some of the 65 major forest fires that 
burned more than 623,420 acres of land and caused $285 million in 
damage.
  As the Chairman knows, MAFFS are self-contained, reusable fire 
fighting systems carried on National Guard C-130 aircraft that 
supplement commercial firefighting aircraft. There are currently eight 
MAFFS located in various locations throughout the county, each capable 
of delivering 30,000 pounds of retardant in just 7 seconds.
  Through the use of MAFFS, the National Guard has been able to prevent 
immeasurable damage to lives, property, forest lands, and scenic areas. 
Between 1973 and 1993, National Guard units completed more than 2,600 
missions with MAFFS that delivered nearly 8 million gallons of 
retardant. In fact, all eight MAFFS are currently being used in the 
west to combat wild fires in California, Oregon, Washington and several 
other states. Every region of the country is protected by the critical 
mission that MAFFS perform.
  Unfortunately, the MAFFS in operation today are more than 20 years 
old; the technology dates to 1971 and there are consistent problems 
with maintenance and repair of the systems. The estimated cost to 
replace the eight MAFFS is $15 million (each unit costs $1.5 million, 
with an additional $3 million needed to re-engineer the out-dated 
technology).
  I know that the distinguished Chairman understands the importance of 
MAFFS in firefighting efforts, and hope that the Chairman will consider 
the need to replace the National Guard's MAFFS during conference on 
this bill.
  Mr. INOUYE. I agree with the distinguished senior Senator from 
California that Modular Airborne Firefighting Systems are an important 
resource that the National Guard and the U.S. Forest Service use to 
combat wild fires throughout the country. I also understand that the 
MAFFS currently in operation today are more than 20 years old and are 
in need of replacement.
  The Senator from California is aware that this bill provides 
$180,000,000 of undesignated funds for the National Guard to procure 
any equipment it needs to meet both its federal and state missions. I 
can assure the Senator from California that I will do everything I can 
to ensure the National Guard funding for miscellaneous equipment will 
not go below the Senate level. I am also hopeful that when fiscal year 
1995 equipment funds are made available to the National Guard they will 
see the urgent need to replace the eight MAFFS you have identified.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished Chairman very much for his 
consideration of this very important issue.


                 funding for the conversion of fort ord

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to engage the distinguished Chairman of 
the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in a brief colloquy regarding 
defense conversion funding for Fort Ord.
  Fort Ord has a long and illustrious history as one of the nation's 
largest military facilities. Named in honor of Maj. Gen. Edward Ord, 
who commanded Union troops during the Civil War, Fort Ord encompasses 
28,000 acres on the Monterey Peninsula, where it has served as an 
important Army staging area for 77 years.
  At the peak of World War II, when it served as a staging area for 
troops fighting in the Pacific theater, more than 50,000 troops were 
stationed there. It played an important role in the Korean and Vietnam 
wars as well. From 1972 through 1993 it was the home of the 7th 
Infantry Division, and as recently as last year, over 15,000 troops 
were stationed there.
  As my colleagues can well realize, the closure of this facility has 
had a devastating impact on the surrounding communities of Monterey, 
Seaside, Marina, as well as other cities up and down the Monterey 
Peninsula. In response to the closure, the California State University 
system has put together an ambitious plan to utilize the existing 
facilities to develop a new university campus, an initiative that I 
strongly support.
  Last year, Congress expressed its support and provided $15 million to 
begin the conversion, and I thank Chairman Inouye for everything that 
he did to make that possible. I am hopeful that $18 million can be 
provided in 1995 to continue the work. These funds are critical to the 
successful conversion of Fort Ord from a military base to a world-class 
university, that when completed will serve 25,000 students from all 
over the nation.
  This project is moving full steam ahead. On July 8 of this year, 
Secretary of Defense William Perry personally attended the ceremony 
transferring the title of the first of three land parcels to the 
University. The other two parcels will be transferred once they are 
deemed safe for use.
  The defense conversion funds will be used primarily for converting 
buildings into classrooms, laboratories and administrative offices, and 
bringing the existing buildings up to both seismic, and health safety 
(i.e. asbestos abatement) codes. Funds will also be used to provide for 
accessibility according to American with Disabilities Act guidelines. 
No funds will be spent on overhead, which are being funded by the State 
in a cost-sharing arrangement. I strongly believe that we must keep 
this project on track, and a continued federal commitment is vital to 
that end.
  I am hopeful that the Chairman will be able to review this matter in 
conference and address the continued need of defense conversion funding 
for Fort Ord.
  Mr. INOUYE. The distinguished Senator from California can be assured 
that I will indeed review this matter in conference with the House, and 
will address Fort Ord's need for continued defense conversion funding.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished Chairman very much for his 
consideration.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I have an amendment proposed by Mr. 
Gorton, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Inouye.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator intend to offer this as an 
amendment to the committee amendment or would he want the committee 
amendment set aside?
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set aside 
the committee amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2496

 (Purpose: To impose an additional condition regarding the requirement 
    to reimburse the Mucklesoot Indian Tribe of Auburn, Washington)

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment proposed 
by Mr. Gorton, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Inouye, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for himself, Mr. 
     Gorton, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Inouye, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2496.

  Mr. INOUYE. 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 19, line 19, after the period, insert the 
     following: ``The Secretary may not pay the Muckleshoot Indian 
     Tribe the reimbursement otherwise required by the preceding 
     sentence unless the Tribe waives in writing all claims that 
     the Tribe may have against the United States or any agency or 
     official of the United States (in the official capacity of 
     that official), against the State of Washington or any agency 
     or official of the State of Washington (in the official 
     capacity of that official), and against the City of Seattle, 
     Washington, or any agency or official of the City of Seattle, 
     Washington (in the official capacity of that official), 
     regarding the disposal of the Puget Sound Naval Air 
     Station.''.

                           amendment no. 2496

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment that would 
place an additional condition on the reimbursement of funds to the 
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe for its expenses in developing and submitting 
a reuse base for Naval Station Puget Sound. Specifically, my amendment 
would require that the Tribe forfeit its ability to file suit against 
local, State or Federal Government in writing before receiving this 
reimbursement. I understand that the amendment has been agreed to on 
both sides.
  This issue began with the 1991 Base Closure Commission's 
recommendation to close Naval Station Puget Sound. Because the base 
sits on Lake Washington near downtown Seattle, a number of groups have 
expressed interest in acquiring portions of its real property. 
Beginning shortly after the Commission's recommendation, the City of 
Seattle, in conjunction with the local Navy office, began work on a 
community reuse plan that sought to accommodate as many groups as 
possible. After numerous hearings and revisions, the City arrived at a 
plan that accommodates two Federal agencies, the McKinney Act, and the 
various concerns of the surrounding community. At the same time, the 
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe was developing a separate reuse proposal.
  While the Department of the Navy will ultimately decide which plan is 
implemented, the Department's decisions are guided by a Federal 
screening process that prioritizes requests. That process asks that 
Federal entities be considered before the McKinney Act and State and 
local governments.
  Various Federal agencies have disputed the standing of Indian Tribes 
in this process. Some agencies, such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
have suggested that an Indian Tribe proposal represented by a Federal 
agency be considered with other Federal requests. Others, such as the 
Department of Navy, have determined in accordance with their 
interpretation of U.S. law that Indian tribes should be considered as 
State and local governments.
  The administration has yet to decide which of these interpretations 
the Department of the Navy is to follow. As a result, the Department of 
the Navy has delayed choosing between the proposals for Sand Point. 
Regardless of its decision, however, I understand that the Muckleshoot 
Indian Tribe developed its proposal while under the impression--from 
Federal agencies--that Indian Tribes would be considered as Federal 
agencies. In the event that the Navy does not give Tribes that status, 
this bill will compensate the Muckleshoots by as much as $600,000 for 
the cost of developing and submitting a proposal. In the end, this 
language will help the City of Seattle, the Navy and the Muckleshoot 
Indian Tribe reach an agreement acceptable to all sides.
  The amendment I am offering would simply clarify this language to 
prevent the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe from receiving this compensation 
if it also chooses to file suit against a Federal or State Government 
or the City of Seattle. Law suits have tied up the reuse of other 
military bases while imposing significant legal expenses on all 
parties. A lawsuit on the final reuse of Sand Point would, in my 
opinion, be one of the worst possible outcomes of this long process. It 
would cost the taxpayers, it would cost the Tribe, and it would leave 
the base closed, but not surplussed.
  Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished Senator from Hawaii 
for including the reimbursement provisions in this bill and agreeing to 
this amendment. If the White House chooses to emphasize the importance 
of community reuse proposals, as this body has directed it to on some 
occasions, I believe that it is probable that the Muckleshoot Indian 
Tribe will not have a Federal claim to Sand Point. In that event, this 
reimbursement will discourage the Tribe from filing suit, while 
compensating the Tribe for its real expenses in developing and 
submitting a proposal. This is in the very real interest of the City of 
Seattle.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared by both 
sides and approved and accepted.
  The purpose is to impose an additional condition regarding the 
requirement to reimburse the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of Auburn, 
Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 2496) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I ask unanimous consent that the prior vote be also 
reconsidered and tabled.


                           Amendment No. 2497

 (Purpose: To limit the use of funds for deactivating or reducing Army 
                              ROTC units)

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I send to the desk another amendment 
proposed by Senator Danforth and Senator Bond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Danforth, for 
     himself and Mr. Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 2497.

  Mr. INOUYE. 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 142, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Funds appropriated for the Army by this Act may 
     not be expended to deactivate or to take any action necessary 
     to deactivate any Army Reserve Officers' Training corps unit, 
     or to reduce any such unit for the purpose of eventually 
     deactivating that unit, unless the Secretary of the Army has 
     determined that the unit has been placed in, and has been 
     evaluated for a full evaluation period under, the Effective 
     Management Program of the Army Cadet Command.

  Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
rectify what I believe is a very unfair and arbitrary decision made by 
the Department of the Army last week. On August 2, the Army announced 
that it would deactivate 18 Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps units 
at colleges and universities throughout the country. Seventeen of the 
units that the Army will deactivate had been placed in the Army Cadet 
Command's Effective management Program [EMP] and were the subjects of 
long reviews. The Army Cadet Command uses the EMP program to evaluate 
and assist units which suffer from declining enrollment. After an 
evaluation period of between 2 and 4 years, units not achieving full 
viability are recommended for closure. According to the Army, ``using 
the EMP process for closure purposes provides a definable, defensible 
DOD supported logic for these actions.'' Mr. President, I recognize 
that military budgets are shrinking and that each of the services must 
take extraordinary steps to cut spending. The Cadet Command's EMP 
program appears to be a reasonable way to cut back ROTC units which 
have outlived their usefulness.
  For one of the 18 schools, however, the Army did not utilize the EMP. 
The Army announced that Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri 
would lose its ROTC unit ``under the provision of the contract 
agreement between the University and the Secretary of the Army.'' For 
Washington University, the Army did not undertake a thorough review. It 
did not put its unit on evaluation status or provide assistance to 
correct any deficiencies in the program. It did not give Washington 
University 2 to 4 years to rebut allegations against its program or to 
demonstrate its commitment to the ROTC program. Instead, the Army 
avoided a thorough review and, to the great surprise of Washington 
University, elected to deactivate the ROTC because of alleged contract 
violations. Mr. President, this is the first time the Department of the 
Army has ever attempted to close an ROTC unit based on contract 
violations. If a drop in numbers of participants--an easily measured 
occurrence--deserves a thorough, 2 to 4 year review, then certainly 
alleged contract violations should be given a comparable review and an 
equal opportunity for rebuttal and for rectification. In the case of 
the Army's actions towards Washington University, the lack of a formal 
review process has permitted the Army to begin the process of 
deactivating a unit based on erroneous and very poor arguments which 
would not--and will not--survive a serious review.
  The Army alleges three contract violations. The first alleged 
contract violation, according to the Army, is that the ROTC facilities 
at Washington University are not on the Washington University campus. 
     There is no section of the contract which specifically 
     requires that an ROTC facility be on campus. This alleged 
     violation must relate to Section 2(b) of the contract 
     between the Army and Washington University, signed April 
     8, 1965. That clause requires Washington University ``to 
     make available to the Departments of Military Science the 
     necessary classrooms, administrative offices, office 
     equipment, storage space, and other required facilities in 
     a fair and equitable manner in comparison with other 
     departments of the institutions.''
       Mr. President, the Washington University ROTC facility is 
     on campus and has been in the same location on campus for the 
     last 16 years. The University owns the Academy building in 
     which Army ROTC is housed. The ROTC building is directly 
     across the street from the classrooms and offices of the 
     School of Engineering and it is located in a neighborhood 
     where many Washington University students live. To provide 
     ROTC and other students with easy access to the north side of 
     campus, the University built a walkway over Milbrook 
     Boulevard, which provides a direct link between the Academy 
     building and the School of Engineering. This walkway is 
     similar to the underpass constructed by the university to 
     connect the south side of the university to student 
     dormitories, recreational fields, and the Department of Music 
     facilities. This allegation by the Army is simply incorrect. 
     if the Army truly had a problem with the location of the ROTC 
     building, one would think it would have taken considerably 
     less time that 16 years to voice objections.
       The second allegation is that Washington University does 
     not provide academic credit for ROTC courses. This 
     requirement is found in Section 2(d) of the contract: ``The 
     governing authorities of this institution agree * * * to 
     grant appropriate academic credit applicable toward 
     graduation for successful completion of courses offered by 
     the Department of Military Science.''
       Once again, this allegation is not accurate. The university 
     leaves it up to individual schools within the university to 
     determine whether or not ROTC courses should be provided 
     academic credit. The School of Engineering provides up to 
     three course credits for ROTC programs, and is considering 
     expanding that to six. Those courses count as electives and 
     are not factored into students' grade point averages [GPAs]. 
     The School of Arts and Sciences does not provide course 
     credit. That is Washington University's interpretation of 
     appropriate credit.
       Washington University's policy regarding course credit is 
     better for its ROTC students than the policies of several 
     other schools and is similar to many others. Some 
     universities offer no course credit at all for ROTC courses. 
     Bucknell University, Princeton University, Syracuse 
     University, the Clairmont Colleges, the Massachusetts 
     Institute of Technology, Georgetown University, and George 
     Mason University are among those institutions which fit into 
     this category. Several place restrictions on course credit. 
     Neither Rutgers University nor the University of Pennsylvania 
     include ROTC courses in a cadet's GPA. Davidson gives credit 
     for only one ROTC course. The University of Washington does 
     not award credit towards graduation for ROTC courses taken in 
     the first two years of college. The University of Indiana 
     offers activity credit but not regular course credit. Some 
     universities give discretion to the university's colleges in 
     a similar manner as Washington University. The University of 
     Cincinatti, Temple University, the University of Pittsburgh, 
     and the University of Michigan all follow that approach.
       The third allegation is that Washington University does not 
     support the ROTC program. The Army alleges that because 
     Washington University includes a disclaimer in certain 
     university publications pointing out the difference between 
     university policy and DOD policy regarding sexual 
     orientation, Washington University is somehow not supporting 
     the ROTC program. First, I can find nothing in the contract 
     which requires that the university provide general support 
     for the ROTC program. It is required only to meet the 
     specific terms of the contract. Second, to read this 
     disclaimer as a serious lack of support of ROTC is misguided 
     at best, and at worst can be viewed as an attempt to 
     scapegoat Washington University for having a policy on sexual 
     orientation which is different from the military's.
       Washington University's nondiscrimination statement reads: 
     ``Washington University encourages and gives full 
     consideration to all applicants for admission, financial aid, 
     and employment. The University does not discriminate in 
     access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and 
     activities on the basis of race, color, age, religion, sex, 
     sexual orientation, mational origin, veteran status, or 
     disability. Present Department of Defense policy governing 
     ROTC and AFROTC programs discriminates on the basis of sexual 
     orientation; such discrimination is inconsistent with 
     Washington University policy.''
       Mr. President, this is a statement of fact. This does not 
     demonstrate a lack of support for the ROTC program. Lack of 
     support would be kicking ROTC off campus. This is what Pitzer 
     College, California State University-Chico, and California 
     State University at Sacramento did. It simply represents an 
     attempt to deal with a contradiction between university and 
     Pentagon policy in a responsible, respectful manner. And 
     Washington University is not alone in utilizing disclaimers. 
     Rutgers, Bucknell, Princeton Claremont, Cincinatti, and 
     Pittsburgh all have disclaimers.
  Washington University has supported the ROTC program since 1919. It 
is the only Army ROTC program in the St. Louis area, which is home to 
several universities. In February of 1970, protesting students fire-
bombed the ROTC building and burned it down. Despite strong student 
sentiment to the contrary, the University committed itself to keeping 
ROTC on campus. And over the past several years, as student and faculty 
sentiment has clashed with DOD policy on the issue of sexual 
orientation, Washington University has issued a disclaimer rather than 
taking more severe action. Washington University has supported the 
Army. And now, instead of giving Washington University ample 
opportunity and due process to rebut and respond to the allegations, it 
has made a quick decision to destroy the 75 year relationship.
  Mr. President, in summary, these three allegations offer no good 
reason to deactivate the ROTC program at Washington University. 
Washington University behaves no differently than many other schools 
which continue to have ROTC programs. For the Army to suggest otherwise 
is simply inaccurate and unfair.
  Mr. President, my amendment would not permit the Army to use these 
very shoddy allegations to deactivate ROTC at Washington University, or 
at any other university. It would require the Army to utilize a fair 
process to deactivate all ROTC units. Cadet Command already has such a 
procedure. In the Army's words, ``using the EMP process for closure 
purposes provides a definable, defensible DoD supported logic for these 
actions.'' This amendment would require the Army, if it does see fit to 
review the ROTC program at Washington University, to place the unit in 
the EMP and give it the same degree of consideration and support that 
it has given other units. If, at the end of the EMP 2- to 4-year 
evaluation period (the full evaluation period), it feels ROTC should be 
discontinued at Washington University, then at least it will have given 
the University a fair chance to rebut allegations it views as unfair 
and to demonstrate its intense interest in continuing the program. 
Anything short of that would be grossly unfair to an institution which 
takes its 75 year relationship with the Army very seriously and expects 
the same in return.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a 
memorandum dated August 2, 1994.
  There being no objection, the memorandum was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

                  Information for Members of Congress


            Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps Closures

       The Department of the Army announced today that 18 Army 
     Reserve Officers' Training Corps units at colleges and 
     universities throughout the country will be deactivated. Each 
     year, the U.S. Army Cadet Command does an Annual Program 
     Review and assessment of schools on the Effective Management 
     Program [EMP]. The EMP is a program Cadet Command uses to 
     assist units which are marginally effective. Each year, all 
     programs are reviewed. As a result of that review, some units 
     are put on evaluation status and provided positive 
     assistance. After an evaluation period (usually 2-4 years), 
     those units not achieving full viability are recommended for 
     closure. The program also identifies potentially strong 
     markets for possible ROTC unit establishments.
       As a result of this year's review, 18 ROTC programs will be 
     deactivated. Based upon the EMP review, 17 of these units 
     have exhibited a downward trend in many of the performance 
     categories, including officer production, cadet enrollment, 
     and academic disciplines of officers commissioned. One of the 
     18 units will close under the provision of the contract 
     agreement between the University and the Secretary of the 
     Army. Of the 18 units to be deactivated, seven are host 
     schools and 11 are extension centers (smaller units that work 
     under the direction of a nearby ``host'' unit). These 
     extension centers have an average of three ROTC instructors 
     assigned, and commissioned an average of four officers per 
     school during the past years (versus a target of ten).
       This year's review also identified 10 host units for 
     downgrade to extension centers. Consequently these units will 
     be missioned and resourced at a lower level commensurate with 
     their performance and market size. Additionally, the Annual 
     Program Review identified one extension center for upgrade to 
     host status, moving a host position to another location, and 
     an opening of an extension center.
       Recognizing that some hardships to both schools and cadets 
     will result from these closures, the Army will provide 
     options for completing ROTC and obtaining a commission to all 
     cadets in their junior and senior years and all scholarship 
     cadets. Cadet Command will notify and assist each affected 
     cadet during the School Year 1994-1995. Senior officers from 
     Cadet Command will deliver notification letters to the 
     presidents of the affected schools on August 3, 1994.
       When these reductions are completed, the Army will still 
     have 316 units with representation in all 50 states, the 
     District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Once closures 
     are completed at the end of School Year 1994-1995 (there is 
     normally a 1 year lag between notification and actual 
     closure), the opportunity to participate in ROTC will remain 
     in each State.
       Last year, the Army leadership approved the closure of 17 
     schools at the end of School Year 1993-1994. Using the EMP 
     process for closure purposes provides a definable, defensible 
     DoD supported logic for these actions. Cadet Command works 
     diligently to support these ``at risk'' programs and the 
     closure decision will not be unexpected. The closures are an 
     integral part of the overall reengineering of Cadet Command. 
     It is efficient to close our least productive units and 
     redirect resources to move viable programs.
       This action will have no effect on the Army's Junior 
     Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC) program which is 
     conducted at the high school level.
       Furnished by Office, Chief of Legislative Liaison.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared by both 
sides and is acceptable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2497) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I ask unanimous consent that the prior vote be also 
reconsidered and tabled.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2498

   (Purpose: To require a preference for the use of local and small 
businesses for environmental restoration and remediation of Kaho'olawe 
                            Island, Hawaii)

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment proposed 
by Senator Akaka.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Akaka, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2498.

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam 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 142, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 8121. PREFERENCE FOR LOCAL AND SMALL BUSINESSES TO CARRY 
                   OUT ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND REMEDIATION 
                   OF KAHO'OLAWE ISLAND, HAWAII.

       (a) Preference Required.--In entering into contracts with 
     private entities to carry out environmental restoration and 
     remediation of Kaho'olawe Island, Hawaii, and the waters 
     surrounding that island, the Secretary of the Navy shall, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, give a preference to small 
     business concerns and small disadvantaged business concerns 
     located in the State of Hawaii. In giving the preference, the 
     Secretary shall give especial preference to businesses owned 
     by Native Hawaiians.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``small business concern'' means a business 
     concern meeting the requirements of section 3 of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).
       (2) The term ``small disadvantaged business concern'' means 
     the business concerns referred to in section 7(d)(1) of such 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(1)).
       (3) The term ``Native Hawaiian'' means any individual who 
     is a descendent of the aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, 
     occupied and exercised sovereignty in the area that now 
     comprises the State of Hawaii.

  Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I offer an amendment to H.R. 4650, the 
Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995. The 
amendment I am offering would provide preference to small and minority-
owned businesses in Hawaii for the restoration and remediation of 
Kaho'olawe, Hawaii.
  Kaho'olawe holds a special place in the hearts of Hawaii's people. 
This island, devastated by years of bombings, still contains many 
culturally and historically significant resources. Ancient burial 
places, fishing shrines, religious monuments of old Hawaii can still be 
found on Kaho'olawe. Fortunately, the island was placed on the National 
Register of Historic Places.
  The restoration and remediation of Kaho'olawe is important to the 
people of Hawaii, particularly to the Native Hawaiian community. In 
fact, the State of Hawaii recently designated the island as a cultural 
preserve. Thus, it is only fitting that preference be given to native 
Hawaiian-owned business and other small businesses in Hawaii, who have 
the cultural sensitivity in restoring and preserving Kaho'olawe.
  Such preference is not new or unique. Native American groups have 
also been given preference for similar projects, and preference to 
local firms has also been given to communities affected by base closure 
or realignment. Given the cultural significance of Kaho'olawe to the 
people of Hawaii, it is only fair and fitting that we also extend a 
preference to the island's cleanup to its people.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the purpose of this amendment is to 
provide preferential treatment to small businesses in the cleanup of 
the island of Kaho'olawe.
  This amendment has been studied and approved by the managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 2498) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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 Alaska.


                           Amendment No. 2499

                 (Purpose: Limitation on Compensation)

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Nickles.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Nickles, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2499.

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam 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 11, line 19, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, that the Undersecretary of 
     Defense for Policy, shall, not later than October 15, 1994, 
     transmit, in unclassified and classified forms, the Rand 
     Corporation Study, published on or about December 1993, on 
     The U.S. Role in Possible Middle East Peace Settlements to 
     the congressional defense, intelligence and foreign affairs 
     committees.''

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask consideration of the amendment. 
It has been cleared on both sides in amendment form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Hearing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2499) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, if I may speak to Members on my side, I 
have now until the hour of 6:50 p.m. to offer amendments on behalf of 
Republican Senators. We have no more ready to be offered at this time. 
I am hopeful that the Members and their staffs will be aware of the 
deadlines that have been set for offering of amendments and will bring 
them to the staff and to me as soon as possible.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I would like to also advise Members on 
this side of the aisle that we have until 6:55 p.m. to offer 
amendments. Furthermore, I would like to point out that we hope to 
finish this measure tomorrow. If that is the case, I hope amendments 
will be brought up as soon as possible.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________