[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3576-S3600]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT OF 1995

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to consideration of H.R. 889 which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 889) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations and rescissions to preserve and enhance the 
     military readiness for the Department of Defense for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 1995 and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill
   which had been reported from the Committee on Appropriations, with 
amendments; as follows:

  (The parts of the bill intended to be stricken are shown in boldface 
brackets and the parts of the bill intended to be inserted are shown in 
italic.)
                                H.R. 889
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, [That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to provide emergency 
     supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense to 
     preserve and enhance military readiness for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, namely:
                                [TITLE I

                 [EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

                    [DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

                          [MILITARY PERSONNEL

                       [Military Personnel, Army

       [For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army,'' 
     $69,300,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
      [[Page S3577]] Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.

                       [Military Personnel, Navy

       [For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy,'' 
     $49,500,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                   [Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       [For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine 
     Corps,'' $10,400,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                     [Military Personnel, Air Force

       [For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air 
     Force,'' $71,700,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                        [Reserve Personnel, Navy

       [For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Navy,'' 
     $4,600,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                       [OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    [Operation and Maintenance, Army

       [For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army,'' $958,600,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    [Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       [For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy,'' $347,600,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                [Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       [For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps,'' $38,000,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                 [Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       [For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force,'' $888,700,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                [Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

       [For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide,'' $43,200,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                [Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

       [For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy Reserve,'' $6,400,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                              [PROCUREMENT

                        [Other Procurement, Army

       [For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Army,'' 
     $28,600,000, to remain available until September 30, 1997: 
     Provided, That such amount is designated by Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.

                     [Other Procurement, Air Force

       [For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Air 
     Force,'' $8,100,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     1997: Provided, That such amount is designated by Congress as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.

                 [OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

                        [Defense Health Program

       [For an additional amount for ``Defense Health Program,'' 
     $14,000,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                               [TITLE II

                  [RESCINDING CERTAIN BUDGET AUTHORITY

                    [DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

                       [OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                 [Operation and Maintenance, Air Force


                             [(rescission)

       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-335, $15,000,000 are rescinded.

                [Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide


                             [(rescission)

       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-335, $18,800,000 are rescinded.

                  [Environmental Restoration, Defense


                             [(rescission)

       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-335, $150,000,000 are rescinded.

                 [Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction


                             [(rescission)

       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-335, $80,000,000 are rescinded.

                              [PROCUREMENT

                    [Aircraft Procurement, Air Force


                             [(rescissions)

       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-139, $15,000,000 are rescinded.
       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-335, $71,400,000 are rescinded.

                    [Missile Procurement, Air Force


                             [(rescissions)

       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 102-396, $33,000,000 are rescinded.
       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-139, $86,200,000 are rescinded.

                 [National Guard and Reserve Equipment


                             [(rescission)

       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-335, $30,000,000 are rescinded.

                   [Defense Production Act Purchases


                             [(rescission)

       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-139, $100,000,000 are rescinded.

              [RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

           [Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army


                             [(rescissions)

       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-139, $28,300,000 are rescinded.
       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-335, $19,700,000 are rescinded.

           [Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy


                             [(rescissions)

       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-139, $1,200,000 are rescinded.
       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-335, $58,900,000 are rescinded.

         [Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force


                             [(rescissions)

       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-139, $93,800,000 are rescinded.
       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-335, $75,800,000 are rescinded.

       [Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide


                             [(rescissions)

       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-139, $77,000,000 are rescinded.
       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-335, $491,600,000 are rescinded.

                           [RELATED AGENCIES

                [National Security Education Trust Fund


                             [(rescission)

       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 102-172, Public Law 103-50, Public Law 103-139, and 
     Public Law 103-335, $161,287,000 are rescinded: Provided, 
     That the balance of funds in the National Security Education 
     Trust Fund (established pursuant to section 804 of the David 
     L. Boren National Security Education Act of 1991 (50 U.S.C. 
     1904)), other than such amount as is necessary for 
     obligations made before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, is hereby reduced to zero: Provided further, That no 
     outlay may be made from the Fund after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act other than to liquidate an obligation 
     made before such date and upon liquidation of all such 
     obligations made before such date, the Fund shall be closed: 
     Provided further, That no obligation may be made from the 
     Fund after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                               [TITLE III

 [ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO FURTHER ENHANCE 
                               READINESS

                    [DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

                          [MILITARY PERSONNEL

                       [Military Personnel, Army

       [For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army,'' 
     $75,500,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                       [Military Personnel, Navy

       [For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy,'' 
     $68,200,000: Provided, That 
      [[Page S3578]] such amount is designated by Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.

                   [Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       [For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine 
     Corps,'' $3,000,000: Provided, That such amount is designated 
     by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                     [Military Personnel, Air Force

       [For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air 
     Force,'' $70,400,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                        [Reserve Personnel, Army

       [For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Army,'' 
     $6,500,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                        [Reserve Personnel, Navy

       [For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Navy,'' 
     $5,000,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    [Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps

       [For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Marine 
     Corps,'' $1,300,000: Provided, That such amount is designated 
     by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                     [Reserve Personnel, Air Force

       [For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Air 
     Force,'' $2,800,000: Provided, That such amount is designated 
     by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    [National Guard Personnel, Army

       [For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel, 
     Army,'' $11,000,000: Provided, That such amount is designated 
     by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                  [National Guard Personnel, Air Force

       [For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel, 
     Air Force,'' $5,000,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                       [OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    [Operation and Maintenance, Army

       [For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army,'' $133,000,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    [Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       [For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy,'' $107,000,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                [Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       [For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps,'' $46,000,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                 [Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       [For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force,'' $80,400,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                [Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

       [For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army Reserve,'' $13,000,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                [Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

       [For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy Reserve,'' $18,000,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

            [Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

       [For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps Reserve,'' $1,000,000: Provided, That such 
     amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

             [Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

       [For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force Reserve,'' $2,600,000: Provided, That such amount 
     is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

            [Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       [For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army National Guard,'' $10,000,000: Provided, That such 
     amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

             [Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard

       [For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air National Guard,'' $10,000,000: Provided, That such amount 
     is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
                               [TITLE IV

                          [GENERAL PROVISIONS

       [Sec. 401. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       [Sec. 402. Notwithstanding sections 607 and 630 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2357, 2390) and 
     sections 2608 and 2350j of title 10, United States Code, all 
     funds received by the United States as reimbursement for 
     expenses for which funds are provided in this Act shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.]
     That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to provide 
     supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                      SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

                    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL
                        Military Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'', 
     $35,400,000.

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy'', 
     $49,500,000.

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine 
     Corps'', $10,400,000.

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air 
     Force'', $37,400,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Navy'', 
     $4,600,000.
                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'', $636,900,000.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy'', $284,100,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps'', $27,700,000.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force'', $785,800,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', $43,200,000.
                Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy Reserve'', $6,400,000.

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

                         Defense Health Program

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Health Program'', 
     $14,000,000.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 101. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 102. During the current fiscal year, appropriations 
     available to the Department of Defense for the pay of 
     civilian personnel may be used, without regard to the time 
     limitations specified in section 5523(a) of title 5, United 
     States Code, for payments under the provisions of section 
     5523 of title 5, United States Code, in the case of 
     employees, or an employee's dependents or immediate family, 
     evacuated from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pursuant to the August 
     26, 1994 order of the Secretary of Defense.


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       Sec. 103. In addition to amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act, $28,297,000 is hereby 
     appropriated to the Department of Defense and shall be 
     available only for transfer to the United States Coast Guard 
     to cover the incremental operating costs associated with 
     Operations Able Manner, Able Vigil, Restore Democracy, and 
     Support Democracy: Provided, That such amount shall remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 1996.
     [[Page S3579]]   Sec. 104. (a) Section 8106A of the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 
     103-335), is amended by striking out the last proviso and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``: Provided 
     further, That if, after September 30, 1994, a member of the 
     Armed Forces (other than the Coast Guard) is approved for 
     release from active duty or full-time National Guard duty and 
     that person subsequently becomes employed in a position of 
     civilian employment in the Department of Defense within 180 
     days after the release from active duty or full-time National 
     Guard duty, then that person is not eligible for payments 
     under a Special Separation Benefits program (under section 
     1174a of title 10, United States Code) or a Voluntary 
     Separation Incentive program (under section 1175 of title 10, 
     United States Code) by reason of the release from active duty 
     or full-time National Guard duty, and the person shall 
     reimburse the United States the total amount, if any, paid 
     such person under the program before the employment begins''.
       (b) Appropriations available to the Department of Defense 
     for fiscal year 1995 may be obligated for making payments 
     under sections 1174a and 1175 of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       (c) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall be effective 
     as of September 30, 1994.
       Sec. 105. Subsection 8054(g) of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 103-335), is amended to 
     read as follows: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, of the amounts available to the Department of Defense 
     during fiscal year 1995, not more than $1,252,650,000 may be 
     obligated for financing activities of defense FFRDCs: 
     Provided, That, in addition to any other reductions required 
     by this section, the total amount appropriated in title IV of 
     this Act is hereby reduced by $200,000,000 to reflect the 
     funding ceiling contained in this subsection and to reflect 
     further reductions in amounts available to the Department of 
     Defense to finance activities carried out by defense FFRDCs 
     and other entities providing consulting services, studies and 
     analyses, systems engineering and technical assistance, and 
     technical, engineering and management support.''.
                             (RESCISSIONS)

       Sec. 106. Of the funds provided in Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Acts, the following funds are hereby rescinded 
     from the following accounts in the specified amounts:
       Operation and Maintenance, Navy, $16,300,000;
       Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, $2,000,000;
       Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide, $90,000,000;
       Environmental Restoration, Defense, $300,000,000;
       Aircraft Procurement, Army, 1995/1997, $77,611,000;
       Procurement of Ammunition, Army, 1993/1995, $85,000,000;
       Procurement of Ammunition, Army, 1995/1997, $89,320,000;
       Other Procurement, Army, 1995/1997, $46,900,000;
       Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 1995/1999, $26,600,000;
       Missile Procurement, Air Force, 1993/1995, $33,000,000;
       Missile Procurement, Air Force, 1994/1996, $86,184,000;
       Other Procurement, Air Force, 1995/1997, $6,100,000;
       Procurement, Defense-Wide, 1995/1997, $65,000,000;
       Defense Production Act, $100,000,000;
       Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, 1995/
     1996, $38,300,000;
       Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, 1995/
     1996, $59,600,000;
       Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, 
     1994/1995, $81,100,000;
       Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, 
     1995/1996, $226,900,000;
       Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, 
     1994/1995, $77,000,000;
       Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, 
     1995/1996, $351,000,000.


                              (RESCISSION)

       Sec. 107. Of the funds made available for the National 
     Security Education Trust Fund in Public Law 102-172, 
     $150,000,000 are rescinded: Provided, That the balance of 
     funds in the National Security Education Trust Fund 
     (established pursuant to section 804 of Public Law 102-183 
     (50 U.S.C. 1904)), other than such amounts as are necessary 
     for liquidation of obligations made before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, is hereby reduced to $8,500,000: 
     Provided further, That upon liquidation of all such 
     obligations and the $8,500,000 in the preceding proviso, the 
     Fund shall be closed.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 108. Section 8005 of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 103-335; 108 Stat. 
     2617), is amended by striking out ``$2,000,000,000'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$1,750,000,000''.
     SEC. 109. REPORT ON COST AND SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR MILITARY 
                   ACTIVITIES IN HAITI.

       (a) Requirement.--None of the funds appropriated by this 
     Act or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense 
     may be expended for operations or activities of the Armed 
     Forces in and around Haiti sixty days after enactment of this 
     Act, unless the President submits to Congress the report 
     described in subsection (b).
       (b) Report Elements.--The report referred to in subsection 
     (a) shall include the following:
       (1) A detailed description of the estimated cumulative 
     incremental cost of all United States activities subsequent 
     to September 30, 1993, in and around Haiti, including but not 
     limited to--
       (A) the cost of all deployments of United States Armed 
     Forces and Coast Guard personnel, training, exercises, 
     mobilization, and preparation activities, including the 
     preparation of police and military units of the other nations 
     of the multinational force involved in enforcement of 
     sanctions, limits on migration, establishment and maintenance 
     of migrant facilities at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, and 
     all other activities relating to operations in and around 
     Haiti; and
       (B) the costs of all other activities relating to United 
     States policy toward Haiti, including humanitarian and 
     development assistance, reconstruction, balance of payments 
     and economic support, assistance provided to reduce or 
     eliminate all arrearages owed to International Financial 
     Institutions, all rescheduling or forgiveness of United 
     States bilateral and multilateral debt, aid and other 
     financial assistance, all in-kind contributions, and all 
     other costs to the United States Government.
       (2) A detailed accounting of the source of funds obligated 
     or expended to meet the costs described in paragraph (1), 
     including--
       (A) in the case of funds expended from the Department of 
     Defense budget, a breakdown by military service or defense 
     agency, line item, and program; and
       (B) in the case of funds expended from the budgets of 
     departments and agencies other than the Department of 
     Defense, by department or agency and program.
                               [TITLE V]
                                TITLE II
                              RESCISSIONS

       The following rescissions of budget authority are made, 
     namely:

                               CHAPTER I

DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                                AGENCIES

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                 Immigration and Naturalization Service


                       immigration emergency fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-317, [$70,000,000] $50,000,000 are rescinded.

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

             National Institute of Standards and Technology


                     industrial technology services

                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-317 for the Advanced Technology Program, $107,000,000 
     are rescinded.
                  Economic Development Administration


                ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

                              (RESCISSION)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-317, $20,000,000 are rescinded.
                               CHAPTER II

                      ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                    Atomic Energy Defense Activities

         Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management


                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-316 and prior years' Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Acts, $100,000,000 are rescinded.

                              CHAPTER III

       FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED AGENCIES

                    MULTILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE


                  funds appropriated to the president

                  International Financial Institutions


              contribution to the african development fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-306, $62,014,000 are rescinded.

                     BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE


                  funds appropriated to the president

                  Agency for International Development
 [assistance for the new independent states of the former soviet union

                             [(rescission)

       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-87 for support of an officer resettlement program in 
     Russia as described in section 560(a)(5), $110,000,000 are 
     rescinded.]
                      DEVELOPMENT FUND FOR AFRICA

                              (RESCISSION)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-87 and Public Law 103-306, $110,000,000 are 
     rescinded.
                               CHAPTER IV

            DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


                         clean coal technology

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading for 
     obligation in fiscal year 1996, $50,000,000 are rescinded and 
     of the funds made available under this heading for obligation 
     in fiscal year 1997, $150,000,000 are rescinded: Provided, 
     That funds made available 
      [[Page S3580]] in previous appropriations Acts shall be 
     available for any ongoing project regardless of the separate 
     request for proposal under which the project was selected.

                               CHAPTER V

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED 
                                AGENCIES

                          DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                 Employment and Training Administration


                    training and employment services

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-333 for carrying out title II, part C of the Job 
     Training Partnership Act, $200,000,000 are rescinded.

                        DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
                      [School Improvement Programs

                             [(rescission)

       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-333 for new education infrastructure improvement 
     grants, $100,000,000 are rescinded.]
                      STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

                              (RESCISSION)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-112, $100,000,000 made available for title IV, part 
     A, subpart 1 of the Higher Education Act are rescinded.
                               CHAPTER VI

           DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

                        Facilities and Equipment


                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

                              (RESCISSION)

       Of the available balances under this heading that remain 
     unobligated for the ``advanced automation system'', 
     $35,000,000 are rescinded.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                              (RESCISSION)

       Of the available contract authority balances under this 
     heading in Public Law 97-424, $13,340,000 are rescinded; and 
     of the available balances under this heading in Public Law 
     100-17, $120,000,000 are rescinded.

              Miscellaneous Highway Demonstration Projects


                              (RESCISSION)

       Of the available appropriated balances provided in Public 
     Law 93-87; Public Law 98-8; Public Law 98-473; and Public Law 
     100-71, $12,004,450 are rescinded.
                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

                     Local Rail Freight Assistance


                              (rescission)

       Of the available balances under this heading, [$13,126,000] 
     $6,608,000 are rescinded.
              [Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project


                             [(rescission)

       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-331, $40,000,000 are rescinded.]
                              CHAPTER VII

DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
                         [INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

             [National Aeronautics and Space Administration


                   [national aeronautical facilities

                             [(rescission)

       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-327, for construction of wind tunnels, $400,000,000 
     are rescinded.]
              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                            Housing Programs


               annual contributions for assisted housing

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-327 and any unobligated balances from funds 
     appropriated under this heading in prior years, $400,000,000 
     are rescinded from amounts available for the development or 
     acquisition costs of public housing.
       [This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations and Rescissions for the Department of Defense 
     to Preserve and Enhance Military Readiness Act of 1995''.]
       This Act may be cited as the ``Supplemental Appropriations 
     and Rescissions Act, 1995''.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATFIELD. 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. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Senate now turns to consideration of 
H.R. 889, making fiscal year 1995 supplemental appropriations for the 
Department of Defense, and rescinding appropriations for defense and 
nondefense programs. The Committee on Appropriations met last Thursday 
on this measure, and reported it with amendments by a unanimous vote of 
28-0.
  The bill recommended by the committee contains two titles. The first 
title provides a total of $1,935,400,000 in supplemental appropriations 
for the Department of Defense. These appropriations are recommended in 
response to a request from the President for $2,538,700,000 to 
replenish accounts depleted by unbudgeted operations in and around 
Haiti, Cuba, Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, Iraq, and Korea. Guided by the 
recommendations of our defense subcommittee, the committee proposes a 
reduction from the President's request for defense. We believe that we 
have addressed the immediate concerns of the Department of Defense 
regarding operational readiness, and are prepared to consider the other 
readiness issues raised by the Department in connection with the fiscal 
year 1996 defense appropriations bill.
  The committee has also recommended rescissions in prior 
appropriations for defense in order to offset the additional spending 
recommended. The President requested appropriations with an emergency 
designation under the terms of the Budget Enforcement Act. With this 
designation, funds provided would have been in addition to those set by 
the domestic discretionary caps. The committee believes it is 
preferable to offset spending wherever and whenever possible, so that 
the deficit is not increased.
  Senator Stevens, the chairman of our Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee, and the ranking Member of that committee, former chairman 
Daniel Inouye, will discuss the specifics of the supplemental 
appropriations and rescissions in title I as we proceed with the debate 
on this measure.
  The second title of the bill as recommended would rescind a total of 
$1,535,966,450 in appropriations for nondefense programs. The other 
body recommended rescissions of slightly more than $1.4 billion in 
nondefense programs in order to partially offset the costs of their 
recommended supplementals for defense. Our committee fully offset 
defense supplementals with rescissions in lower priority defense 
programs. Our nondefense rescissions are solely intended to achieve 
reductions in Federal spending this fiscal year.
  Mr. President, I believe, as we have researched this, that this is 
the first time in the history of the Appropriations Committee where a 
rescission package was identified as an offset and as a deduction from 
the current deficit. I think that is worthy to take note.
  Mr. President, that summarizes the recommendations of the committee. 
They are discussed in greater detail in our report which is Senate 
report 104-12 which was received last Friday and available to all 
Members.
  I am now prepared to yield the floor for any opening remarks that the 
ranking member, the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
Senator Byrd, wishes to make. Then we will seek to adopt the committee 
amendments, and proceed with consideration of the bill and entertaining 
any amendments that Members may wish to offer at this time.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman, Senator Hatfield, for 
his statement which is complete and thorough enough in itself without 
any additional words on my part. But I do support the committee's 
recommendations on H.R. 889, as reported by Senator Hatfield.
  H.R. 889, as reported, contains recommendations totaling just over 
$1.9 billion to restore readiness funds to the Department of Defense. 
These funds were used for unforeseen international operations such as 
in Haiti, in the Middle East, Rwanda, Somalia, and Bosnia.
  It is my understanding that the Department of Defense needs these 
funds by the end of March. The committee's recommended appropriations 
are approximately $600 million less than requested by the President and 
$1.2 billion below the House bill. Furthermore, and most importantly, 
the committee's recommendations include sufficient Department of 
Defense rescissions to fully offset both the budget authority and the 
outlays of these defense appropriations.
  I compliment the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee, Mr. Stevens, and 
 [[Page S3581]] the distinguished ranking member of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Inouye, for their able efforts in 
finding these offsets.
  In addition, title II of the bill contains rescissions from a number 
of nondefense appropriations totaling over $1.5 billion in additional 
spending cuts.
  I compliment the chairman of the committee, Mr. Hatfield, who is a 
former chairman of the committee, former ranking member, and again 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his expeditious handling 
of this important measure, and I urge Senators on both sides to support 
the committee's recommendations.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as we now proceed, I would seek 
unanimous consent that the committee amendments be considered, and 
agreed to, en bloc; that the bill, as amended, be considered as 
original text for the purpose of further amendment; and, that no points 
of order be waived thereon by reason of this agreement.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I believe a unanimous-consent request is 
pending. Is that the order of business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I object.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, the first title to this supplemental 
appropriations bill addresses two components of our defense financing. 
First, it provides $1.96 billion to ensure military readiness through 
the remainder of this year. Second, it proposes $1.96 billion in 
rescissions to fully offset the new budget authority and outlays for 
1995.
  We received the administration's request and we scrubbed it a little 
bit, and we recommended that $600 million be deleted from the amounts 
proposed by the House in accordance with the request of the 
administration.
  These come in three categories. The request proposed advance funding 
of reimbursements from Kuwait and the United Nations. In two instances, 
we spent defense money already appropriated for other purposes for the 
purpose of sending troops to Kuwait or to assist in support of the 
United Nations in peacekeeping activities. I believe we should rely on 
our allies and on the United Nations to fulfill their commitments, and 
that we need not put up taxpayers' money in advance of the receipt of 
the payment that they are already committed to pay to us.
  The request proposed $70 million in military construction and 
facility upgrades at Guantanamo Bay naval station to support Cuban 
refugees now interned at that installation. Now, here again, Mr. 
President, together with some of our staff, I journeyed to Guantanamo 
Bay to look at the situation and I am convinced that the amounts that 
have been requested should await a total congressional assessment on 
the policy of the refugee internment camp at Guantanamo Bay. I believe 
that can be addressed in the 1996 defense and military construction 
bills. Those may not be decisions to be made in the appropriations 
process. They may be made by the Armed Services Committee in its 
deliberations and recommendations to the Senate and to the Congress as 
a whole.
  Finally, several amounts were proposed that were not justified as 
emergencies or were unrelated to the contingency operations in Cuba, 
Haiti, Bosnia, and Kuwait. Many of those also can and should be 
addressed through the normal reprogramming process of the Department. 
We, as a nation, face a crisis in military readiness because the 
administration spent money on contingency operations in excess of 
amounts provided by Congress.
  The 1995 defense appropriations bill included many increases in the 
budget for readiness, training, recruiting, and maintenance of 
facilities in military housing. These are the very priorities that were 
put at risk by the President's decision to engage in operations in 
Bosnia, Haiti, Kuwait, and Rwanda without approval and support of 
funding for those activities by the Congress. The President did not 
come to the Congress in advance of these deployments to seek funding or 
to propose offsets in existing authorizations.
  Instead, money provided by the Congress for training, logistic 
support, and personnel, were diverted to these accounts. This practice 
is in stark contrast to how the Congress and the White House approached 
the Persian Gulf war. As we proceed through our review of the 
Department's 1996 budget, I believe we must address the fiscal controls 
that permitted the administration to delete vital readiness accounts 
early in the year without the explicit consent of the Congress.
  As I said before, it is my understanding that that may come from the 
Armed Services Committee. I know that some of my colleagues, including 
my fellow Senator from Alaska and the distinguished chairman of the 
Foreign Relations Committee will offer amendments to tighten controls 
on DOD consultation with the Congress. Members of the committee 
discussed at length the issue of offsetting the new spending in this 
bill and the precedent set for emergencies.
  While the military requirements are urgent, they can be met by 
reductions to programs that Congress might have reduced if we had known 
the cost of the contingency operations to begin with.
  The current deficit crisis makes it necessary that the amounts in 
this bill be fully offset. That is the judgment of our committee. That 
presents the committee with only hard choices, especially when the 
choices have to be made this late in the year. That simply means that 
we would have a lot more flexibility in the beginning of the fiscal 
year to eliminate some accounts than we do now because many of the 
accounts have already been spent out to the point where it is not 
possible to include them in the readjustments made in this bill.
  In general, the recommendations before the committee reflect cuts in 
programs where spending can be controlled. Many of the programs we seek 
to reduce have merit, Mr. President, great merit. We have provided 
funding for these programs in the past and even in this current fiscal 
year.
  I want to tell the Senate that I am confident that Congress will 
revisit some of these in the 1996 bill. But at the present time we have 
no alternative to find some source to obtain the funds to put back into 
the training accounts so training can be continued. There is a 
timeframe involved. It must be done so the moneys are available no 
later than the end of April. We hope that they will be available by 
April 1.
  We have made reductions to the TRP account, environmental and defense 
conversion accounts. These reflect the availability of funds, and they 
reflect to a certain extent a change of direction for the programs, but 
basically it is because that is where the money is that has not been 
expended in this fiscal year. To the extent that any funds remain 
available for the TRP in the future, I believe they must be 
specifically directed and identified military priorities.
  The committee proposal strikes a fair balance to proceed to 
conference with the House, and I would urge Members of the Senate on 
both sides of the aisle and particularly on both sides of the TRP 
debate, to endorse the level that is in this bill because it is 
different from that in the House.
  I believe I was the originator of the Defense Environmental 
Restoration Program but I viewed with increasing alarm the steady 
increase in spending in that program with little to show for it. 
Despite the progress in that fund, the Department of Defense still 
spends only about 50 percent of the amounts in the environmental 
restoration account for cleanup activities. Almost 50 percent now goes 
for studies, plans, and legal fees. In comparison, when we build new 
facilities, the cost for those is about 6 to 7 percent. Only 6 to 7 
percent of the funding goes for design, planning and litigation in the 
planning and building of new facilities.
  Now, our cut does not impact any funds provided to meet environmental 
hazards at bases identified for closure in the 1988, 1991, and 1993 
BRAC rounds. 
 [[Page S3582]] Those funds are appropriated separately in the military 
construction bill and were not addressed by this bill.
  We do face another base closing round this year. I know that, 
recognizing that two Alaska bases are on the list to be closed: Adak 
naval station, and Fort Greely at Big Delta, AK. I am sensitive to the 
defense conversion and transition issues.
  Amounts provided in recent bills have gone well beyond the original 
goals, however, of those programs as they were established when the 
defense drawdown defense following the gulf wars.
  In particular, the cuts proposed by the committees address areas 
where the Congress has significantly earmarked funds for specific 
projects. While not canceling or terminating any one project, the 
Secretary will have to substantially scale back spending in this area. 
Again, that will have to be done because that is where the money is. If 
we have to find almost $2 billion in these accounts at this time, we 
have to find accounts where the remaining balance will justify taking 
some of the money out and still leaving the program operable for the 
remainder of the year. Spending to ease the impact of these defense 
cutbacks cannot come at the significant loss of immediate military 
readiness. However, I assure all interested Members that we want to 
work to ensure the highest priority programs continue to be adequately 
funded.
  Most of the program reductions proposed in the rescission package 
that we present to the Senate reflect fact-of-life program changes. For 
instance, the Department terminated the TSSAM missile leaving funds 
that were appropriated for that project available for rescission. We 
intend to continue to work with the Air Force to determine what may be 
the best estimate of amounts available to cut in this area in the 
conference.
  I also want to commend the efforts of Lt. Gen. Dick Hawley and Ms. 
Darlene Druyun for their efforts to expedite the termination process on 
the TSSAM missile system, and they are minimizing the cost of that 
termination to the taxpayers.
  Congress also funded six new AH-64 Apache helicopters for 1995 to 
assure no break in production as we move to the Longbow version of that 
aircraft. However, new foreign sales have developed, and the Army has 
indicated that those funds we appropriated for 1995 are not required 
for new aircraft procurement this year. In conference, we intend to 
look at Army proposals to shift some of the funding in that account to 
accelerate the Longbow Program.
  This committee also initiated the Arms Program to preserve the 
industrial base for ammunition production. The cut we have made 
reflects the amount to expire at the end of this year. The Army has not 
accounted in the 1996 budget for funds necessary to meet the ammunition 
stockpile and training requirements, and we will want to move some 
accounts around to assure we have the necessary amounts for the 1996 
bill.
  Finally, the committee has strongly supported the Department of 
Defense's efforts to procure unmanned aerial vehicles for battlefield 
surveillance and intelligence. The cut to this item reflects technical 
delays only in the program. I am personally, and I believe our 
committee is totally, committed to providing adequate funding for the 
program based on its readiness for production. When it is ready, we 
will provide a recommendation to the Senate that it be appropriately 
funded.
  In closing, I know some of the Senate will disagree with some of 
these rescissions. The options for offsets at this stage are very 
limited. I urged the Department of Defense to submit this supplemental 
as early as last December, but because of other considerations, the 
White House chose to withhold it until February. That delayed our 
ability to respond to the needs, as I have said, because the spending 
of other accounts continued and we now have limited flexibility as to 
where to get moneys from commencing about the first of May. We are 
dealing with a period between May and September 30 now. We could have 
been dealing with the period January 1 to September 30 if we had the 
request early in the year.
  Mr. President, the bottom line is we must get these funds to the 
military services as quickly as possible, as I said, by the end of this 
month if at all possible. That commitment must guide our work to 
complete this bill, I hope, today or early tomorrow at the latest.
  There are a series of impacts. I asked the Chief of Naval Operations, 
Admiral Boorda, to tell us what might happen to the Navy, for instance, 
if we do not get this money to the Navy in time. He has told me if he 
does not have the money in time, he faces the option of deferring all 
maintenance on small naval craft and tugs for the Atlantic fleet.
  He will have to reduce the maintenance on two aircraft carriers and 
will have to delay one submarine overhaul.
  He may have to delay maintenance on naval facilities worldwide.
  He has to stop flight training for two carrier air wings that are 
currently preparing for deployment. That is very dangerous, Mr. 
President. These people stay at home, fly a very low number of hours, 
and just before deployment they always get back and get their readiness 
up to very top performance. We have two aircraft carriers ready to go 
to sea. I talked about them this morning with some people in the 
Department. It makes no sense for us to delay aircraft carriers and not 
have our crews at the peak of their performance, as would be possible 
if these funds had not been diverted. They must be replaced as soon as 
possible.
  In addition, there are some other things that are going to happen if 
these funds are delayed even longer than we currently anticipate they 
could be:
  There are seven additional Atlantic fleet ship overhauls.
  There is a proposal to stop Naval Reserve flying for C-9 and P-3 
aircraft;
  To stop flight training for carrier squadrons returning from 
deployment. There, again, after they come back, the long steam coming 
back, before they are allowed to take some time off they again go 
through and try to bring their readiness up to peak so, if they are 
called back, they can continue to be ready. They do not get the type of 
training on deployment that they can get here at home when we have the 
electronic ranges that can be used and the kind of training that can be 
obtained as they prepare for deployment or return from deployment.
  Last but not least, we are down to the point where there will be no 
spare parts for the last 40 days of this year if these moneys are not 
put into the accounts and the spare parts made available.
  I remember the days, Mr. President, when we had vessels in Norfolk 
and other ports that could not leave port because they did not have 
spare parts. That just cannot happen at a time like this when we have 
reduced our forces and we are trying to maintain the readiness of the 
smaller force that we have.
  I certainly hope the Senate will listen to us and the Congress as a 
whole will act as rapidly as possible on this request for supplemental 
funds, to request those funds which were diverted from training 
accounts for the peacekeeping operations.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, may I begin by first commending my 
distinguished colleague from Oregon, the chairman of the full 
committee, Mr. Hatfield, and my dear friend from Alaska, the chairman 
of the subcommittee, Senator Stevens, for coming forth with this bill. 
Difficult decisions had to be made, and they made them. Difficult 
recommendations have to be made to the Senate, and these 
recommendations are now being presented.
  Together they have crafted a bill which balances the needs of the 
Department of Defense and our committee's desire not to increase the 
deficit. As the Senator from Alaska indicated, this bill provides $1.9 
billion in new appropriations requested by the Department of Defense to 
cover emergency expenses. However, it is some $600 million less than 
DOD wanted, but it provides a reasonable amount, considering the 
committee's goal of offsetting new appropriations with rescissions.
  But, Mr. President, I think I must inform my colleagues that I am 
concerned with the guidelines that govern the committee's efforts with 
this DOD supplemental, and I hope it will not be 
 [[Page S3583]] viewed as a precedent for future emergency 
supplementals.
  The Budget Enforcement Act requires that, in general, discretionary 
spending must be constrained to stay within ceilings established in the 
budget resolution. However, Mr. President, this agreement allows these 
ceilings to be breached if the President and the Congress agree that 
these funds are needed to meet emergency requirements. The President 
submitted his request for DOD funds as an emergency and the House 
agreed.
  The House recommended rescissions of $3.2 billion to offset the 
budget authority it added for DOD so as not to add to the long-term 
deficit.
  The Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill has gone one step 
further. This bill that we are discussing this moment has dispensed 
with the emergency designation for the DOD supplemental and, therefore, 
under Senate rules, the committee must offset both budget authority and 
outlays recommended in this bill.
  With this action, I hope that the Senate is not charting a new and 
hazardous course.
  The Defense Department does not budget for emergency expenses. On 
several occasions, the Congress has denied past administrations' 
requests to establish contingency accounts which could have been used 
for emergencies and crisis response. The Congress has recommended 
instead that DOD request supplementals to cover such emergency costs.
  It has always been anticipated that for expenses necessary to cover 
emergencies, funds would be added to the current budget, not 
reallocated from existing resources. In this bill, we are requiring DOD 
to use its existing resources to cover costs of emergencies. This is 
contrary to the intent of the budget agreement, and I hope that we are 
not making a mistake.
  I am told that the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff regard this recommendation with grave concern. I do not 
disagree with the specific rescission recommendations by the committee, 
though they were difficult to make, because I believe that under the 
circumstances, they are reasonable and they represent the best options 
for offsetting the budget authority and outlays contained in the 
supplemental.
  However, by rescinding these funds today, there will be few resources 
available to cover the so-called must-pay bills which we know the 
Pentagon will face later this year. The Defense Department has already 
identified nearly $800 million in must-pay bills. It expects this total 
unfunded requirement to reach about $1 billion.
  These must-pay bills are not considered emergencies under the terms 
of the budget agreement. Therefore, they will have to be paid from 
within available funding. And where is DOD to find these funds if 
Congress has already rescinded $1.9 billion?
  Mr. President, I am of the impression that all of us in this body, 
Democrats and Republicans, are supportive of the need to maintain the 
readiness of our military forces. By requiring that these unforeseen 
emergency expenses must be offset, the committee is virtually 
guaranteeing that when shortfalls occur in other areas of DOD funding, 
they will have to be made up by cutting readiness spending.
  Mr. President, I hope I am wrong, but this is a very serious matter. 
I am greatly concerned that in the future, the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs will object to the requests of our civilian leaders to use 
military forces overseas for crisis response and for emergencies 
because they believe it will be damaging to the overall readiness of 
the force. They may realize that if they must pay for these costs out 
of their own hide, they will have to cut readiness to do so.
  So I hope that all of us will think hard and long about the decision 
we are about to make today. I will be supporting this measure, and I do 
so with a clear conscience, and I will be very proud and happy to say 
publicly that I rely upon the judgment, the good judgment of my two 
dear friends from Oregon and Alaska.
  Mr. President, the chairman of this committee has drafted a good bill 
under the circumstances, and I look forward to working with him in 
conference on these issues.
  Mr. President, the chairman of the subcommittee brought up a matter 
which is dear to the hearts of some of my colleagues on this side of 
the aisle, the so-called TRP. It should be noted that the House by its 
action took out $500 million, and though there are many in this body 
who support the House action, the chairman of the committee and the 
chairman of the subcommittee took a courageous stand to say we will cut 
only $200 million.
  I know this is not the full amount, but I think under the 
circumstances it is an amount that we can live with, and so I hope that 
those who are considering proposing an amendment to restore the funds 
will think about this because I think the committee made the proper 
recommendation under the circumstances.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, as we debate the Defense supplemental 
appropriations bill, I want to ensure that my colleagues and the 
managers of the bill are aware of some of the underlying problems with 
the way this supplemental was crafted.
  First let me say the supplemental is necessary, and I intend to 
support the bill. The bill is designed to replace critical readiness 
and training funds which the services had to spend in the first half of 
this fiscal year for humanitarian and other so-called peace operations. 
If we do not replace those funds, military readiness will continue to 
decline. Combat readiness has declined too far already. The Nation 
cannot afford to let it erode further. It angers me that the 
administration has allowed readiness to suffer at all. Under these 
circumstances, it would be irresponsible to require the military 
departments to further curtail training and maintenance, and cause more 
degradation in combat readiness.
  While this supplemental is necessary, I was surprised to see that the 
Appropriations Committee chose to fully offset the costs of these peace 
operations, which were ill-conceived and not approved by the Congress, 
from within the fiscal year 1995 Defense budget. In others words, under 
this bill the Department of Defense must fund those operations totally 
within its existing budget.
  I have said over and over that the defense budget has been cut too 
much, too fast. I have strongly supported an increase to the 
President's budget request to bring fiscal year 1996 defense funding 
level with fiscal year 1995, adjusted for inflation. This supplemental, 
in effect, reduces funds available for defense in fiscal year 1995 by 
requiring these externally imposed operations to be absorbed within the 
current defense budget.
  This is a very complex and difficult issue. Fortunately the 
Appropriations Committee has offset these extra costs with programs 
which, for the most part, can be called nondefense items; or programs 
which the Defense Department could not execute in this fiscal year. By 
fully offsetting the supplemental appropriations, the deficit is not 
increased. In fact, title II actually reduces the deficit from domestic 
accounts.
  I am a strong supporter of removing nondefense items from the defense 
budget, and have long been a supporter of a balanced budget and 
reducing the deficit. However, I am concerned at the precedent we may 
be setting by finding all the offsets in the current defense budget.
  I do not support using our military forces as a global police force 
or social service agency, deploying them all over the world without the 
expressed approval of the Congress. We have reduced our Armed Forces 
and defense resources to dangerously low levels. Now it is questionable 
whether we can defend our vital interests in a conflict with one or 
more major regional powers. Consequently, I do not want the 
administration to regard approval of this supplemental appropriations 
bill as endorsement of their expanded peacekeeping activities abroad, 
nor of 
 [[Page S3584]] their plan to pay for these excursions with current 
defense funds.
  In closing, I reiterate my support for this Defense supplemental, but 
urge my friends on the Appropriations Committee to consider the method 
used in preparing this bill as a one time event, and not as a model for 
future supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense.
  I thank the Chair; I yield the floor.
                           Amendment No. 321

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate affirming the importance 
 of, and the need for, cost-shared partnerships between the Department 
  of Defense and the private sector to develop dual-use technologies)

  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, to the first amendment of the 
committee, I send a second-degree 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 New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself, 
     Mr. Nunn, and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 
     321:

       At the end of the amendment add the following:
       Sec. 110. It is the sense of the Senate that (1) cost-
     shared partnerships between the Department of Defense and the 
     private sector to develop dual-use technologies (technologies 
     that have applications both for defense and for commercial 
     markets, such as computers, electronics, advanced materials, 
     communications, and sensors) are increasingly important to 
     ensure efficient use of defense procurement resources, and 
     (2) such partnerships, including Sematech and the Technology 
     Reinvestment Project, need to become the norm for conducting 
     such applied research by the Department of Defense.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, let me very briefly describe the 
amendment and yield to my colleague, Senator Nunn, who wants to make a 
brief statement also. Then I will describe it in a little more depth 
for my colleagues.
  This amendment expresses the sense of the Senate--and that is all it 
is, a sense-of-the-Senate amendment--that cost-shared partnerships to 
develop dual-use technologies are important and increasingly important 
to ensure the efficient use of our defense resources. It specifies that 
these partnerships, including the technology reinvestment project, need 
to become the norm for conducting much of our applied research in the 
Pentagon.
  This language came out of the work of two different task forces, the 
Democratic task force back in 1992, which Senator Pryor chaired, and 
the Republican task force which Senator Rudman chaired. Members of this 
body who were part of that Rudman task force include, of course, 
Senator Stevens, Senator Lugar, Senator Cohen, Senator Hatch, Senator 
Domenici, Senator McCain, Senator Lott, Senator Warner, and there were 
others as well. Out of the work of the two task force groups we 
developed a bipartisan consensus which began during the Bush Presidency 
and has continued through the Clinton Presidency that this way of 
funding for defense purposes was an important effort to pursue.
  I believe this amendment helps to reaffirm that principle, and for 
that reason I offer the amendment. As I pointed out, it is a sense of 
the Senate. It does not try to change the dollar figures as they come 
out of the supplemental agreement.
  I want to compliment the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from 
Hawaii in the work they have done in the subcommittee to try to do what 
they could to ensure that this important program, the technology 
reinvestment project, continue, and also to find the funds necessary to 
meet the needs of our Department of Defense at this crucial time.
  I will explain the amendment in some more detail in a moment. I would 
like at this point to yield the floor and allow the Senator from 
Georgia to go ahead and speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by my colleague from New Mexico. I appreciate the pressures on the 
Appropriations Committee. The Senator from Hawaii and the Senator from 
Alaska have done a commendable job in trying to handle this 
supplemental under very difficult circumstances.
  I share the sentiments expressed by the Senator from South Carolina 
about the overall supplemental. I hope it is viewed as a one-shot 
proposition, because if we are sending a signal to the Department of 
Defense that any time there is an emergency that comes up and they come 
over and request supplemental funds that they are going to have to have 
100 percent offset, then we are going to change the nature of the 
responsiveness of the Department of Defense itself to the missions that 
may, indeed, be crucial to our Nation's security.
  One mission comes to mind on a hopefully hypothetical basis, but it 
could become a reality. We may get into a situation, even in the next 
30 or 45 days in Croatia, where the United Nations is ordered to get 
out of Croatia. There is no doubt that this evacuation could 
precipitate more fighting in Bosnia, and could even require rescue 
missions to get U.N. personnel who are in harm's way in Bosnia out of 
that war-stricken area.
  And if the Department of Defense is told that anything they do in 
that kind of rescue mission with NATO and with the United Nations is 
going to have to be a 100 percent offset, and they are going to have to 
basically kill or substantially alter crucial defense programs in order 
to absorb that, then that is going to be a very strong signal that the 
United States is not going to be as involved as we have been in world 
affairs, including commitments to our allies and commitments that we 
have voted for at the U.N. Security Council.
  So this complete offset sounds good in speeches but it has very 
serious implications for the Department of Defense. Make no mistake 
about it, this complete offset policy means the long-term readiness of 
the Department of Defense is going to go down. It does not mean that 
the immediate readiness is going down because that can be protected. 
But future readiness requires modernization, it requires research and 
development, and those are the programs being cut by this complete 
offset policy. So 5, 6, 7 years from now, people will have a very 
serious problem with readiness if we continue to declare there is no 
emergency even when our forces are responding to the unanticipated 
events that we all know will take place in the world from time to time.
  I hope this is not viewed as precedent. As my friend, the chairman of 
the committee, the Senator from South Carolina, said: If this is a 
precedent, we are going to have some serious problems.
  I know the Department of Defense worked with the Senator from Alaska 
and the Senator from Hawaii in identifying offsets. I know they are 
still concerned about certain programs, such as the program Senator 
Bingaman is discussing, the technology reinvestment program, which is 
one of the programs that is being severely impacted by this 
supplemental.
  Also, environmental cleanup is being impacted severely under this 
bill. And that environmental cleanup is not only something that has to 
be done in base closures, but we have solemn commitments to Governors 
in a number of States that we are going to carry that out. And as we 
cut back on these environmental impact funds in the Department of 
Defense, make no mistake about it, there are going to be lawsuits 
involved, litigation involved, contractual obligations that are going 
to have to be breached. I do not say that all of that is going to flow 
from this bill. But it is going to flow if we continue to have to take 
these kinds of actions.
  So I understand the Senator from Alaska has worked very hard on this, 
as has the Senator from Hawaii, who has put up a warning light about 
the direction that this bill takes us in. I hope that not only the 
Appropriations Committee--because they are carrying out, I have no 
doubt, the will of the majority here--but I hope the majority itself 
will think about the implications for defense. Because one of the 
things in the Contract With America, and in other commitments made by 
those on both sides in running for office, was a strong national 
defense and protecting readiness. The problem is, Madam President, 
readiness is being defined as just the next year or two, when readiness 
has to be defined over the next 5 to 10 years. And readiness, by that 
definition, includes research and development and includes procurement. 
And 
 [[Page S3585]] without the kind of long-term commitment to research 
and development and to procurement, we simply will not have modern and 
ready forces 5 years from now or 10 years from now.
  So I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from 
New Mexico. I support the TRP Program as one of those crucial programs 
for future military readiness for several reasons. First, it is our 
bridge to the future for the technology needs of the Department of 
Defense. We all know how difficult it has become to fund the technology 
programs we know we will need for the forces that will be in the field 
10 years from now and 15 years from now. We are having to depend more 
and more on research conducted by the civil sector of our economy.
  For a long time the research and development flowed from defense to 
the civil sector. That is still true in some cases, but increasingly a 
larger and larger percent of our crucial defense technology is flowing 
from the civilian commercial sector to the Department of Defense. The 
Defense Department can no longer afford to be the leading edge of every 
technology. TRP gives us access to those dual-use research projects 
that will benefit both the defense and the commercial sectors.
  Second, because the research is dual-use, it is cost shared. Industry 
is paying the bulk of the cost in most of the TRP projects. This means 
that for every dollar we put in the TRP program we get from $2 to $10 
of research that helps our defense efforts from the private sector. So 
this is leveraged money. We get a lot more back from the private sector 
than the Federal dollars we put in.
  Third, the TRP program is competitive. It is not in any way pork. It 
is based on merit and on competitive selection. The research goes to 
those institutions that propose the most important research projects 
and who propose the best cost-sharing arrangements. This is how we 
assure ourselves that the work is important. Industry would not put 
their money or time on the line if they did not think the research 
would pay off for them and for the Nation.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the Bingaman amendment, which does 
not, as I understand it, shift funds but which expresses the strong 
sentiment of the Senate on these programs.
  I urge my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens 
and Senator Inouye, to do the best they can in conference to hold the 
Senate mark and not to cut below the Senate mark, which is already 
going to take this program to a point of some jeopardy.
  So I thank the Senator for his leadership. This has been a subject 
that he has led in the Senate Armed Services Committee and in the 
Senate and in the Congress. In my view, the Senator from New Mexico has 
done a great deal of meritorious work for our long-range national 
security by taking the lead on this program. So I thank him for his 
leadership, and I thank him for yielding.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Nunn of Georgia, 
the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, who was the 
chairman of the committee at the time that we began these programs 
several years ago while President Bush was in the White House.
  Let me just go through a few statements to indicate the broad range 
of support for the general principle that I am talking about here.
  First, let me cite from the report of the task force that former 
Senator Rudman chaired, a Senate Republican Task Force on Adjusting the 
Defense Base. The report was published in June 1992. It was a report 
which was well received. Senator Pryor championed and chaired a similar 
group on the Democratic side. Let me just cite a few sentences from the 
report of the Rudman committee.

       The task force believes that increased funds should be 
     devoted to the development of so-called dual-use 
     technologies--that is, technologies that have application 
     both for defense and commercial markets--by entering into 
     partnerships with the private sector. Dual-use technologies 
     will be increasingly important to ensure efficient use of 
     defense procurement resources, and advances in this area will 
     have the added benefit of strengthening the U.S. commercial 
     sector. In order for these projects to be effective, there 
     should be a requirement that half of the funding be provided 
     by non-federal participants.

  I also want to cite a statement issued by the White House in 
September 1992. This was, of course, while President Bush was in the 
White House. This was, I believe, a statement that that administration 
and that President felt strongly that these were worthwhile activities. 
On the 15th of September the statement was issued by the President's 
Press Office.

       The President today transmitted to the Congress budget 
     amendments for the Department of Defense that would 
     reallocate $250 million of the Department's fiscal year 1993 
     request to defense advanced technology programs. The 
     reallocated funds would be used in the areas of 
     communications, high performance computers, small satellites, 
     sensors to identify environmental contamination and 
     manufacturing technology. These areas are essential to 
     national security, and also have dual-use civilian 
     applications. The funds for these advanced technology 
     programs would be reallocated from lower priority defense 
     programs.

  Madam President, the views that were expressed in 1992, both by the 
group of Senators who participated in the Rudman task force and by the 
White House under President Bush, were echoed very recently in a 
hearing we had before the Armed Services Committee where I asked, 
first, General Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
what his view was on the value of these types of programs and where 
they fit in the priorities of the administration today.
  He said, and let me quote his response to my question.

       Senator Bingaman, I am first of all extraordinarily 
     enthused about the possibilities that exist out there for us 
     to take a major step forward and a major step forward in 
     comparison to all of our potential adversaries in this area 
     that you described, dominant battlefield awareness. Through 
     our advances in microelectronics, satellite technology and 
     what not, we have the ability to see and be aware of what is 
     going on on the battlefield to a degree that will literally, 
     I believe, revolutionize warfare. So this is not just making 
     sure that we have the next best tank or the next best 
     destroyer. This is an effort to really take a major step 
     forward.
       Now, much of the technology for that, we believe, probably 
     already exists out there in the commercial world, and 
     certainly those companies like AT&T, and others that are 
     working on projects, where these same pieces are necessary 
     commercially, that we need to be aware of it, capture it, 
     integrate it into the work that we do so that we not only 
     capture the very best that is out there, but do not spend 
     taxpayers' money trying to reinvent the wheel in our own 
     laboratories.

  Let me cite one other authority in this field, Madam President. This 
comes from sometime further back in our history. The year is 1946. We 
have a memo from the Chief of Staff of the Department of the War. He 
says in that memo. This is, of course, following the Second World War.

       The Armed Forces could not have won the war alone. 
     Scientists and businessmen contributed techniques and weapons 
     which enabled us to outwit and overwhelm the enemy. Their 
     understanding of the army's needs made possible the highest 
     degree of cooperation. This pattern of integration must be 
     translated into a peacetime counterpart which will not merely 
     familiarize the Army with the progress made in science and 
     industry but draw into our planning for national security all 
     the civilian resources which can contribute to the defense of 
     the country.

  That is a statement, of course, from General Eisenhower shortly after 
the Second World War. So the concept that we are arguing for here--
integration of our military and commercial technology bases--the 
importance of this principle, I think has been recognized for a long 
time.
  The superpower, in a defense sense, the superpower in the 21st 
century will be that nation that best leverages its national technology 
and industrial base to achieve critical defense goals. Dominant 
battlefield awareness is one of those recognized goals of our Defense 
Department today, and clearly emphasis on these dual-use technologies 
is important for us to achieve that dominant battlefield awareness. 
That is the view of General Shalikashvili.
  DOD-industry partnerships have been successful. Our $700 million 
investment in SEMATECH over the past 8 years, which has been matched by 
industry, has been an enormously more productive investment than some 
of our earlier investments in defense-specific semiconductor research.
  Secretary Perry also has come out very strongly in support of this. 
Let 
 [[Page S3586]] me just cite a quotation from him before I conclude, 
Madam President, because he spoke well the other day about the 
importance of these programs. I asked him where these stood in his list 
of priorities, and he said, and I quote:

       I consider it [the Technology Reinvestment Project] one of 
     our highest priority programs. I hope I have the opportunity 
     with the Congress to defend--to vigorously defend--the 
     importance of this program. I think some of the moves to 
     rescind it and criticize it are made from some confusion as 
     to what the program is. It is being confused with some of the 
     technology earmark programs which have been added by Congress 
     in past years. I would remind all of this committee--

  That was the Armed Services Committee.

     that all TRP programs are competitive. Indeed, they are 
     highly competitive. There are many--indeed, sometimes dozens 
     of--companies submitting proposals on them. So we get the 
     best out of many different proposals. And secondly, all of 
     them are funded 50 percent by industry; at least 50 percent 
     by industry. So they are very highly leveraged. We get quite 
     a good benefit from this. We depend in the future on being 
     able to integrate our defense technology base into the 
     national technology base and this TRP program is an absolute 
     key to doing that, and any individual TRP program is a good 
     deal in and of itself.

  Madam President, that sums up the case. I think the procedural 
situation we find ourselves in has been alluded to before. Let me just 
reiterate it. We have a proposal from the House of Representatives 
which would rescind the $502 million in the TRP; the entire amount.
  The appropriators here on the Senate side have concluded that they 
have to, because of the other pressing needs of the Defense Department, 
rescind $200 million. Quite frankly, that is a very, very major cut in 
this program which I think will undoubtedly do damage to the program. 
But I am willing to defer to their judgment. I am willing to do as all 
of us will have to do in the coming months; that is, tighten our belts 
to deal with our budgetary problems. I am willing to take their 
commitment that they will go to conference and fight as best they can 
to maintain the Senate position and keep this program alive and 
healthy.
  This is a very high priority for our Department of Defense. I believe 
it is a high bipartisan priority for many here in the Congress.
  Madam President, before I conclude and sit down, let me just 
indicate, as cosponsors on the amendment that I have sent to the desk, 
I want to list Senators Nunn, Lieberman, Rockefeller, and Bob Kerrey 
from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I wish to commend my distinguished 
colleague from New Mexico for his extraordinary leadership in guiding 
the TRP policy and program throughout all of these years.
  I wish to, at this time, provide to my friend from New Mexico my 
personal assurance that everything possible will be done to maintain 
the Senate position on this matter. Thank you very much.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I do not intend to oppose what the 
managers seek. This is a voice vote on this amendment, primarily 
because it is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
  I will have a lot of remarks to make about the TRP program and about 
where it should be in the priority list of the needs of the American 
defense establishment. My amendment that will be forthcoming will 
address the TRP. I will save my remarks for that eventuality, which I 
hope will take place as soon as this amendment is disposed of.
  Let me just say that there are a lot of nice-to-have things that we 
should use our defense funds for. There are a lot of very necessary and 
vital things and missions and purposes that are not being fulfilled 
now. I do not rank TRP as one of those that is vital. I view it as one 
that is nice to have.
  I have very serious question about the criteria that are used and, 
indeed, many of the funding of specific projects, which I will name 
when I get into my amendment.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I want to set the stage for 
consideration of this amendment. The House proposed rescission of $502 
million in what is known as this Technology Reinvestment Program [TRP]. 
TRP will be in conference, in other words.
  Our committee responded to the Department of Defense's appeals to the 
Senate to support the TRP program. To date, the Department has received 
3,000 proposals for TRP, and selected only 251 for funding. It is an 
extremely competitive process which has produced about an 8.5-percent 
success rate. That is unfortunate.
  The Senate recommendation allows the Advanced Research Projects 
Agency [ARPA], the agency of the Defense Department that has 
jurisdiction over this program, to continue the ongoing TRP projects. 
We have provided enough funds to begin new projects and to continue, as 
I said, the ongoing projects. The new projects will focus on areas 
selected by the military services themselves.
  This is a mandate promoted by our committee and approved by Congress. 
The Senate's proposed rescission will reinforce Congress' requirement 
that we mean to assure that defense needs are the dominant element in 
each TRP project and will eliminate funds for projects that do not have 
defense relevance.
  Indeed, the Congress took specific legislative steps to ensure this 
greater service role in the TRP effort.
  First, Congress mandated that the Assistant Secretaries for Research, 
Development, and Acquisition for each of the military services be made 
full members of the council which approves all TRP projects.
  Second, the Congress directed that $75 million in fiscal year 1995 
TRP funds were to be available only for projects selected in areas of 
interest designated exclusively by the military service acquisition 
executives.
  Every TRP project includes at least 50 percent cost share from the 
teams performing the work. Thus, the Pentagon is able to get twice as 
much or more for each Federal dollar invested in these programs.
  While a lower level of investment in TRP is in order as we search for 
funds necessary to restore the readiness, as I mentioned before, we do 
not believe we should terminate this program.
  I also think it is noteworthy, Madam President, that the sense-of-
the-Senate resolution here mentioned Sematech. Sematech is a consortium 
of major U.S. chip manufacturing firms. Sematech has achieved a number 
of things. However, the consortium has received substantial Federal 
funding for 3 years more than was originally planned.
  Sematech demonstrates that we must set firm, clear objectives for 
these projects and limit the efforts to a definite, finite duration. 
These efforts cannot become entitlements which annually drain the DOD's 
limited budget dollars.
  I do not want to leave the impression that these projects have not 
been successful. I have a list here of the projects which we feel do 
contribute to Department of Defense needs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that list be printed in 
the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          A List of TRP Projects Which Contribute to DOD Needs

       Affordable Composites for Propulsion (Value--$25.0 million, 
     Prime--Pratt & Whitney, West Palm Beach, Florida).
       Precision Laser Machine (Value--$33.8 million, Prime--TRW, 
     Redondo Beach, California).
       Uncooled Low Cost Infrared (IR) Sensors Technology 
     Reinvestment Alliance (ULTRA) (Value--$9.2 million, Prime--
     Inframetrics Inc., North Billerica, Massachusetts).
       Trauma Care Information Management System (Value--$15.1 
     million, Prime--Rockwell International Corporation, 
     Richardson, Texas).
       Digital X-Ray system for Trauma and Battlefield 
     Applications (Value--$6.1 million; Prime--General Electric 
     Corporate Research & Development, Schenectady, New York).
       Next Generation High Resolution & Color Thin Film 
     Electroluminescence (TFEL) Displays (Value--$29.2 million, 
     Prime--Planar Systems, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon).
       [[Page S3587]] Developing Speech Recognition for Future 
     DSP's in Hand Held Computers (Value--$3.0 million; Prime--
     Dragon Systems, Inc., Newton, Massachusetts).
       Development of Monolithic Motion-Detecting Components Made 
     with MEMS Technology (Value--$7.6 million; Prime--Analog 
     Devices, Inc., Wilmington, Massachusetts).
       Wearable Computer Systems with Transparent, Headmounted 
     Displays for Manufacturing, Maintenance, and Training 
     Applications (Value--$5.1 million; Prime--Boeing Computer 
     Services, Bellevue, Washington).
       Object Technology for Rapid Software Development and 
     Delivery (Value--$24.5 million; Prime--Anderson Consulting, 
     Chicago, Illinois).
       Portable Shipbuilding Robotics (Value--$12.5 million; 
     Prime--CYBO Robots, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana).

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise today in support of the 
amendment offered by my colleague from New Mexico. I would also like to 
commend my colleague for his strong leadership on this issue.
  At a time when we must be very prudent in allocating our resources, 
dual use defense programs, like TRP and Sematech can prove to be a good 
investment. These programs enable the Department of Defense to 
competitively leverage Federal dollars with private sector matching 
funds to better meet our defense--and domestic--needs.
  If we are serious about balancing the budget and getting our fiscal 
house in order, then we are going to need to find additional savings in 
all areas of the Federal budget, including the defense budget. As the 
defense budget declines, it will become cost prohibitive for the 
Department of Defense to sustain a separate defense industrial base, 
which in many cases might very well be duplicative. Programs like TRP 
and Sematech capitalize on presently available new commercial 
technologies to meet military needs. In an era of limited resources, 
these programs enable us to make better use of the funds that are 
available.
  The TRP has come under some scrutiny for ineffective management of 
late. And I would agree that, like most every other program in the 
Federal Government, TRP could be managed more efficiently. But that is 
not a reason to cut funding for what is on the whole a good program.
  Dual-use programs, like TRP and Sematech, allow the Department of 
Defense to maximize its research and development dollars. For its part, 
the Department of Defense gets technologies which are critical to our 
Nation's military needs. While the companies, on the other hand, get 
technology which will enable them to compete more effectively in the 
global marketplace.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, if there is no further comment, I ask 
for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 321) was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Kennedy be added as a cosponsor of the previous amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                        Privileges of the Floor

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Joseph 
Fengler and Mr. Sujata Millick be permitted privileges of the floor 
during consideration of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 322

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 322.

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

       On page 21, line 9, strike out ``$300,000,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$150,000,000''.
       On page 22, line 15, strike out ``$351,000,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$653,000,000''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, this amendment would restore half, $150 
million, of the committee-recommended cut in defense environmental 
restoration account, and the amendment would offset this spending with 
recision of an additional $302 million in the Technology Reinvestment 
Program known as TRP.
  The net effect of the amendment is to reduce defense budget authority 
by $152 million and outlays by $110 million in fiscal year 1995, which 
could be credited to deficit reduction.
  Madam President, first of all, in the past several years, as we all 
know, the Department of Defense has experienced significant increases 
in the cost of environmental cleanup, as have most public and private 
industries. All we have to do is look at the Superfund and know of the 
enormous challenges that face this country in the area of environmental 
cleanup.
  Because of these costs, I think the reduction of $300 million in 
defense environmental restoration is too severe a reduction. In 
addition, my colleagues should be aware that the account which is being 
cut will be the source of funding to clean up at bases recommended for 
closure in the 1995 round, at least until the 1996 appropriation of 
BRAC cleanup is approved. Cutting this account could therefore have an 
effect on the cleanup of bases that are being closed.
  Finally, Madam President, State and local governments have the 
ability under the law to enforce stricter standards for cleanup than 
Federal law requires. State and local governments also have the ability 
to levy fines and penalties against the Department of Defense if it 
fails to comply with these standards. If too much is cut from this 
account, then the Department of Defense may find itself using 
environmental restoration funds to pay fines and litigate court cases 
arising from noncompliance with State and local laws. That does not 
seem to be an efficient use of these limited dollars.
  Madam President, the fact is that when we close a base or even if we 
have an open base and there is an environmental problem on those bases, 
I think our obligation is clear. Our obligation is clear that we clean 
up that base. Clearly, it is a very expensive proposition. And there is 
no doubt that if we cut these funds, somewhere there will be military 
installations that are environmentally unsafe.
  I do not see how we get around that obligation. I do not see how we 
can just cut money for environmental cleanup and ignore the very severe 
situations that exist today. There is a base in my own home State. It 
will be many years before the environmental cleanup is completed. The 
estimate of the cost of that cleanup, by the way, has increased by a 
factor of 10 since the base was recommended to be closed just 3 years 
ago.
  So, I do not really understand how we rationalize a reduction in 
environmental cleanup funds. I do not think my record indicates that I 
am some kind of a wild-eyed environmentalist, to say the least. But I 
do not see how we cannot fulfill the obligation that we have to the 
taxpayers of America, and that is to clean up defense installations 
which reside in their States and their communities that are in need of 
environmental cleanup.
  Let me talk a little bit about the TRP, which is obviously a very 
attractive program to many. It is the Technology Reinvestment Program. 
First of all, the selection criteria which I quote from the ARPA 
program information package for the Technology Reinvestment Program for 
the 1995 competition states that the criteria should be for technology 
development competition only incorporating all statutory selection 
criteria for the three statutory programs under which the competition 
is being conducted. They should be defense relevant. Results of future 
commercialization of product or of the process are as follows: critical 
defense technology is preserved; a defense capability is more 
affordable; or--and I emphasize ``or''--a significant improvement in 
house safety or environment, especially in manufacturing, is 
accomplished.
  Madam President, that ``or'' seems to be the operative clause here. 
Otherwise, I do not see how in the world we would approve of the San 
Francisco 
 [[Page S3588]] Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority receiving $39 million 
for a 2-year effort to demonstrate a precision location system for 
trains in tunnels. I do not see how that is a critical defense 
technology being preserved or a defense capability being more 
affordable.
  And, $6.9 million was awarded to a consortium of businesses and 
government entities based in the Southeastern United States to assist 
small businesses and in developing pollution prevention and 
environmentally safe industrial processes; $15.8 million was awarded to 
demonstrate the feasibility of establishing online linkage of medical 
data bases among medical centers in hospitals across the United States; 
$7.6 million was shelled out for a project designed to develop highly 
efficient power electronic building blocks to convert, control, and 
condition electricity to meet U.S. commercial electrical requirements.
  Madam President, in my view, it would take a great leap of the 
imagination to view those as a critical defense technology being 
preserved or defense capability being more affordable. It probably 
meets a significant improvement in health safety or environment, or it 
could be construed as such.
  The fact is that the TRP is probably a very nice thing to have. Last 
year, in the fiscal year 1995 National Defense Act, I sponsored 
legislation to require the GAO to independently assess the TRP awards 
in the context of the objectives specified in law.
  Although the review is not yet complete, GAO's tentative findings 
show that TRP awards were generally not driven by the military 
criteria. In fact, GAO found that the panel members who reviewed 
proposals submitted to DOD for TRP awards were not even briefed on the 
legislative objectives of the program. Thus, a national security 
criteria was generally accorded lesser rank weight in the 
decisionmaking process. The final report of the GAO will be available 
in May.
  We have already spent $1.4 billion for the TRP program in the past 3 
years, in my view, with little to show for it in the way of militarily 
useful technologies. As a result, I think the action of the House 
Appropriations subcommittee recommended rescission of most of the 1995 
funds for this program, in my view, should be the same.
  Let me talk about priorities a second. This is $302 million that 
would be earmarked for this particular program, appropriated for this 
particular program.
  Today on the front page of the Washington Post:

       Fort Bragg, NC--After decades of neglect, U.S. military 
     housing has so deteriorated that Pentagon leaders say it is 
     discouraging soldiers from reenlisting and thereby 
     handicapping the military's readiness.
       Many barracks and family apartments, built soon after World 
     War II, are cramped and suffer from peeling lead-based paint, 
     hazardous asbestos, cracked foundations, corroded pipes or 
     faulty heating and cooling systems.
       More than half the family housing is rated inadequate, and 
     Defense Secretary William J. Perry cites the poor condition 
     of military housing as the number one complaint he hears from 
     soldiers on visits to bases.
       But at a time of shrinking budgets, Pentagon officials have 
     come up with only some token extra millions of dollars to 
     throw at a problem requiring billions--

  I repeat--

     requiring billions to fix.

  Madam President, last year, the administration sent over a request 
that did not include the pay raise for the men and women in the 
military. There are hints we now have--the quaint phrase--
``congressionally mandated pay raises.'' Congressionally mandated pay 
raises. That is interesting, because the fact is the pay raises for the 
men and women in the military to keep up with the cost-of-living should 
not be congressionally mandated. They should be requested by the 
administration, which I am happy to see that they are doing with this 
year's 1996 budget. But for 2 years, there was no request for pay 
raises for the military.
  I do not know how we justify this kind of spending when we have 
inadequate housing, when we have men and women in the military who are 
spending incredible times away from home, when we are cutting back on 
flying hours, steaming hours and training hours, when any objective 
observer has agreed that we need to improve the readiness, and that 
readiness is beginning to suffer rather significantly, and yet we have 
already spent $1.4 billion, and are now spending an additional $150 
million.
  I also want to return for a minute to the issue of environmental 
cleanup. Unless a base is environmentally clean, or substantially so, a 
base cannot be turned over to the local authorities, or whoever is 
involved in the negotiations for the use of that base. We know what 
happens to the costs of environmental cleanup. And now for us to cut 
the funding for environmental cleanup, in my view, would be a very, 
very serious mistake.
  I want to say that Sematech is a successful endeavor. Sematech, I 
believe, has been a wise investment of America's tax dollars, and I 
also think it is well to point out that 1996 will be the last year that 
Sematech requires Government appropriations, which is exactly the way 
it was designed and is exactly the way that these things should be 
accomplished.
  But I suggest that in this era of very tough priorities--in testimony 
before the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning from the 
Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations also making 
clear that their priorities, if there was any additional money, would 
go to additional aircraft, additional ships, additional pay and 
benefits for the men and women in the military. Nowhere--nowhere--do I 
hear any member of the uniformed military even knows what TRP is much 
less believe that it is a national priority.
  So, Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, there is a great deal of what the 
Senator from Arizona said with which I agree, but I think that he has 
overlooked the task that we had. We had the task of finding almost $2 
billion, and we are five-twelfths through the year in terms of the 
moneys with which we are dealing. As a practical matter, the largest 
account that is unspent is, in fact, that which is entitled 
``environmental funding.''
  It is a little bit more than $5.5 billion, and we are affecting by 
the recommendations we have made here less than 6 percent of the total 
funding for the environmental accounts. Other items that we are dealing 
with, particularly in terms of the TRP funds, represent a great deal 
more of the account.
  Let me just say this: If I had a way now to put the money that is in 
either account into the military construction bill, I would do that. In 
the last year, at my request, we added--and that was one of those 
infamous congressional add-ons to the budget--$81 million for 
additional military housing. I wish we could get a greater interest in 
upgrading this housing, and I think that the story on the front page of 
the Post is very accurate.
  But the problem really is that if we look at the environmental 
account, which we did in great detail, we are looking at a project 
where they still plan to spend $810 million in this fiscal year on 
studies of these environmental restoration sites. We have eliminated a 
substantial portion of those studies. That is what our cut does.
  We have urged that the Department proceed now and not spend so much 
money studying these projects and instead do them. They are not that 
large and they mostly can be done without these enormous nationwide 
studies. They just seem to be enveloped in studies.
  We will have reduced the budget request by $700 million through this 
rescission, and it is primarily aimed at that study account. If we look 
at this account, as I have said, DOD has spent almost 60 percent of all 
of the cleanup funds we have made available so far on studies. We think 
that at a time of emergencies such as this is, it is time to reallocate 
funds. Again, we are not increasing funds for either the TRP, that is 
the Technology Reinvestment Program, or the environmental restoration 
account. We are decreasing both. So we are talking about where to cut 
more.
  If we look at the amount of money available, there is a great deal 
more money available in the environmental 
 [[Page S3589]] restoration account, mainly because it is reserved for 
studies which can be conducted next year, if necessary. If they are 
necessary, we can appropriate money for them in 1996. But right now, 
there are other projects which are ongoing in the Technology 
Reinvestment Program. I already put the list in the Record.
  There is an affordable composites for propulsion project in Florida.
  There is a precision laser machine project in California, Redondo 
Beach.
  There is an uncooled low-cost infrared sensor technology reinvestment 
program in Massachusetts.
  There is a trauma care information management system in Richardson, 
TX.
  There is a digital x-ray system for trauma and battlefield 
applications in Schenectady, NY.
  There is a next generation high resolution thin film 
electroluminescent, what we call a TFEL display, again, with a military 
impact, in Beaverton, OR.
  There is a speech recognition by digital signal processors for hand-
held computers, again, defense impact in Newton, MA.
  There is a monolithic motion detecting components technology with 
microelectrical mechanical systems, again it is in Massachusetts.
  There is one in Bellevue, WA, wearable computer systems with a 
transparent head mounted display for, basically, computer services in 
aircraft.
  They are all very high-tech and, as far as we can see, they ought to 
be continued. We have provided enough money so that we do not have to 
reduce any of the ongoing projects.
  Unfortunately, the amendment of the Senator from Arizona will do 
that. It will reduce the funds that are available for ongoing projects. 
It will increase the reduction in the program of the technology 
reinvestment area, that I just mentioned, by $302 million.
  It restores a portion of the money to the environmental restoration 
account, money that is really not needed this year. It is there. It is 
available. It has been appropriated. As a matter of fact, in recent 
years, there has been a substantial carryover in that account. I urge 
the Senate to take the recommendation of the committee. It was reached 
after substantial consultation with both the military services and the 
civilian people in the Department of Defense. It is a level which no 
one likes to see reached. The moneys are being reduced for both 
accounts. But I tell the Senate, if we are going to find $2 billion and 
do the least harm to ongoing projects that have already been approved, 
we should take from the money that is in this enormous account of 
almost $6 billion and take it from the area of the planned studies. No 
ongoing cleanup project should be harmed.
  Incidentally, as I indicated in the beginning of my statement, the 
moneys for base closure environmental studies are already there. We 
have not touched them at all. The real emergency areas where we are 
having to do specific environmental projects, in the process of 
carrying out the base closure process, have not been at all affected by 
the recommendations that we have made from the committee.
  I urge the Senate to realize that we had before us a rescission from 
the Technology Reinvestment Program from the House. This will be a 
conference issue. Both the House and the Senate proposed to reduce that 
fund but not by the same amount.
  When we look at the ongoing projects under the Technology 
Reinvestment Program in which we have already invested some taxpayers' 
money, if we are going to use the money efficiently, we should provide 
enough to carry out those projects, and that is what we have done. That 
basically is all we have done.
  So I do hope that we can keep the TRP funding at the level we have 
indicated. I do believe the House may insist on changing it somewhat. 
As a matter of fact, the House is probably going to insist on changing 
several of the items where we have made changes in their 
recommendations. But we made an extensive study of this, and I 
personally had several meetings with the Deputy Secretary of Defense, 
Dr. Deutch, because of his personal interest in the subject matter and 
in the concept of technology. We have kept the cut but not at the level 
suggested by the Senator from Arizona.
  I urge the Senate to keep the recommendations of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee. They were reached after, as I said, 
substantial consultation with those involved in the projects.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I wish to speak briefly to support the 
statements the Senator from Alaska has made and the position the 
Appropriations Committee has come to the floor with in this area.
  As I think the Senator from Arizona pointed out, his amendment would 
do two things, two very different things. It would, first of all, cut 
and eliminate the technology reinvestment project by rescinding all of 
the funds in that program, which I think would be a very misguided 
action by this Congress.
  Second, it would restore some of those funds to the environmental 
cleanup activity. The Senator from Arizona pointed out that he himself 
has not been known as a wild-eyed environmentalist. I think that was 
the phrase he used. I certainly think there is some truth to that.
  Earlier, after this last election, on December 5, 1994, he and 
Senator Warner sent a letter to President Clinton urging that much of 
the funding be dropped in the defense budget and specific programs be 
eliminated, and in that list of programs he sent to the President he 
himself proposed that DOD and DOE defense environmental programs be 
reduced by $930 million in fiscal year 1995.
  The proposal of the subcommittee is to reduce them by $400 million 
total, and I think that is a much more reasonable level of funding in 
those areas.
  Let me also talk a moment about the TRP. I think the Senator from 
Alaska did a good job of pointing out that there are many useful 
defense-related programs going forward with TRP funding.
  Let me just cite a couple of them. One of the programs is the 
multichip module program. The breakthrough in the 1960's was the 
microchip where many, many transistors could be put on one small piece 
of silicon to dramatically reduce the size, weight, and cost of 
electronics. The military was the first user of microelectronics and 
this was the technology that made the ICBM and all later advanced 
weapons possible. Of course, now the commercial demand for this 
technology dwarfs the military market. But that does not diminish its 
importance to the Defense Department.
  The breakthrough of the 1990's is the multichip module technology 
where many, many chips are put on one common substrate to dramatically 
increase once again military system performance and lower their costs. 
TRP is meeting this challenge by cost sharing an effort with the 
consortium that brings together the emerging participants in this new 
industry in an effort to lower equipment manufacturing costs by making 
all needed technology advances simultaneously. Members include GM 
Hughes Electronics, IBM, Micromodule Systems, Motorola, nChip, Polycon, 
and Texas Instruments. Sandia National Laboratories will establish a 
test bed to support the effort.
  Madam President, there are a couple of items that I received from the 
Department of Defense to make the point. This is a printed circuit 
board which shows the circuitry needed for an advanced weapons system 
and the multichip module which is being developed through TRP funding 
to replace it--this much smaller item. That is the kind of a 
breakthrough we are trying to finance and accomplish and bring about 
through use of this dual-use technology.
  Let me cite one other example, and this is the TRP precision laser 
machining project.
  Let me again show a very small, little item to my colleagues. This 
sample illustrates the initial results under this TRP project. Graphite 
composite material similar to that used in stealth aircraft has 1,600 
laser-drilled holes which were accomplished in only 10 minutes.
  The TRP will develop further this technology to be able to achieve a 
much faster hole drilling rate, up to 10,000 holes per second, without 
sacrificing the unprecedented hole quality already achieved and 
illustrated here. 
 [[Page S3590]] At that point it will be feasible to process entire 
airframes in about 1 day, enabling laminar flow control by these holes 
in critical airflow surfaces. This performance-enhancing flow control 
is impractical to manufacture with current technology, and the laser 
hole drilling provides not only the speed but the quality required to 
make the process practical and cost effective.
  The Department of Defense points out that the result will be 
substantial from their perspective of enhanced military aircraft 
component performance and improved fuel efficiency by more than 3 
percent, saving about $400 million per year. This technology will also 
reduce life cycle costs by about $100,000 per engine by using these 
precise laser beams to drill holes with the highly increased precision 
and reproducibility shown in this sample.
  Madam President, let me just conclude by pointing out again the 
statement by Secretary Perry before the Armed Services Committee, which 
my colleague from Arizona serves on with me, where, when asked about 
the TRP, he said, ``I hope I have the opportunity with the Congress to 
defend, to vigorously defend the importance of this program.''
  Madam President, if we adopt the amendment by the Senator from 
Arizona we are not giving the Secretary of Defense that opportunity. 
There has been no hearing that can be cited by the Senator from Arizona 
here. He is proposing or suggesting that the Senate, in our ultimate 
wisdom, should substitute our judgment for that of the Secretary of 
Defense, for that of the Under Secretary of Defense, for that of the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In my view this would not be 
wise. We need to keep funding in the TRP, keep this a program that 
continues to go forward in these very important areas.
  As the Senator from Alaska pointed out, the additional funding that 
is being transferred to environmental activities is just not needed 
this year.
  Madam President, I hope very much this amendment will not be agreed 
to and that we can support the position of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, let me thank the Senator from New Mexico 
for reading the letters I sent to the President. I appreciate it. I 
will try to make sure that he is made aware of the correspondence I 
have between myself and the President and the Secretary of Defense. I 
point out to my friend from New Mexico, he did not get several of my 
correspondences, nor the gist nor intent of the recommendations I made.
  First of all, I made the recommendations and I stated in the letter, 
``reduce overemphasis on environmental cleanup and reduce funding to 
account for management savings, use of more effective technologies and 
less stringent standards.'' That is out of a $6 billion overall 
authorization, and is in keeping with the CBO recommendations.
  For the edification of my friend and colleague from New Mexico, I 
wrote a letter on January 23 of this year where I
 stated:

       As you know, I wrote to the President on December 5, 1994, 
     asking that he defer the obligation of funding for certain 
     defense programs, including the environmental accounts of the 
     Departments of Defense and Energy. I would like to clarify my 
     intent in including $930 million in DOD and DOE environmental 
     accounts in the listing of programs characterized as lower 
     priority funding.
       First, let me assure you that I understand the importance 
     of environmental cleanup and fully support the need to 
     provide adequate funding to accomplish this daunting task. 
     Therefore, I believe it is incumbent upon the Department of 
     Defense to bear its fair share of the burden of remediating 
     any problems resulting from the conduct of necessary military 
     activities. However, I also feel strongly that costs such as 
     research and education, as well as other costs not directly 
     related to actual cleanup activities, should be borne equally 
     by all entities, whether governmental or private, rather than 
     one or two federal agencies.
       It is in this context that I suggested that a portion of 
     the DOD and DOE budgets for environmental programs be 
     reviewed and reconsidered in the context of more fairly and 
     appropriately allocating the fiscal burden of federal 
     environmental programming across all government agencies.

  So I want to assure my friend from New Mexico, to clear up any 
misconception as my intent in the letter I sent to the President on 
December 5 and January 23. I would be glad to provide him with a copy 
of those.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                                 January 23, 1995.
     Hon. William Perry,
     Secretary of Defense,
     The Pentagon, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: As you know, I wrote to the President 
     on December 5, 1994, asking that he defer the obligation of 
     funding for certain defense programs, including the 
     environmental accounts of the Departments of Defense and 
     Energy. I would like to clarify my intent in including $930 
     million in DOD and DOE environmental accounts in the listing 
     of programs characterized as lower priority funding.
       First, let me assure you that I understand the importance 
     of environmental cleanup and fully support the need to 
     provide adequate funding to accomplish this daunting task. 
     Therefore, I believe it is incumbent upon the Department of 
     Defense to bear its fair share of the burden of remediating 
     any problems resulting from the conduct of necessary military 
     activities. However, I also feel strongly that costs such as 
     research and education, as well as other costs not directly 
     related to actual cleanup activities, should be borne equally 
     by all entities, whether governmental or private, rather than 
     one or two federal agencies.
       It is in this context that I suggested that a portion of 
     the DOD and DOE budgets for environmental programs be 
     reviewed and reconsidered in the context of more fairly and 
     appropriately allocating the fiscal burden of federal 
     environmental programming across all government agencies.
       You and I are both aware of the growing scarcity of defense 
     dollars to carry out our national security priorities. 
     Therefore, we must work together now to ensure that we put 
     the immediate needs of our common defense as our first 
     priority.
       As Chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee of the Armed 
     Services Committee, which has jurisdiction over the 
     environmental restoration program of the Department of 
     Defense, I intend to look into these issues very closely 
     during the FY 1996 budget review. I would like to request 
     your assistance in identifying specific areas of the 
     Department's environmental restoration accounts which you 
     believe should be distributed outside of the Department. In 
     this review, I would ask that you look closely at research 
     and education funding, as well as the standards and 
     remediation techniques to ensure that cleanup funding is 
     being used efficiently and in the most cost-effective way to 
     protect human health.
       As always, I appreciate your assistance in this matter. I 
     will be sending a copy of this letter to the Secretary of 
     Energy.
           Sincerely,
                                                      John McCain,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, in closing this debate, and I do not 
know whether it will or not, but let me just make my final remarks.
  I want to emphasize to the Senate the difficult task we have had to 
find money to offset the funds necessary to restore the training, 
operation, and maintenance accounts for the Department of Defense. We 
have done that by taking funds from accounts, some of which we may 
replace in 1996. But we are taking them from accounts where we know 
they cannot be spent this year. There is no way the department is going 
to spend all of the remaining $800 million that is available for 
studies in this environmental restoration account.
  The account does not need more money now. There is no showing at all 
that it needs more money. As a matter of fact, in the Technology 
Reinvestment Program, all we have funded is the money for the ongoing 
projects that have already been approved and additional efforts that 
have defense relevance. That means we are going to continue those 
ongoing projects which were determined to have defense relevance for 
this year.
  We are talking still about this year. We still have to review the TRP 
program for 1996 and we have to review the environmental restoration 
account for 1996, but I plead with the Senate to look at the problem we 
had to find money to offset the emergency request. We have taken the 
emergency off. We have taken the emergency off because we found, dollar 
for dollar, outlay for outlay. Both outlays and budget authority are 
reduced sufficiently to offset the moneys that are necessary to be 
restored in the operating accounts of the military services, plus there 
is some money for the Coast Guard.
  Our task was to reduce spending accounts for the balance of 1995 and 
take 
 [[Page S3591]] money where it would do the least harm to the 
department. I plead with the Senate to realize that, of the $5.5 
billion appropriated for the Department of Defense environmental 
funding account, we have dealt with about $700 million in study money. 
There is still plenty of money there in the whole environmental 
account. It does not need the restoration moneys that are suggested by 
the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate?
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I will vote against the McCain amendment 
to cut funding from the technology reinvestment project. I find this an 
unpleasant task because I am strongly in favor of full funding for 
environmental cleanup and restoration at closed DOD bases. I am also a 
proponent of the technology reinvestment project.
  The McCain amendment would cut twice the amount of funding from TRP 
than it would restore to DERA. That tells me that the purpose of this 
amendment is to kill the technology reinvestment project, which I 
believe is wrong. As the previous amendment offered by Senator Bingaman 
showed, it is the sense of the Senate that the TRP is important to our 
national security, and ought to be the norm for the way the Pentagon 
does business.
  I believe that the TRP is a good example of a new way of doing 
business between the Federal Government and the private sector, one 
that is cooperative, cost-shared, competitive, and mutually beneficial.
  Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by Senator Bingaman and of U.S. dual-use technology efforts in 
general.
  The U.S. military will be challenged repeatedly as a deterrent and 
fighting force in the decades to come. We face the potential of a 
resurgent Russia, a new economic power that decides to pursue military 
dominance in its region, or a rogue regime with a nuclear weapon at its 
disposal.
  Although the United States will retain its preeminent position as the 
only military superpower for decades to come, our relative military 
advantage inevitably will wane. Identifying the next great military 
powers is obviously very difficult, but we can rest assured that not 
all will share U.S. values and interests. The question today is whether 
we will be able to respond rapidly and adequately to emerging threats.
  Of particular concern are those nations that will attempt to couple 
rapid economic growth with tight political control. Fortunately for 
democracies, this marriage of tyranny and a free economy usually leads 
to divorce. But even a short-lived marriage of this sort is a 
reasonable prospect for several of today's nondemocratic nations. 
Widely available and rapidly advancing military technologies will allow 
these nations to arm relatively quickly and, conceivably, to leapfrog 
some U.S. military capabilities through innovative technologies.
  It is this possibility for a rapid, technologically based emergence 
of a major threat that dictates we support our technology base as 
effectively as possible, and focus our energies on highly advanced, 
long-term technologies.
  We cannot, of course, continue to pay for the enormous research and 
development base of the cold war. We must now turn to the commercial 
sector, which leads the Department of Defense in many key technologies, 
to help sustain U.S. technological leadership. Dual-use technology 
development efforts, like the Technology Reinvestment Program, 
represent one of the best conceivable approaches to meeting this long-
term national security need. TRP is an especially effective program:
  TRP is supporting a vast range of defense technology developments in 
areas such as low-cost night vision, high-density data storage, 
battlefield casualty treatment, and composite aircraft structures.
  TRP awards are matched by the program participants, effectively 
leveraging taxpayer dollars.
  TRP awards are competed and represent a much more efficient approach 
than saddling DOD research programs with earmarks that often duplicate 
or misdirect existing efforts.
  Finally, TRP allows DOD to drive down costs by leveraging commercial 
large-scale production.
  TRP is truly a cents-on-the-dollar program that will secure U.S. 
long-term security interests well into the next century. While I 
applaud and strongly support readiness today, let's not compromise our 
future--a future that will require much foresight and technological 
excellence to deter and, if necessary, defeat advanced military 
threats.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the proposed 
amendment. First, let me say that I am concerned that among our early 
acts in this 104th Congress we are about to cut $1.9 billion dollars 
out of our defense budget. Among the cuts proposed, are cuts to our 
critical technology development programs. Since technological 
superiority will win the battles of tommorow, we are stealing funds 
that will determine the readiness of future generations, to pay for 
defense emergencies today. I believe these actions are a clear and 
present danger to our defense capability. In our zeal to increase 
defense readiness and fund operations while we control spending, 
control Government proliferation, control the deficit we may be laying 
the groundwork for inevitable future inferiority in critical defense 
technologies. This amendment only increases the damage that is being 
done to this critical technology development effort.
  Military readiness is at the forefront of the defense agenda for both 
the administration and many of my colleagues here in Congress. I share 
their concern that our military must be fully prepared to insure 
national security. This is not an option, this is our responsibility. 
At the same time, some of my colleagues are proposing and voting for 
cuts in defense technology development programs that are critical to 
the defense readiness of tomorrow.


                           ARPA and Dual Use

  Our current technological superiority has not evolved overnight. 
DOD's secretive Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), the 
preeminent technology development entity in the world, has been 
successfully researching and evolving new technology for military 
applications, in close alliance with the services, for the 37 years 
since President Eisenhower set it up. In retrospect, it was a truly 
visionary Presidential accomplishment.
  What has ARPA done? Most of its efforts are classified, and it has 
purposely never recorded its history. Let's just look at a list of 
technologies that we can talk about that ARPA helped evolve: 
Supercomputing; desktop computers; the internet (formerly ARPAnet); 
stealth; the entire field of materials science and composites; GPS--the 
global positioning system run by atomic clocks; laser technology 
including laser machining; high resolution digital imaging; advanced 
acoustics; smart weapons; and even the ubiquitous computer mouse.
  This is only a partial list, but this list alone has revolutionized 
not only the U.S. warfare machine, but U.S. civilian society.


                 The Technology Programs at Issue: TRP

  The Technology Reinvestment Project [TRP] has been the first victim 
of the technology attack. It is designed to be a dual use effort in a 
program concept first developed by President Bush's Director of ARPA. 
TRP projects are cost-shared at least 50/50 with industry, 
competitively selected, industry-led and aimed at civilian and military 
needs.
  What are ARPA's TRP teams working on?
  Item: Head mounted displays. Infantrymen can't walk around with 
desktop computers. With light-weight, head-mounted displays they can 
retain full mobility but have a full computer display of the 
battlefield and real-time intelligence and targeting data before their 
eyes.
  Item: Advanced information flow. Military command and control must 
process an exploding amount of intelligence data immediately to the 
battlefield for response. But limited communications capacity now clogs 
our ability to transmit, process, and act on that data. A TRP team is 
developing digital communications command and control equipment to 
burst massive new amounts of data through the interpretation and 
response pipeline at 10 gigabits per second, a 400 percent improvement 
over today's best equipment. This will be the building block 
 [[Page S3592]] for a new integrated command and control network.
  Item: Single chip motion detectors. By reducing motion detection to a 
single chip accelerometer which can withstand accelerations up to 
30,000 times the force of gravity, weapons guidance and navigation 
systems can be made significantly lighter and more sensitive. This will 
be critical to the next generation of smart weapons.
  Item: Uncooled infrared sensors. Desert Storm was launched as a night 
attack using infrared sensors as the basis for high speed attack 
operations. Our military needs to own the night and a new generation of 
cheaper, much more portable uncooled infrared sensors are a crucial 
enabling technology being developed by a TRP team.
  Item: Autonomous all-weather aircraft landing. The efficiency of 
military aircraft is still limited by night and weather conditions. 
Operations at secondary fields are curtailed in these conditions if a 
full ground control system is absent, or if these facilities are 
disrupted or damaged at a primary site. Basing aircraft at a small 
number of primary bases, is not a good alternative, because our command 
of the air becomes more vulnerable. A TRP team is working on placing 
all-weather air traffic and landing control systems into every cockpit, 
making aircraft independent of ground control availability and weather 
conditions.
  Item: Turboalternator. Army gas-guzzling battle vehicles require a 
vast and vulnerable logistics chain and limit battlefield operations. 
The next war may not be fought next to Saudi oil refineries. A TRP team 
is developing a turboalternator so main engines can be switched off, 
but all equipment and sensors can continue to operate, during silent 
watch modes. This multiplies fuel efficiency and also makes detection 
through infrared emissions and engine noise much more difficult.
  Item: Composite bridging. Military operations continue to be 
controlled by terrain: every stream or ravine that must be crossed 
creates a potential strong point for enemy defenders and disrupts the 
mobility that gives U.S. forces much of their edge. Every time our 
engineer forces have to bring up cumbersome, heavy bridging equipment 
for a crossing, enemy defenders can rally and our mobility is 
disrupted. A TRP team is developing superlight, superstrong composites 
for superportable bridges to multiply the mobility of our battlefield 
forces.
  Item: Precision laser manufacturing. Precision laser machining 
technology, by making aircraft parts microscopically precise, can make 
aircraft engines much more efficient. A TRP team, working with higher 
power density, more focused laser beams and variable pulse formats, aim 
to double the life of military aircraft engines and sharply improve 
fuel efficiency and therefore range. Other beneficiaries include 
shipbuilders, airframe makers, engine makers, and a wide rang of other 
manufacturing technologies.
  These examples are the kinds of new technologies we need for future 
battlefield dominance. ARPA's TRP selection criteria emphasizes nine 
areas of established military need, from battlefield sensors, to 
mobility, to prompt casualty treatment, to command and control 
capability to advanced materials. TRP technology projects also must 
have civilian application to help cut military costs and link into 
emerging civilian technologies. TRP is a brand-new effort and many of 
its investments are high risk. There are no doubt fixes that will need 
to be applied to the program, and some of its military priorities may 
require clarification, as with any new program. But to decimate it 
without even holding a hearing about the cornucopia of technology 
advances it is spawning is rash, and dangerous to our military 
technology future.
  Given some of the other program cuts now on the table, the assault on 
TRP appears to be the beginning of a larger assault on technology R&D, 
in general. Given the dangers of the future battlefield, this assault 
can only provide comfort to future enemies.


                               Conclusion

  At a time when we need to renew our commitment to defense technology, 
with an eye toward the necessary control of defense spending, we are 
cutting back on the very programs poised to solve the problem. We must 
take advantage of civilian-led technologies. We must control defense 
spending. We must remain sufficiently superior to our competitors to 
deter any threats to our national security. We have no choice. If we 
don't capture the power of technological innovations, we can be sure 
that our opponents will.
  This amendment restores $100 million of TRP money to insure that we 
will be the technological world leaders of tomorrow that we are today. 
I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I wish to go on record in opposition to 
the McCain amendment and express my strong support for the Department 
of Defense Technology Reinvestment Program [TRP] which provides 
essential public-private funding for dual-use research and development.
  The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war have not 
brought an end to the need for a strong United States military. We find 
ourselves facing challenges that are different but no less complex: the 
spread of nuclear weapons and major regional, ethnic and religious 
conflicts, to name a few. These new threats increase the need for fast, 
flexible, mobile forces equipped with the most advanced weapon systems. 
The Technology Reinvestment Program will allow our troops to defend 
themselves with the most current, technologically advanced equipment 
and enhance our ability to respond effectively to any threat our troops 
may face.
  The Defense Department's TRP is an innovative program that maximizes 
the use of taxpayer funds to exploit promising technologies by working 
cooperatively with the private sector to ensure both our military and 
commercial sectors seize and exploit these cutting edge technologies. 
This cooperative endeavor enhances our national security and economic 
well-being and moves us toward a single, cutting-edge national 
technology and industrial base. The TRP program enables the Pentagon to 
exploit the rapid rate of innovation and market-driven efficiencies 
evident in the commercial industry to meet defense needs. By drawing on 
commercial technology and capabilities wherever possible--along with 
the superior systems design and integration skills of U.S. businesses--
the military can do its job more effectively and at a far lower cost to 
the taxpayer.
  While I agree with the objective of the McCain amendment to restore 
funding to the Defense Environmental Restoration Act accounts to 
provide for environmental cleanups on defense bases, I cannot support 
the transfer to DERA from the TRP program. The $150 million reduction 
in the DERA program, while regrettable, is a small portion of the 
overall DERA program. In addition, DERA is not the only program in the 
Defense budget that provides environment cleanup funding. On the other 
hand, the proposed cuts in the McCain amendment coupled with the TRP 
reductions already contained in the committee-reported Senate 
rescission bill, would virtually eliminate the TRP program.
  As we all know, we won the cold war, in no small way because of our 
technological expertise. We won the cold war because there was a 
national commitment to win it. We dedicated the resources to the 
research and development and to the manufacturing that were required to 
win. We must continue in that tradition and I urge my colleagues to 
reject the McCain amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I oppose this amendment. It seeks to 
achieve a laudable goal, mitigating the cuts imposed by the 
Supplemental Appropriations Act on the environmental cleanup of 
Department of Defense facilities. It would do so, however, by 
eliminating the Department's premier dual-use technology program, the 
technology reinvestment project. I support this vital program to 
maintain our military's technological edge into the next century. 
Therefore, I oppose the McCain amendment.
  Through its environmental restoration effort, the Defense Department 
is fulfilling its obligation to the communities of America where 
military facilities have contaminated the land, water, or air. The 
President, the Secretary of Defense, and the leaders of the service 
branches have a solemn commitment to protecting our citizens 
 [[Page S3593]] from environmental threats caused by Department 
activities.
  Some have criticized the Department's environmental restoration 
program as being a nondefense activity, since the funding for the 
cleanup does not go directly into the modernization or maintenance of 
our forces, and is therefore beyond the scope of the Department's 
responsibility. Nothing could be further from the truth. Keeping its 
lands free of contamination is a clear obligation of any private or 
public entity, including the Department of Defense.
  An example of the urgency of addressing this problem can be found in 
my home State of Massachusetts. Over the decades of the cold war, 
activities at Otis Air Force Base and Camp Edwards on Cape Cod have 
resulted in drastic contamination. Roughly 65 million gallons of ground 
water have been contaminated, threatening public water supplies and 
recreational ponds. Last year, the Department of Defense settled on a 
plan for cleaning up the contamination. This cleanup will take years to 
implement. Reductions in the environmental fund will delay these vital 
cleanup programs.
  Under the leadership of Secretary of Defense Perry and Sherri 
Goodman, the Deputy Under Secretary for Environmental Security, the 
Clinton administration has laid out a plan for addressing the huge 
cleanup problem facing the Department. The $1.78 billion we voted in 
last year's budget is a downpayment on a cleanup program that will be 
implemented well into the next century.
  Although this amendment would add funds for the clean-up, a goal I 
support, it would do so by taking funds from the technology 
reinvestment project. The TRP combines the best of national technology, 
national security planning, and acquisition reform. It seeks to ensure 
that the Nation's high-technology industries, as they readjust to the 
shrinking defense budget, will still carry out research and development 
to meet national defense needs.
  Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch has said that the Defense 
Department can no longer afford the luxury of having its own private 
industry. The Department must devise ways to use the commercial sector 
to meet its future industrial needs. The TRP spearheads the effort to 
achieve that goal.
  It uses less than 2 percent of the Defense Department's research and 
development budget to get high-technology American businesses to begin 
meeting our defense needs in an economical fashion. The TRP leverages 
Government money by providing up to half the cost of financing dual-use 
research and development projects.
  These projects, carried out by consortia of private corporations, 
universities, and scientific laboratories, meet real defense needs. The 
categories of military need in which project funding is awarded include 
military mobility and deployment; battlefield sensors; command, 
control, communications, computers, and intelligence--so-called C\4\I; 
and electronics design and manufacturing. As Secretary Perry has 
testified, there can be no doubt that the program is funding projects 
that fulfill direct defense requirements.
  In some areas, such as command and control software, commercial 
technology is more advanced than the corresponding military 
technologies now in use. In these instances, the TRP seeks to apply 
existing commercial technologies to military applications. In other 
cases, such as battlefield sensors, military technologies are more 
advanced, but the Department seeks to take advantage of the lower cost 
production processes that commercial manufacturing the marketing may 
provide.
  The House bill rescinds $500 million in fiscal year 1994 and fiscal 
year 1995 funds for the TRP. This amount would effectively eliminate 
the program. The committee's bill rescinds $200 million in fiscal year 
1994 and fiscal year 1995 funding for the TRP, far superior to the 
House bill, but still a major cut to the program. By further cutting 
the TRP by $302 million, the McCain amendment would repeat the House 
action of eliminating the program.
  I was pleased to be a cosponsor of the amendment offered earlier by 
Senator Bingaman, expressing the sense of the Senate in support of the 
TRP. That amendment was passed by a voice vote. To pass the McCain 
amendment now would wipe out our approval of that earlier amendment.
  I support greater funding for the Defense Department's environmental 
restoration program. I urge the conferees on this legislation to 
achieve the highest level of funding possible for it. But we should not 
undermine the future of the Nation's defense industry to achieve this 
goal. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam 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. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Arizona to the committee amendment on page 1, line 3. 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. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is 
absent because of death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 22, nays 77, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 101 Leg.]

                                YEAS--22

     Abraham
     Bradley
     Brown
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Craig
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     McCain
     Nickles
     Roth
     Snowe
     Warner

                                NAYS--77

     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grams
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Pryor
       
  So, the amendment (No. 322) was rejected.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I move to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
committee amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc except for the 
committee amendments beginning on page 1, lines 3 through page 25, line 
4; and page 31, lines 5 through 21. That the bill as amended be 
considered as original text for the purpose of further amendments and 
that no points of order be waived thereon by reason of this agreement.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, this request has been cleared on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee amendments were agreed to en bloc, except for the 
following:
  On page 1, line 3 through page 25, line 4; and page 31, lines 5 
through 21.
   [[Page S3594]] Mr. HATFIELD. Now, Madam President, I ask unanimous 
consent that the pending committee amendments be temporarily laid 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 323

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

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] for Mr. McConnell 
     (for himself and Mr. Leahy) proposes an amendment numbered 
     323.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading be dispensed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 323) is as follows:

       On page 27, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:


       contribution to the international development association

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-306, $70 million are rescinded.
       In lieu of the Committee amendment on page 27, lines 21 
     through 25, insert the following:


                      development assistance fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-87 and Public Law 103-306, $13,000,000 are rescinded.


          assistance for eastern europe and the baltic states

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-87 and Public Law 103-306, $9,000,000 are rescinded.


  assistance for the new independent states of the former soviet union

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-87 and Public Law 103-306, $18,000,000 are rescinded, 
     of which not less than $12,000,000 shall be derived from 
     funds allocated for Russia.

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to speak briefly about the foreign 
operations part of this supplemental appropriations and rescissions 
bill.
  First, let me say that I believe strongly that supplemental funds for 
the Department of Defense should be offset with defense rescissions. 
Domestic and foreign affairs funds should not be used to cover defense 
costs. I do understand, however, that these rescissions were made in 
anticipation of a difficult conference with the House.
  The $172 million in foreign operations rescissions that were 
presented to the Appropriations Committee would have come entirely from 
sub-Saharan Africa. I was very concerned about the impact this would 
have on the world's neediest people, and discussed my concerns with 
Senator McConnell. I want to thank him for working with me to modify 
the rescissions in a way that protects our bilateral aid programs in 
Africa.
  I do support the $62 million rescission from the African Development 
Fund. Those funds were appropriated last year with the explicit caveat 
that the fund make significant management reforms. It has not done so. 
Perhaps this rescission will get their attention.
  That leaves $110 million. All of it would have been taken from the 
Agency for International Development's programs in Africa. Those funds 
are used to support basic health and nutrition, AIDS prevention, child 
survival, basic education, agriculture research, and programs to 
promote free markets and free elections. These are programs that 
Republicans and Democrats strongly support, as do the American
 people, because they often make the difference between life and death 
for people facing starvation, political violence, or deadly diseases we 
can cure.

  The rescission, as initially proposed, would have meant that our aid 
to Africa, which already amounts to only about $1 per person, would 
bear the total burden of these cuts. That I could not accept.
  Senator McConnell and I have worked together to modify the foreign 
operations rescissions to protect AID's programs in Africa. I 
appreciate his willingness to find a compromise.
  Rather than take the money from the Development Fund for Africa, the 
amendment we have coauthored, which is also cosponsored by Senator 
Lautenberg, would rescind $70 million from the International 
Development Association; $13 million from the Development Assistance 
Fund; $18 million from the former Soviet Republics, of which at least 
$12 million must come from Russia; and $9 million from Eastern Europe.
  Let me say that I wish we did not have to rescind any of this money. 
These are all programs I support, and I hope we can reduce some of 
these cuts in conference. I especially hope that we can find 
alternatives to cutting so much from IDA, since these are commitments 
made by the U.S. Government and this cut will only add to our arrears.
  But faced with this difficult choice, I wanted to be sure that the 
cuts did not fall on the backs of the poorest people. That is the 
reason for this amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I am joined today by Senators Leahy, 
Lautenberg, and Jeffords, in amending the foreign operations 
rescissions package. When the committee decided to move forward with 
rescissions I requested a listing of the unobligated balances in our 
international affairs accounts. I learned that the three largest 
accounts which have been slow to spend their resources are those 
committed to the Middle East, the New Independent States, and the 
Development Fund for Africa.
  It is my view that contributing to the economic and political 
stability in the NIS is a vital interest of the United States in the 
post-cold-war world. Although many of the specific programs for the NIS 
have been plagued by difficulties, I am reluctant to send the signal 
that Congress is abandoning its commitment to the region. The House 
rescission which reflected a 10 percent cut to the region's unobligated 
balances might send just such a message.
  The troop housing project is obviously troubled. We have held a 
number of hearings to review whether it is, in any way, meeting the 
defined objectives. We had expected the program to offer incentive to 
remove troops from the Baltics, build housing where there was an acute 
shortage, generate jobs in the construction sector, and expand private 
home ownership--I think there is consensus that it has failed on 
virtually all accounts. Nevertheless, I would prefer to see the funds 
for the project reprogrammed rather than cut out altogether.
  As an alternative to the House provisions, Senator Leahy and I are 
offering a modest reduction in the NIS account with a requirement that 
two-thirds of the resources are drawn from the Russia projects.
  This was a direct and determined response to the situation in 
Chechnya. A few weeks ago when the administration decided to offer $20 
million in relief to Chechnya, we learned that they planned to draw 
some of the funding from Armenia, Georgia, and other regional emergency 
accounts. I see no purpose in punishing those countries to compensate 
for Russian outrages in Chechnya. The requirement that two-thirds of 
the rescissions from
 the NIS account be drawn from Russian programs is intended to 
reinforce that message.

  The second large account with unobligated balances had a direct 
affect on the Middle East peace process. Again, I think our interests 
dictated that we not take any action that could disrupt our commitment 
to stability and the peace process. Consequently, I was unwilling to 
draw down this account to support rescissions.
  I relied on the third account, the Africa Development Fund for two 
reasons--the slow spending rate and the fact that the fund is 
complemented by an array of other accounts that contribute to Africa 
development. In addition to the DFA, we contribute to the Africa 
Development Foundation, the Africa Development Fund, the Africa 
Development Bank, and the International Development Association.
  After discussions with my colleagues, I have agreed to shift the 
burden of rescissions from the bilateral Africa program where we have 
more confidence and opportunity to assure United States interests are 
addressed to the International Development Association which I view as 
less responsive to United States goals.
  [[Page S3595]] The rescissions Senator Leahy and I are offering, 
continue our support for vital American interests while addressing our 
common concerns about reducing our deficit. With this Congress we have 
new responsibilities to reduce the deficit. I plan to make sure that 
our foreign aid program contributes to the process of downsizing the 
Government and our debt.
  This rescissions proposal is the first step in a series of difficult 
choices which lie ahead. Foreign aid can and should serve U.S. national 
economic and political interests. When and where it fails to meet that 
test, I guarantee my colleagues that the funds will be rescinded, 
reprogrammed, or reduced.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I am pleased to cosponsor this 
amendment because it would ensure that the foreign aid spending 
reductions in this bill do not come entirely out of programs for 
Africa.
  Under the bill reported by Senate Appropriations Committee, $172 
million in assistance for Africa was cut. No other region of the world 
was affected. Senator Leahy and I expressed concern about the 
reductions in assistance to Africa during the Senate Appropriations 
Committee consideration of this bill because we thought it was unwise 
to target all the cuts at one region. During the full committee markup, 
the chairman of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee 
agreed to address our concern during full Senate consideration.
  The amendment before the Senate today would do just that. It would 
spread the burden of the rescissions in the foreign aid program across 
more regions of the world. It would still rescind $62 million for the 
African Development Fund. But instead of rescinding $110 million for 
the Development Fund for Africa--which funds child survival, basic 
education, health, and environmental programs--the amendment would 
rescind $110 million from a multitude of programs. It would reduce 
funding for the soft loan window of the World Bank by $70 million. It 
would reduce funding for the former Soviet Union--mostly from Russia--
by $18 million. It would reduce $13 million in development assistance. 
And it would reduce $9 million in aid to the countries of Eastern 
Europe.
  While all cuts are painful, the reductions proposed in this amendment 
are a sound alternative to rescinding $172 million from one of the 
poorest, most vulnerable regions of the world. Through our foreign aid 
program, the United States currently spends approximately $1 per person 
in Africa, far less than we spend on other regions of the world. That 
is a small investment in the future of democracy and regional 
stability. It is small amount of assistance to support fast growing 
export markets. It is small amount to spend to reduce disease, end 
poverty and human misery, and help create opportunities for the people 
of Africa.
  Madam President, it would be unwise to reduce aid only to Africa, and 
I am glad we have reached an agreement with the chairman of the Foreign 
Operations Appropriations Subcommittee to ensure that the 172 million 
rescissions in foreign aid spending do not target Africa exclusively. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, this amendment embodies an agreement 
between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Foreign 
Operations Subcommittee regarding the recisions recommended in chapter 
3 of title II. It has been cleared on both sides. I ask for its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 323) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 324

  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senators Gramm and Hollings, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending committee 
amendments will be laid aside. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], for Mr. Gramm, (for 
     himself and Mr. Hollings) proposes an amendment numbered 324.

  Mr. HATFIELD. 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 25 of the Committee bill, strike line 14 through 
     line 12 on page 26, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                 IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

                       Immigration Emergency Fund


                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-317, $10,000,000 are rescinded.

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

             NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

                     Industrial Technology Services


                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-317 for the Advanced Technology Program, $32,000,000 
     are rescinded.

            NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

                  Operations, Research and Facilities


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-317, $2,500,000 are rescinded.

       NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

                   Information Infrastructure Grants


                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-317, $34,000,000 are rescinded.

                  ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

                Economic Development Assistance Programs


                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-317, $40,000,000 are rescinded.

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                     SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

                         Salaries and Expenses


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-317 for tree-planting grants pursuant to section 24 
     of the Small Business Act, as amended, $15,000,000 are 
     rescinded.

                       LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION

               Payment to the Legal Services Corporation


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-317 for payment to the Legal Services Corporation to 
     carry out the purposes of the Legal Services Corporation Act 
     of 1974, as amended, $15,000,000 are rescinded.

                DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCIES

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                   ADMINISTRATION OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

            Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad


                              (rescission)

       Of unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $28,500,000 are rescinded.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, at last week's markup of the defense 
supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 889, Subcommittee Chairman 
Senator Gramm and I found ourselves both opposed to specific domestic 
rescissions that were included in the House-passed bill. Since that 
committee meeting, we have been working on a substitute amendment to 
the Commerce, Justice, and State chapter that we can both support, with 
the ground rules that we must propose a rescission in place of any 
rescission currently in the bill that is deleted.
  Our amendment restores all but $10 million of the Immigration 
Emergency Fund appropriation and most of the appropriation in the 
Commerce Department's Advanced Technology Program. The House had 
proposed cutting $70 million from the Justice Fund and $107 million 
from the Commerce Department's ATP Program. All of the alternative 
offsets that this amendment proposes are from accounts within our 
subcommittee's jurisdiction, and we have retained the $177 million in 
deficit reduction proposed in both the House bill and the committee 
recommended bill.
  This amendment, which I will describe, represents a bipartisan 
response to the reductions in Justice and technology programs proposed 
by the House.
               [[Page S3596]] immigration emergency fund

  The amendment restores all but $10 million of the Department of 
Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service's Immigration Emergency 
Fund to the level provided in last year's CJS appropriation bill.
  This fund was established for possible immigration emergencies, and 
we provided a $75 million appropriation last summer to deal with the 
Cuban and Haitian immigration crisis. Use of the fund, which has 
current balances of $111 million, requires a Presidential declaration 
of an emergency and congressional notification. Given the current state 
of affairs along our Southern border, it is prudent that the account 
balances be maintained at a level of at least $100 million.


                      advanced technology program

  The amendment restores $75 million to the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology's Advanced Technology Program [ATP]. The 
committee amendment would retain a rescission of $32 million from this 
account, instead of the $107 million proposed in the committee reported 
bill.
  The ATP is an important investment in American economic 
competitiveness. It supports American industry's own efforts to develop 
new cutting-edge, next-generation technologies--technologies that will 
create the new industries and jobs of the 21st century. The ATP does 
not fund the development of commercial products. Instead, it provides 
matching funds to both individual companies and joint ventures for pre-
product research on these high-risk, potentially high-payoff 
technologies. These technologies include promising new ideas in 
manufacturing, advanced electronics, and new materials.
  Why do we need the ATP? The answer is simple: to keep America 
competitive and create jobs. Long-term technology has become the key to 
future U.S. prosperity at precisely the time that global competition, 
downsizing, and shareholder pressures now force American companies to 
focus scarce research dollars on short-term projects. The Commerce 
Department estimates that these market pressures now push companies to 
spend up to 90 percent of their research funding on projects that will 
pay off in 1 to 5 years. As a result, U.S. companies, small and large, 
now have serious trouble funding long-term, next-generation 
technologies that will build new industries but will not pay for 10 to 
15 years. Moreover, historically the U.S. Government has supported 
long-term research in only a few key sectors--an approach very 
different from our foreign competitors.
  The ATP's sole aim is to develop new basic technologies that would 
not be pursued or pursued soon because of technical risks and other 
obstacles that discourage private-sector investment. The ATP does not 
support product development, and is modeled on similar Federal research 
programs which have long helped a few sectors such as agriculture, the 
aircraft industry, and the energy technology. The program particularly 
helps small technology companies. To date, the ATP has made 177 awards, 
involving 480 companies and research partners in 38 States.
  The ATP is new, but already has begun to make a real difference. 
Diamond Semiconductor Group's story is not atypical. It had a new idea 
for reliably producing larger, more-cost effective semiconductor 
wafer--about the size of an LP record as opposed to today's small 
wafers. But the company did not have the resources to fully test out 
its idea. ``Winning the ATP award was absolutely critical to us,'' says 
President Manny Sieradzki. The ATP award helped the company provide the 
proof needed for varian associates, as major semiconductor equipment 
manufacturer, to provide development funding.
  I want to mention three other points about the ATP. First, the ATP is 
part of a long American tradition of supporting industry efforts to 
develop new technologies. To date, most of those efforts have been in 
defense or a few key civilian areas. But those older U.S. investments 
have been substantial and effective. USDA helped create modern 
agriculture, the Government has supported aeronautical research since 
1915, and the NIH helped create biotechnology. The ATP simply extends 
this proven model of long-term investments in technology to the rest of 
U.S. industry. And, while the ATP assists a wide range of American 
industries, it costs less than comparable programs which serve specific 
sectors. In fiscal year 1995, the ATP and NIST's manufacturing 
extension program cost a total of $522 million--compared with $1.675 
billion at USDA for research and extension, $882 million at NASA for 
aeronautics, and $3.757 billion at the Department of Energy for 
civilian energy technology.
  Second, this is not interfering with the marketplace or having the 
Government pick winners and losers. The ATP is without doubt the most 
market-driven technology program supported by the Government. Industry, 
not government, proposes both specific projects and key areas of 
technology to focus on. Industry, not Government, runs the projects and 
contributes the majority of the funds. As mentioned, the ATP supports 
only long-term pre-product research, never product development. And 
awards are made by peer-review panels of technical experts and retired 
business executives--not by the White House, not by the Secretary of 
Commerce, and not by Congress.
  Third, the ATP has enjoyed strong bipartisan support. The Bush 
administration wrote the regulations for the ATP, and in his fiscal 
year 1993 budget President Bush requested substantial increases for the 
program. In addition, on June 25, 1992, Senate Republicans--through the 
Senate Republican Task Force on Adjusting the Defense Base Chaired by 
Senator Warren Rudman--endorsed both the ATP and the NIST Manufacturing 
Extension Program. This program has had strong bipartisan support in 
the past, and deserves strong bipartisan support now.


                        noaa procurement savings

  The amendment proposes a rescission of $2.5 million of funds 
appropriated in fiscal year 1995 to the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] for modifications and procurement of 
aircraft radar. NOAA has procured and is installing the radar, but has 
informed the subcommittee that $2.5 million is excess to requirements. 
The agency recently proposed to reprogram these funds for 
administrative overhead. The subcommittee recommends applying these 
resources instead for deficit reduction and restoring the ATP program.
                   information infrastructure grants

  The subcommittee recommends a rescission of $34 million for 
Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration, Information Infrastructure Grants. This program was 
created in fiscal year 1994, and the first grant awards recently were 
made. Funding for this program increased from $26 million in fiscal 
year 1994 to $64 million in fiscal year 1995. It has yet to be 
authorized, and we have continued to oppose rescissions from the Public 
Broadcasting Facilities Program in NTIA that the administration keeps 
proposing. Accounting for departmental transfers and reprogrammings, 
this rescission restores the program to its fiscal year 1994 level.


                economic development assistance programs

  The amendment would rescind $40 million for the Economic Development 
Administration [EDA]. This is $20 million more than the committee 
reported bill. I reluctantly agreed to this rescission. Following our 
fiscal year 1995 appropriation bill, the EDA proposed a reprogramming 
of $40 million from Defense economic adjustment/conversion and regular 
title IX programs to initiate a new Competitive Communities Program. As 
I understand it, this new program would provide grants to 
intermediaries to provide loans to industries locating or expanding in 
impacted communities. THe subcommittee was unable to reach agreement in 
order to approve the reprogramming request--and under our guidelines 
both the majority and minority must agree for a reprogramming to go 
forward. In light of that, we have agreed to use these resources in 
lieu of House rescissions.


              small business administration tree-planting

  The amendment proposes to rescind $15 million from the Small Business 
Administration's [SBA] salaries and expenses account. This rescission 
is proposed in the President's budget.
  This action would terminate the SBA tree planting program. This is a 
nice 
 [[Page S3597]] program that provides grants to States and local 
governments to plant seedlings and small trees. But, it has little to 
do with the mission or purpose of the SBA, and we have never supported 
funding in a Senate appropriations bill. In fact, it has never been 
authorized by the Small Business Committees. It has been an annual 
House Appropriations Committee add-on-the budget.


                       legal services corporation

  The amendment proposes to rescind $15 million of the $415 million 
appropriated in last year's CJS appropriations bill for the Legal 
Services Corporation [LSC]. This amendment would reduce the payment to 
the LSC to the level recommended by the Senate last year. We fought 
hard in conference last year to contain the growth of the Legal 
Services Corporation, which had grown each year due to pressure from 
the House. With the political see change in the House, I'm sure that 
they should be willing to return to the lower Senate-passed funding 
level.
                 state department unobligated balances

  The amendment proposes to rescind $28.5 million from unobligated 
balances in the Department of State's foreign buildings account. Again, 
it is with great reluctance that I recommend this rescission. This is 
an area in which the Senate-passed CJS appropriations bill exceeded the 
House last year, and we got them to come up to our level. Each year the 
Department of State's program changes due to delays, scope and priority 
changes, and contract savings. Normally, we would support retaining 
these balances to further the overseas construction program. But, in 
the current environment, these balances are being proposed for 
rescission to offset restoring House rescissions.


                               conclusion

  This is unpleasant business. I think everyone should realize that the 
House is driving this game. These rescissions are not going to offset 
Department of Defense readiness spending; instead, they will be used, 
at least for the time being, for deficit reduction. The ground rules, 
as laid out by chairman Hatfield and the leadership, are that we must 
meet or exceed the amount of rescissions that the House has proposed. 
And, I should note that our House counterparts recently approved a 
second, much larger rescission bill.
  Both chairman Gramm and I agree that this amendment provides for a 
vastly improved package than what the House sent to the Senate. I urge 
adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, this amendment embodies an agreement 
between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Commerce, 
Justice Subcommittee regarding the rescissions recommended in chapter 
1, title II.
  It has been cleared by both sides. I recommend its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 324) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 325

(Purpose: To provide that the Endangered Species Act of 1973 shall not 
                 apply with respect to Fort Bragg, NC)

  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], for himself 
     and Mr. Faircloth, proposes an amendment numbered 325.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title I, insert the following:

     SEC. 1.  FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA.

       Notwithstanding any other law, for fiscal year 1995 and 
     each fiscal year thereafter, the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) shall not apply with respect to 
     land under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army at 
     Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, may I inquire if my distinguished 
colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Faircloth, has been added as a 
cosponsor of this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, as we always say around this place, this amendment 
is simple and straightforward. I have never heard of an amendment being 
offered that was not simple and straightforward.
  This amendment proposes to stop the Federal Government and its 
bureaucrats from, first, preventing the Department of the Army from 
carrying out its national security mission and, second, wasting 
taxpayer dollars in the process.
  The amendment addresses a problem the Army is having at Fort Bragg, 
NC. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has listed a red-cockaded 
woodpecker as a threatened and endangered species and has designated 
Fort Bragg as a major recovery area for the red-cockaded woodpecker.
  The bureaucrats at the Fish and Wildlife Service have forced the 
Department of the Army to go to great length and great expense to set 
aside land, create tank trails, create nesting areas, and restrict 
construction--all to meet an arbitrary plan to protect woodpecker 
nests.
  The Department of the Army has been required, first, to set aside 
12,000 acres of land just to protect the woodpecker; second, to prepare 
a 44-page report that limits training activities of the Army; third, 
since fiscal year 1989, the Army has spent more than $5 million as a 
result of the efforts to protect the woodpecker; fourth, to halt eight 
construction projects at the base.
  Madam President, it is my understanding that four species are being 
protected at Fort Bragg and another one is going to be added soon--a 
butterfly--to make that five species. There are 70 more State and 
Federal species in line to be added. If four species require almost 
13,000 acres of protection, what is going to happen 5 or 10 years down 
the road when there will be 70 species? Will there be any land at Fort 
Bragg left on which to train our troops?
  The last time I checked the function of the Army is to defend the 
national security interests of the United States and not birds in 
trees. To carry out its national security function, the Army must have 
the ability to train its troops in battlefield situations. But as any 
military expert will tell you, training exercises are impeded when 
planners must work around protected woodpecker nests. This is in fact 
the case at Fort Bragg.
  Madam President, there is another point: The Army is currently 
attempting to purchase an 11,000 acre parcel of land--known as the 
Overhills tract. This purchase has aroused some controversy inasmuch as 
it will take a significant amount of valuable land off the tax rolls in 
Harnett County, NC.
  Part of the reason the Army must acquire this parcel, is to protect 
the red cockcaded woodpecker. Let me quote from a letter I recently 
received from the Department of Army:

       Purchasing this land would bring us much closer to 
     attaining the number of active RCW (red cockaded woodpecker) 
     colonies established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
     Once the RCW population has been recovered, Fort Bragg will 
     have much greater freedom in training and siting construction 
     to support our mission.

  The Army is being forced to buy more land, using taxpayers dollars, 
to protect woodpecker colonies.
  Gen. Robert E. Lee wrote these words to his wife on December 25, 
1862:

       What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families 
     and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has 
     granted to us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred 
     instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair 
     face of this beautiful world!

  There will always be threats to our national security. The cold war 
may be over, but there still remain threats to our national security. 
We owe our soldiers the best possible training.
  [[Page S3598]] It is outrageous to sacrifice the training of our 
troops on the altar of environmentalism.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate on this amendment?
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, first of all, this is legislation on an 
appropriations bill, and I think that is improper to start with. But 
more than that, it is absolutely clear that in the Environment and 
Public Works Committee we are going to deal with the Endangered Species 
Act this year. That act is coming up for reauthorization and, indeed, 
it has not been reauthorized in several years, but we are going to 
reauthorize it. We are going to review it in connection with all the 
problems that have been cited so frequently.
  I just think it is a mistake for us to be going at this piecemeal 
with every State which has a particular problem with the Endangered 
Species Act, to bring it forward in this piecemeal fashion. We are 
going to go at it in a very thoughtful way with hearings, with the 
administration testifying, with those Senators who wish to testify to 
come forward and, indeed, just today, we considered a measure by the 
Senator from Texas that would apply a 6-month moratorium on further 
listings under the Endangered Species Act. It deals solely with section 
4, which is the listing section, and it does not deal with section 7, 
which is the conciliation section. That is quite proper.
  In our committee, we had the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary 
Bruce Babbitt, testify. We had representatives from industry, and we 
had representatives from the affected areas and that is a very 
thoughtful way to proceed on this.
  But I do deplore the procedure that is occurring tonight, which is to 
take a particular section and a particular area and say you cannot 
apply the Endangered Species Act to that.
  Now, maybe there should not be colonies of woodpeckers provided for, 
but who knows what else might be encompassed under this procedure?
  So, Madam President, I think it is very unfortunate that we are 
proceeding in this fashion, and I hope that the amendment will not be 
accepted.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GRAMS). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I really hope in this particular case the 
Senate will follow the leadership of John Chafee, the chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. I think it is not the right way 
to go about amending the Endangered Species Act, to attack it on every 
type of bill that comes before us. It is not the right way to govern.
  I wish to read what the amendment says:

       Notwithstanding any other law, for fiscal year 1995 and 
     each fiscal year thereafter, the Endangered Species Act shall 
     not apply with respect to land under the jurisdiction of the 
     Department of the Army at Fort Bragg, NC.

  Well, if everybody carved out their territory, we would not be doing 
much to preserve the species that we really have an obligation to 
preserve.
  Today, in the hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
we spent about 4 hours debating the Endangered Species Act. Many people 
do not realize that the drug taxol, which is the hope for those with 
ovarian cancer and breast cancer, came from a plant called the yew 
tree. Many people do not realize that the hope of finding cures for all 
kinds of dreaded diseases lies with these plants, these exotic plants, 
sometimes very simple weeds.
  There is a company which grew up in the Silicon Valley of California 
called Shaman Pharmaceutical. It is a very interesting story. A shaman 
in the old culture is actually a doctor, and Shaman Pharmaceutical was 
founded here in the United States of America by a very bright young 
woman, business woman who realized the value that lies in these plants 
in the South American rain forests, and they have come forward with at 
least three drugs from these exotic plants which hold tremendous 
promise to treat lung disease and very, very difficult diseases to 
cure.
  So I would say we do not know what endangered species lie in this 
particular area of Fort Bragg. We do not know what particular plants 
are there, what species are there, if they hold hope for the future. 
But simply to attach this amendment to a bill that deals with paying 
for military operations is certainly the wrong way to go about it.
  So I certainly do hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
will follow the leadership of Senator Chafee, the chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. Let us show our faith in his 
leadership of this committee. It is going to be difficult to 
reauthorize the Endangered Species Act. We know we have to make it 
better. But we also know that if we pick it apart piece by piece, area 
by area, it seems to me we are robbing this country of some very 
important, potentially lifesaving endangered species. A lot of people 
say, when you point out that a specie is in danger, what does that have 
to do with me, this little bird over here? They make fun of some of the 
endangered species.
  Well, the fact is we have an ecological chain, and everyone supports 
saving the bald eagle. The Endangered Species Act saved the bald eagle. 
Everyone supported saving the California condor. And I will tell you, 
we lost in California the grizzly bear because we were not on top of 
preserving it. We lost that opportunity forever. It is gone. Our 
grandchildren will never know what a California grizzly bear really 
was. So this is not the way to go about the debate on the Endangered 
Species Act.
  We had Secretary of the Interior Babbitt in front of the committee 
today. He clearly stated he has gotten the message. He is going to work 
with communities. He is talking about exempting private properties, 
small parcels, from the Act so that we do not overburden small property 
owners. I think we are making terrific progress.
  The Senator from Rhode Island is working with the Senator from Texas, 
and I think the bill she now has is moving in the right direction. I 
personally do not support a moratorium on this because you might lose a 
species in the process, which I think is the wrong way to go. But we 
are working together in the committee, Democrats and Republicans alike.
  So, again, I am very surprised to see this amendment. I had no idea 
it was coming to the floor. I am pleased I was here so I could 
participate in the debate. I hope we will at the proper time vote 
against this amendment. It simply does not make any sense to have an 
amendment such as this on a bill which deals with paying for military 
operations.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, as one of the managers of this measure, I 
find this amendment to be most unfortunate. We have not had the 
opportunity of listening to all of the facts. I have listened very 
carefully to the distinguished chairman of the committee, the Senator 
from Rhode Island, and I believe all of us should take his sage advice. 
The committee is about to take up the whole measure of endangered 
species. This is an appropriations bill, and to have legislation of 
this sort placed upon it would place the whole measure in jeopardy. I 
hope we would do something to resolve this matter.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The other Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the amendment 
of my fellow Senator from North Carolina in regard to the red-cockaded 
woodpecker and the problem it has presented to Fort Bragg. The EPW has 
been completely out of reason in what we should be doing there, and 
they set 
 [[Page S3599]] a quota of 300 colonies of red-cockaded woodpeckers 
that had to be established on the Fort Bragg military reservation. Some 
25,000 acres have already been contributed to raising woodpeckers, and 
now we are talking about buying roughly 12,000 more acres at $15 
million of taxpayers' money to meet the quota of 300 colonies of red-
cockaded woodpeckers.
  I think the amendment that Senator Helms has proposed is a good one. 
But I also agree with Senator Chafee that we need to bring it up before 
the EPW Committee, of which Senator Chafee is chairman, and of which I 
am a member. I would like the opportunity to work with Senator Chafee 
in the EPW Committee, and I will personally commit to the Senator from 
North Carolina that it will be done expeditiously and we will bring it 
up and act on it in the EPW Committee if he would see fit to withdraw 
his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from North Carolina 
and I want to say this to them. We have not had an opportunity to have 
a hearing on this. We will rapidly. I do not want to say tomorrow or 
the day after, but all I can say is we will get to it as rapidly as we 
can. We will listen to the testimony, we will have the folks from the 
Army up, we will have folks from the Fish and Wildlife--I presume they 
are the people who are dealing with this--and possibly the EPA people. 
We will do the best we can to resolve this.
  Obviously, if we cannot resolve it I will so inform the Senators from 
North Carolina and they will have opportunities to bring this up again. 
But it will be our earnest attempt to get this thing settled in a 
fashion that recognizes the problems that have been set forth by both 
the distinguished Senators.
  So that is my commitment to attend to it very soon. I hope they will 
give me a little time to get to this because we have to get witnesses 
and, again, I cannot say it is going to be tomorrow, I cannot say it is 
going to be next week. But I can just say we will get right to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, needless to say I thank the Senator from 
Rhode Island. His proposition is fair. Every piece of legislation ought 
to stand on its own merits. Even though I think this is a ridiculous 
situation extant at Fort Bragg, NC, it is the same kind of ridiculous 
situation that is confronting businessmen all over this country. I am 
glad the Senator is working on that proposition.
  In view of what has been said here, Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator now has that right.
  The amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 325) was withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator 
from North Carolina and the junior Senator. The junior Senator is a 
very esteemed member of our committee. I know he will pay close 
attention to this whole matter.
  Second, I thank the senior Senator from Hawaii for his support in 
this matter. When he spoke, it got everybody's attention. Likewise, the 
distinguished Senator from California, who so ably spoke on this 
previously. Now it is up to us. We will get to it in the Environment 
and Public Works Committee.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. 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. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 326

       (Purpose: To strengthen international sanctions against the 
     Castro government in Cuba, to develop a plan to support a 
     transition government leading to a democratically elected 
     government in Cuba, and for other purposes.)

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a printed amendment and 
I ask the sponsors be identified by the clerk in the preface to the 
bill. I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. HELMS] for himself, 
     Mr. Dole, Mr. Mack, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Graham, Mr. D'Amato, 
     Mr. Hatch, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Gregg, 
     Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Hollings, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Thomas, Mr. 
     Smith, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Warner, Mr. Nickles, and Mr. Robb 
     proposes an amendment numbered 326.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notifies the Senator from North 
Carolina that there is a pending first-degree amendment at this time.
  Mr. HELMS. I was not aware of that. I ask unanimous consent that it 
be temporarily laid aside so I can discuss my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I was astonished to learn this morning that 
President Clinton's advisers have recommended that he ease up on the 
embargo against Fidel Castro's Communist Dictatorship in Cuba. If these 
advisers are parading under the flag of expertise, it's a false flag, 
and they are doing great harm to the President with such advice.
  This is no time to be reducing U.S. pressure on Castro. It is 
precisely the wrong way to go. Backing off on Castro will help the 
Castro Communist dictatorship and do great harm to the Cuban people--
who already have suffered too much for 36 years.
  I have made it clear that, as chairman of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, doing everything possible to bring freedom and 
democracy to Cuba is at the top of my priority list.
  That is why I introduced the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity 
[Libertad] Act as my first piece of legislation as chairman of the 
Foreign Relations Committee.
  Fidel Castro's brutal and cruel Communist dictatorship has persecuted 
the Cuban people for 36 years. He is the world's longest reigning 
tyrant.
  Let me be clear: Whether Castro leaves Cuba in a vertical or 
horizontal position is up to him and the Cuban people. But he must--and 
will--leave Cuba.
  I categorically reject suggestions to lift or soften the embargo. For 
36 years, both Republican and Democratic Presidents have maintained a 
consistent, bipartisan policy of isolating Castor's dictatorship.
  There must be no retreat in that policy today. If anything, with the 
collapse of the U.S.S.R. and the end of Soviet subsidies to Cuba, the 
embargo is finally having the effect on Castro that has been intended 
all along. Why should the United States let up the pressure how? It is 
time to tighten the screws--not loosen them. We have an obligation--to 
our principles and to the Cuban people--to elevate the pressure on 
Castro until the Cuban people are free.
  The bipartisan Cuba policy has led the American people to stand 
together in support of restoring freedom to Cuba. As for my 
legislation, it incorporates and builds upon the significant work of 
the two distinguished Senators from Florida, Connie Mack and Bob 
Graham, and of a number of our colleagues in the House of 
Representatives.
  The message we should be sending to both Castro and those who want to 
do business with him are contained in the Cuban Liberty and Democratic 
Solidarity Act now at the desk. The message is: Isolate Castro until 
the Cuban people are free.
  We can achieve this by strengthening international sanctions against 
the Castro regime by prohibiting sugar imports from countries that 
purchase sugar from Cuba and then sell that sugar to us; and 
instructing our representatives to the International Financial 
Institutions to vote against loans to Cuba and to require the United 
 [[Page S3600]] States to withhold our contribution to those same 
institutions if they ignore our objections and aid the Castro regime.
  We can accomplish this objective by urging the President to seek an 
international embargo against Cuba at the United Nations, and by 
prohibiting loans or other financing by a United States person to a 
foreign person or entity who purchases an American property confiscated 
by the Cuban regime.
  My legislation reaffirms the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act, revitalizes 
our broadcasting programs to Cuba, and cuts off foreign aid to any 
independent state of the former Soviet Union that aids Castro, 
specifically if that aid goes for the operation of military and 
intelligence facilities in Cuba which threaten the United States.
  This bill encourages free and fair elections in Cuba after Mr. Castro 
is gone and authorizes programs to promote free market and private 
enterprise in Cuba.
  The bill also helps U.S. citizens and U.S. companies whose property 
was confiscated by the Castro regime by denying entry into the United 
States to anyone who confiscates or benefits from such property and by 
allowing a U.S. citizen with a confiscated property claim to go into a 
U.S. court to seek compensation from a person or entity which is being 
unjustly enriched by the use of that confiscated property.
  Mr. President, the Cuban people are industrious and innovative. In 
countries where people are allowed to live and work in freedom, they 
have prospered. My hope and the hope of the cosponsors of this bill, is 
that this bill will hasten an end to the brutal Castro dictatorship and 
make Cuba free and prosperous once more.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to commend the distinguished Senator 
from North Carolina. I understand he has laid the amendment down and we 
will continue the debate tomorrow morning.
  I think when the administration talks about easing sanctions on Cuba 
they have made a big, big mistake. They have misread the American 
people, not just in the State of Florida where many Cuban-Americans 
reside. They have misread the public opinion all across America.
  I hope that we have a good discussion of this amendment tomorrow 
morning. I thank the Senator from North Carolina. I am a cosponsor of 
the amendment. I thank him for laying down the amendment this time.
  I hope my colleagues will have an opportunity to study the amendment 
overnight and to also review the remarks of the Senator from North 
Carolina so that they might also participate in the debate.
  We are back on the bill at 10:30 or 11 tomorrow. I am not certain. We 
have not made that determination yet.
  I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. This amendment is to an 
excepted committee amendment. Is that not correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the understanding of the chair that the 
Senator from North Carolina has an amendment set aside to propose this 
to the bill itself. The Senator, however, has the right to change it.
  Mr. HELMS. 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. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Modification of Amendment No. 326

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may modify, 
at the bottom of page 1 of the amendment, so as to read, ``At the end 
of the first excepted committee amendment, add the following:''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The modification reads as follows:

       At the end of the first excepted committee amendment, add 
     the following:

  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. 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. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  

                          ____________________