[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 49 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4009-S4035]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


       EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is before the Senate. It is open for 
debate.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
                    [[Page S4010]] Amendment No. 330

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 330 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  Mr. President, I think a substitute amendment to my amendment has 
been agreed to by both sides.
  Briefly, it says that a pending agreement between the United States 
and Russia that would allow Russia to buy American nuclear reactors and 
technology, known as a ``Section 123 Agreement,'' be canceled unless 
the President certifies to Congress that the Russian nuclear agency 
will not sell nuclear reactors to Iran.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to 
the Bumpers amendment to rescind funding for the national wind tunnel 
complex [NWTC]. I believe this project to be a sound investment in the 
future of the competitiveness of the U.S. commercial aviation industry.
  NASA is pursuing the development of two new wind tunnels as a part of 
the NWTC strategy to provide facilities for aircraft testing with 
technology not currently available in the United States. These 
facilities would allow the commercial aviation industry to continue to 
compete on an international level for the next generation of wide-body 
commercial transportation aircraft.
  The United States has built only one major wind tunnel in the past 30 
years and while the existing wind tunnels have been upgraded over the 
years, none has been able to keep pace with the state-of-the-art 
capability, productivity, and technology of new, modern--and largely 
foreign-owned--wind tunnels. The United States has recently seen its 
share of the international commercial transport aircraft market fall 
from 100 percent to an estimated 65 percent. While we still enjoy a 
commanding presence in this vital industry, we must now prepare 
ourselves to be competitive in the future.
  Contrast our actions with those of our European competitors who have 
invested in six new Government-financed wind tunnels over the last 15 
years. These investments pay dividends in the commercial aircraft 
market as can be witnessed by the increasing marketshare of European 
companies such as Airbus.
  The fiscal year 1995 VA-HUD bill provided $400 million as a down-
payment to begin construction of these two facilities. This investment 
follows funding in fiscal year 1994 to study the feasibility of wind 
tunnels. NASA estimates the final cost of the wind tunnel complexes to 
be $2.5 billion and has plans for the facilities to be up and running 
by 2002. I agree with those who are calling for the greater industry 
involvement in this project and look forward to working with my 
colleagues and industry officials to help make cost-sharing a reality. 
I have spoken personally with the CEO's of major commercial aviation 
manufacturers who all agree with NWTC is needed to ensure their 
continued competitiveness. Now is not the time to waver in our support 
for the domestic aircraft industry.
  In anticipation of the Administration's continued support of the 
National Wind Tunnel Complex Program, an industry teaming agreement was 
signed among Boeing, McDonnel Douglas, Lockheed, Northrup-Grumman, 
Pratt & Whitney, and General Electric to support the development of the 
facilities. NASA has been in the process of evaluating feasible sites, 
including the NASA Ames Research Center located in the San Francisco 
Bay area. The Ames Research Center, which is currently home to several 
operational wind tunnels, meets most of the technical criterion NASA is 
looking for and can be a model of government and private industry 
working together toward mutual interests.
  While the Administration has not met the condition set forth in the 
fiscal year 1995 VA-HUD bill, they have, in fact, requested that the 
funds be carried over to allow for a more complete site selection 
process. I ask my colleagues to agree with the Senate Appropriations 
Committee's recommendation to grant the administration time to move 
ahead with this important investment in the future of domestic aviation 
technology. I oppose the Bumpers amendment to rescind funding for the 
national wind tunnel complex and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to explain why I believe the 
Senate should reject the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator 
from Arkansas to cancel funding for wind tunnels.
  Before getting into the arguments for proceeding with this program, I 
want to remind my colleagues of some essential facts about the bill 
before us. This bill, labeled the Defense supplemental and rescissions 
appropriations, will cut the Federal deficit.
  Its first goal is to replenish critical parts of the Defense 
Department's budget, and it does that by transferring funds from other 
areas. That means we are not asking the American taxpayers to borrow.
  And because this is an opportunity to shave the Federal budget, this 
bill also contains $1.5 billion of cuts in Government spending for the 
sole purpose of reducing the deficit. Here is more proof that one does 
not need to amend the Constitution to shrink the deficit.
  But the Federal budget is always an exercise in setting priorities. 
Certain needs, from the country's military security to our social 
fabric, have to guide how we make choices about Government spending. 
And I would argue that we need to keep planning for the future, 
especially to invest in opportunities to sustain the country's economic 
strength and jobs.
  That is why I question and oppose the amendment by my friend from 
Arkansas. Yes, it is tempting to give up on the effort involved in 
NASA's plan for exploring the potential for building wind tunnels in 
the United States. But it is the wrong thing to do at the wrong time. 
It would be a retreat from the future, and another blow to this 
country's ability to maintain a prosperous commercial aircraft 
industry.
  Since 1915, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] 
and its predecessor agency have worked closely with the country's 
aircraft industry, providing one another with technical support. And, 
in turn, that technical support and the entrepreneurship of our 
airplane manufacturers have made the aircraft industry one of America's 
great economic successes. America is the world's leader, and the 
industry generates not only billions of dollars in export sales but 
also supports tens of thousands of jobs across our country. NASA's 
aeronautics research program is a proven investment in jobs--good
 jobs for Americans. And it is particularly important at time when 
foreign competitors, particularly Airbus, receive major help from their 
governments.

  The subject before us, wind tunnels, are a key part of the NASA 
Aeronautics Program, and may be a vital tool for keeping our aircraft 
industry the world's leader. these tunnels are the facilities in which 
companies test and refine their new designs. New designs can be largely 
analyzed through computer simulations but in the final analysis 
companies must test physical models in advanced wind tunnels.
  Wind tunnels are also precisely the kind of investment in which a 
government role is both appropriate and necessary--valuable national 
facilities that help a range of companies but which are so expensive 
that no one company or even group of companies can readily fund by 
themselves.
  I want to note that our Government has operated wind tunnels for 
decades, serving both commercial and defense needs. But there's a very 
big catch. The tunnels in the United States are mostly 40 years old. In 
stark contrast, Europe has wind tunnels that are much more modern. Our 
companies can test its designs on the other side of the ocean, in 
foreign countries therefore.
  That leads to an extremely serious dilemma for American aircraft 
manufactures--either test their new aircraft designs in less 
sophisticated facilities here in the United States, or test in Europe 
where data on the best new American designs would undoubtedly end up in 
the hands of foreign competitors.
  I want to emphasize one important point here: NASA wind tunnels 
directly support a major U.S. industry--an industry which in turn 
generates sales, jobs, and I hasten to add, considerable tax revenue. 
And West Virginia is one of the States with the right conditions to 
build the wind tunnels. We have the most inexpensive and abundant 
supply of electricity in the Nation. And along 
[[Page S4011]] with our natural and other infrastructure resources, we 
are a state brimming with talented people ready to forge ahead building 
and operating this leading edge technology. Pulling the rug out from 
this initiative, aimed directly at improving this country's economic 
situation, seems reckless.
  The amendment from the Senator of Arkansas would cancel a decision 
made by Congress last year to devote $400 million to planning just how 
to overcome this serious gap between America's wind tunnels and those 
in foreign countries. Because of the high economic stakes involved for 
our Nation, Congress appropriated the money to begin developing a new 
pair of state-of-the-art American wind tunnels.
  Congress also conditioned that funding on an expectation that the 
administration would lay out a clearer plan on how to proceed with this 
effort and how to obtain the necessary commitments from the private 
sector. NASA is now finishing its assessment of future wind tunnel 
needs and how much industry is willing to share the costs of new 
facilities. The administration is asking this body to preserve the 
money until that study is completed and a full assessment can be made. 
Again, in light of the stakes--involving jobs and the future of a 
critical industry--I really think it's more than reasonable to reserve 
these funds if we are fully convinced they'll be a worthwhile 
investment.
  The Senate should await the results of that assessment before we take 
rash action today that would bring an end to this initiative and its 
potential for the country. We should wait for the full facts, and not 
take precipitous action that risks jeopardizing a vital export 
industry. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Bumpers' 
amendment because it is reasonable to link further United States 
funding for technical cooperation with the Russians on the space 
station with Russia's arrogant sale of nuclear reactors to Iran.
  The Bumpers amendment makes the choice for the Russian Government 
quite simple. On the one hand, the Russians can continue to develop 
economic relations with the United States and move onward into the 21st 
century on the cutting edge of space-based technology. Or the Russians 
ban pursue a dangerous nuclear relationship with Iran one of the 
world's most reprehensible governments. But Russia cannot have it both 
ways.
  The two greatest threats facing the security of the United States and 
its allies are Islamic fundamentalism and nuclear proliferation. The 
proposed Russian sale of nuclear reactors to Iran is an intersection of 
these threats. Even the Russians must realize the danger this poses to 
their own nation. I am truly surprised that no reasonable figure of 
authority in Russia is willing to confront that obvious reality. 
Despite all the rhetoric that one hears from Moscow about the threat of 
Islamic fundamentalism to the south of Russia, it appears that short-
term profit is the most important interest for the Russian Government.
  Recently the head of the Russian Ministry of Nuclear Power compared 
the profit he could turn from nuclear sales to Iran with the level of 
assistance that the United States gives to Russia. In essence he said 
that the funds the United States provides to Russia could easily be 
replaced by unrestricted worldwide sales of reactors and uranium. This 
reckless and insulting view of our Nation's efforts to develop a 
stronger relationship with Russia may have escaped comment by President 
Clinton, but it will not pass muster in the Senate.
  The United States will not join in a bidding war with terrorist 
countries like Iran for the fickle friendship of the current Russian 
Government. Our appeal to Russia is broadly based upon reason and 
principle. While economic assistance has been a feature of the United 
States' effort to build closer ties with Russia, far exceeding any aid 
has been our willingness to build closer relations. We have extended an 
open hand in order to help Russia recover from the wounds of 70 years 
of totalitarian, Communist government. If bean counting bureaucrats in 
the Russian Nuclear Power Ministry see more profit by tying Russia's 
future to Iran--then let them have at it. But they can't--and won't--
have it both ways.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by my friend from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers. While we share 
many similar interests and beliefs, it seems that we are usually on 
opposite sides of the issue when it comes to debating NASA and 
aerospace issues. In this case, I believe my friend's amendment is 
misguided and would bring a premature end to what promises to be 
valuable national facility.
  I would also like to congratulate the chairman of the HUD/VA 
Appropriation Subcommittee, Senator Bond, as well as Senator Mikulski 
for laying out the very convincing arguments for proceeding with this 
program.
  Mr. President, no one can doubt the vital role which wind tunnels 
play in the design of aircraft and engines. In fact in my earlier 
career, I had first-hand experience with what can be learned with these 
type of facilities. I would like to begin my remarks with a short 
description of how these facilities are actually used.
  Wind tunnels are used in two major ways for airplane design. First, 
they are used to develop and confirm aerodynamically the geometric 
shape of the airplane and its wings. Improvements in airplane 
aerodynamics lead to reduced fuel consumption and improved economics. 
While computer testing, called computational fluid dynamics, is playing 
an increasingly important role in aircraft design, it has in no way 
replaced wind tunnel development and testing.
  The second major way wind tunnels are used in airplane design is to 
help predict handling qualities, controllability, aerodynamic loads, 
fuel consumption, inlet/nozzle/nacelle and such important 
characteristics as takeoff and landing speeds. Wind tunnel testing 
provides the most accurate method for predicting crucial airplane 
characteristics. Wind tunnel test data are used in preflight prediction 
of drag, weight, and propulsive efficiency.
  Mr. President, during the debate on wind tunnels we will hear 
mentioned two particular parameters used to describe the capability of 
wind tunnels. The first term is ``Mach number'' and the second is 
``Reynolds number.'' Mach number is the more familiar term and is 
defined as a ratio of vehicle speed to the speed of sound. 
Determination of Mach number is critical for high-speed flight.
  The Reynolds number is defined as the ratio of the inertia forces to 
the viscous forces that a fluid exerts on a surface as it flows past. 
The Reynolds number is also related to Mach number.
  The National Academy of Sciences has found that ``high productivity, 
high Reynolds-number subsonic and transonic development wind tunnels * 
* * [will lead to improved aircraft] cruise and takeoff/landing 
performance by at least 10 percent each.'' Mr. President, a 10-percent 
improvement in airplane performance benefits our economy and our 
environment.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the executive 
summary from the aforementioned National Academy study, Aeronautical 
Facilities: Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test 
Facilities.
  The value of such scientific advances in helping to keep the American 
aircraft industry in the forefront of international sales is obvious. 
In fact, had it not been for the outstanding work done over many, many 
years by our aerodynamicists using the world's most advanced wind 
tunnels, our leadership in both military and commercial aircraft would 
never have taken place. Commercial sales of U.S. aircraft would not 
comprise our largest single factor in balance of payments outside of 
agriculture. Now we see foreign nations with more modern tunnels than 
we have, along with an expanding group of scientists and 
aerodynamicists. This does not bode well for America's future lead in 
designing and building the finest aircraft in the world. That is 
important for both our military and commercial aircraft.
  Existing U.S. wind tunnels have served us well; and have helped make 
the U.S. aircraft industry the world leader. In fact much of what has 
been learned from wind tunnels has occurred in my home State of Ohio, 
at NASA's Lewis Research Center. Unfortunately the upgrades and 
improvements to the 
[[Page S4012]] existing inventory of wind tunnels have been already 
been made. Existing U.S. wind tunnels have the following problems: 
Inadequate capability in Reynolds number; low productivity, with 
emphasis on research; average of facilities is between 30-40 years, 
with the associated problems of old technology and high maintenance 
costs.
  In fact, all but two of the U.S. wind tunnels have been operating for 
more than 30 years, and the two exceptions are low Reynolds number, 
special purpose facilities used only for light commercial and military 
airplane development.
  Mr. President, most existing U.S. wind tunnels were funded by the 
Federal Government. And as my colleagues have discussed, the newer 
facilities in Europe have been built with substantial Government 
support. While I believe that Senator Bumpers is correct in pointing 
out the apparent disparity in the industry's contribution to this 
facility, I would argue that a final deal has not yet been signed. I 
would encourage the administration to continue to pursue the best 
possible sharing of cost.
  Mr. President, I will conclude by asking our colleagues to look to 
the future. In 10-20 years I hope that environmentally acceptable, 
supersonic commercial airliners and transports will be a practical, 
economic reality, and will be manufactured in the United States of 
America.
  Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to vote against the Bumpers 
amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned summary of the 
National Academy study be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the study was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                [From the National Academy Press, 1994]

  Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities


                           executive summary

       At the request of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration and Department of Defense, the Aeronautics and 
     Space Engineering Board (ASEB) of the National Research 
     Council independently reviewed the findings of the 
     interagency National Facilities Study (NFS). In order to make 
     the ASEB report available shortly after the NFS report, the 
     NFS Task Group on Aeronautical R&D Facilities briefed the 
     ASEB periodically during its study. After release of the NFS 
     report, the ASEB held a far-ranging workshop to critique the 
     NFS results. The workshop involved 49 experts in aeronautical 
     technology development; ground test facilities; and, 
     especially, the use and operation of wind tunnels. The 
     purpose of this report is to document and explain the ASEB's 
     assessment of the NFS report, including recommendations for 
     future action.
       The conclusions and recommendations of the NFS seem to be 
     supported by factual material wherever it was available, 
     although in some cases they are based on the best judgment of 
     the study participants. The following nine items summarize 
     the ASEB's findings and recommendations. The first five items 
     reinforce key thrusts of the National Facilities Study. The 
     ASEB concurs with each of these items. The last four are 
     recommendations for additional action that go beyond the 
     recommendations of the National Facilities Study.

Recommendations reinforcing the key thrusts of the national facilities 
                                 study

       1. The ASEB agrees with the NFS report that significant 
     aerodynamic performance improvements are achievable, and the 
     nation that excels in the development of these improvements 
     has the opportunity to lead in the global market for 
     commercial and
      military aircraft.\1\ The highest priority facilities for 
     achieving these performance improvements are new high-
     productivity, high-Reynolds-number subsonic and transonic 
     development wind tunnels.\2\ The NFS report estimates that 
     cruise and takeoff/landing performance could be improved 
     by at least 10 percent each. Performance improvements are 
     essential for the U.S. aeronautics industry to maintain or 
     increase market share. Based on the information available 
     to it, the ASEB considers these projected increases in 
     performance to be potentially attainable and believes that 
     the proposed facilities could substantially facilitate 
     such improvements.
     \1\Footnotes to appear at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       These forecast advantages do not include the probable 
     operating and development cost reductions that would accrue 
     to future U.S. military aircraft programs. In addition to 
     direct cost reductions, access to improved ground test 
     facilities would make advanced military aircraft more 
     competitive in the world market, thereby further reducing the 
     defense burden carried by U.S. taxpayers. Foreign sales of 
     U.S. military aircraft result in lower unit costs for U.S. 
     government and foreign purchasers.
       2. The ASEB agrees with the NFS report that new high 
     Reynolds number ground test facilities are needed for 
     development testing in both the low speed and transonic 
     regimes to assure the competitiveness of future commercial 
     and military aircraft produced in the United States. The NFS 
     report documents that Reynolds and Mach number performance of 
     the best subsonic and transonic development wind tunnels in 
     the United States and Europe
      are close to parity.\3\ However, the average age of major 
     U.S. tunnels is about 38 years, and many of the older U.S. 
     wind tunnels are subject to costly maintenance and 
     breakdown. Furthermore, there are no adequate domestic 
     alternatives for many older U.S. facilities. For example, 
     during the past several years U.S. manufacturers have 
     conducted a large amount of their low speed testing in 
     European facilities during refurbishment of the Ames 
     Research Center 12-foot subsonic wind tunnel, which is 48 
     years old.

  TABLE ES-1--PROPOSED CAPABILITIES OF NEW LOW SPEED AND TRANSONIC WIND 
                                 TUNNELS                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tunnel parameter         Low speed tunnel        Transonic tunnel   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds Number........  20 million at Mach 0.3   28.2 million at Mach 1
                          (full span model) 35     (full span model).   
                          million at Mach 0.3                           
                          (semi-span model).                            
Mach Number............  0.05-0.6...............  0.05-1.5.             
Productivity...........  5 polars per occupancy   8 polars per occupancy
                          hour*.                   hour.                
Operating cost.........  <$1,000/polar..........  <$2,000/polar.        
Operating pressure.....  5 atmospheres..........  5 atmospheres.        
Total temperature......  110 deg.F..............  110 deg.F at Mach 1.  
Maximum power..........  45 MW..................  300 MW.               
Test Section Size......  20 ft  x  24 ft........  11 ft  x  15.5 ft.    
Flow quality...........  Low turbulence.........  Low turbulence.       
Acoustic test            Acoustic test chamber..  Not applicable.       
 capability.                                                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*A polar is a single test run consisting of 25 data points (see Appendix
  D).                                                                   
                                                                        
Source: NFS, 1994.                                                      

       In contrast, European industry has a new government-funded 
     trasonic facility coming on-line during 1994 that is expected 
     to significantly outperform any transonic development 
     facilities in the United States in terms of Reynolds number 
     capability.\4\ The NFS report examines this situation in 
     detail with regard to the development of new commercial air 
     transports, which has very high flight Reynolds numbers.
       More-capable wind tunnels will facilitate improvements in 
     aircraft performance and producibility. However, as 
     documented by the NFS, no wind tunnel in the world meets or 
     can be affordably modified to meet the goals defined by the 
     NFS for development of future transport and military aircraft 
     (see Table ES-1).\5\
       The ASEB agrees with the NFS that building the two tunnels 
     as proposed is likely to enable subscale development testing 
     for more than half of the new commercial transport aircraft 
     projected for the next twenty years or so at flight Reynolds 
     and Mach numbers. However, the flight Reynolds numbers of (1) 
     very large commercial transports, (2) high speed civil 
     transports, (3) high performance military aircraft, and (4) 
     some revolutionary design concepts that might emerge in the 
     future would exceed the capabilities of the proposed tunnels. 
     Thus, the test results for these aircraft would have to be 
     extrapolated to analyze their performance at flight Reynolds 
     number. Nonetheless, this process would generally be more 
     accurate than extrapolations based on data obtained from the 
     less capable tunnels now available. In particular, the new 
     wind tunnels would allow testing models of existing aircraft 
     such as the B-737 and MD-90 at flight Reynolds number. 
     Comparison of wind tunnel and flight data for these aircraft 
     is likely to significantly improve the correlation of wind 
     tunnel and flight data for future designs of conventional 
     aircraft that have flight Reynolds numbers beyond the test 
     limit of the proposed tunnels.
       The NFS report recommends taking immediate action to reduce 
     the projected cost ($2.55 billion) and schedule (eight years) 
     of acquiring the proposed low speed and transonic wind 
     tunnels.\6\ The ASEB agrees that reducing cost and schedule 
     is an important goal, but it cautions against using 
     management-directed cost and schedule estimates to provide 
     the illusion of achieving this goal.
       3. Along with the procurement of new facilities, the ASEB 
     agrees with the NFS that selected upgrades to existing 
     facilities are also essential to adequately support future 
     research and development programs. These upgraded facilities 
     will be important during the interim before new tunnels are 
     operational and, afterwards, to round out the United State's 
     test capabilities matrix. However, facility upgrades cannot 
     alone satisfy future ground test requirements.
       In particular, the ASEB endorses the NFS's proposed upgrade 
     to the common 16S/16T drive system at Arnold Engineering 
     Development Center and urges further consideration of 
     additional activities to improve the reliability of the 
     drive-system motors and compressor. In case of failure, major 
     motor repairs could take from four
      months (to rewind a motor stator) to over three years (for 
     complete motor replacement). Although Arnold Engineering 
     Development Center estimates that motor problems requiring 
     complete replacement are very unlikely, credible accidents 
     such as an electrical arc-over with severe internal motor 
     damage could reduce the operational capability of 16S (and 
     16T) for up to a year.\7\ This would have a severe impact 
     if it occurred at a critical point in an aircraft 
     development program. Additional improvements to the drive 
     system should be carefully considered to reduce the 
     probability of such an occurrence.
       [[Page S4013]] 4. The ASEB agrees with the NFS that the 
     United States should acquire premier development wind tunnels 
     rather than rely on continued use of European facilities. 
     Over the past 25 years, as European aeronautics technology 
     has risen to equal U.S. technology, the United States' market 
     share in transport aircraft has declined 30 percent. Although 
     market share is a function of many factors, if other nations 
     achieve a higher level of aeronautical technology, erosion of 
     the U.S. market share may accelerate, with accompanying 
     reductions in balance of trade and jobs.\8\ Continued 
     advances in aerodynamic technology are necessary to avoid 
     this situation. The proposed facilities represent an 
     investment that is only a small fraction of the potential 
     future gain and will provide an opportunity to enhance U.S. 
     technology development. Acquisition of advanced high-
     productivity wind tunnels in the United States--where U.S. 
     designers can efficiently coordinate their wind tunnel 
     testing, model building, and computational activities--will 
     improve the effectiveness and
      efficiency of the aircraft design and development process.
       When aircraft designers introduce a new product, they must 
     determine how far to push available technology before 
     selecting the final design. The nation with the most 
     efficient design-test-redesign process can achieve either (1) 
     a given level of performance sooner or (2) better performance 
     within a given period of time. Inferior, inefficient design 
     or test processes, on the other hand, allow the competition 
     to produce an equal or better product sooner. Slow design and 
     test methodologies also extend the period that manufacturers 
     must fund product development, increasing the costs of 
     bringing new products to market.
       Although U.S. designers have access to European facilities, 
     the ASEB believes that the scheduling constraints faced by 
     U.S. users and the inefficiency of conducting transatlantic 
     design and development efforts inevitably delay the 
     introduction of new products. Conversely, European 
     competitors have greater access to better test facilities 
     and, potentially, to the data generated when U.S. aircraft 
     manufacturers use their wind tunnels. In combination with 
     other improvements that industry is making in its design and 
     manufacturing process, the ASEB believes that the 
     construction of advanced development wind tunnels will be an 
     important contribution to the productivity of the U.S. 
     aeronautics industry.
       Because of national security concerns, foreign facilities 
     are especially inappropriate for development of military 
     aircraft. The U.S. defense industry is generally limited to 
     U.S. facilities, even if more-capable facilities are 
     available elsewhere.
       The NFS report identifies three options for funding the 
     construction of the proposed subsonic and transonic wind 
     tunnels: industry only; a government/industry consortium; and 
     government only. After assessing these options, the NFS 
     ``envisioned that the facilities will be constructed 
     primarily with government funding,'' and it concluded that 
     ``funding by industry alone is not a viable source of 
     capitalization.'' However, it also determined that the 
     possibility of obtaining funding jointly from government and 
     industry ``could not be ruled out'' and it recommended 
     conducting ``further studies to
      look at innovative funding approaches and government/
     industry consortia arrangements.'' The ASEB understands 
     that these studies are underway.
       5. The ASEB agrees with the NFS that additional action is 
     necessary to address future requirements for supersonic, 
     hypersonic, and aeropropulsion test facilities. It is not 
     appropriate to immediately proceed with the construction of 
     new supersonic, hypersonic, or aeropropulsion development 
     facilities. Each of these areas, however, will be important 
     to the aeronautics industry of the future. Thus, appropriate 
     action should be taken to ensure that required facilities 
     will be available when necessary.
       Supersonic Facilities. The Department of Defense will have 
     continuing needs for supersonic ground testing of new 
     upgraded military flight vehicles and systems, and NASA's 
     High Speed Civil Transport Program will create additional 
     demands for access to supersonic wind tunnels.
       Incorporating supersonic laminar flow characteristics into 
     military and commercial aircraft would significantly reduce 
     drag and surface heating and increase fuel efficiency. 
     However, designing a cost-effective supersonic laminar flow 
     facility to conduct development testing is beyond the current 
     state of the art. Solution of the complex problems involved 
     will require a continued program of theoretical and 
     experimental investigation.
       In order to partially address shortfalls in U.S. supersonic 
     facilities regarding productivity, reliability, 
     maintainability, and laminar flow test capabilities, the 16S 
     facility at Arnold Engineering Development Center, which 
     would be used to support development of a first-generation 
     high speed civil transport, should be upgraded. In addition, 
     research should continue on supersonic laminar flow 
     technology and facility concepts.
       Hypersonic Facilities. More-capable hypersonic ground test 
     facilities are needed to provide the option for future 
     development of hypersonic vehicles. State-of-the-art 
     technology, however, is not adequate to build major new 
     hypersonic facilities that will have
      the needed capabilities in areas such as model size, run 
     time, pressure, temperature, and velocity. Therefore, 
     near-term efforts should focus on a program of research to 
     select, develop, and demonstrate the most promising 
     hypersonic test facility concepts. Long-term efforts to 
     build hypersonic development facilities will be contingent 
     upon successful completion of the near-term facility 
     research effort and concurrent efforts to validate future 
     requirements for hypersonic vehicles.
       Aeropropulsion Facilities. Aeropropulsion test facilities 
     within the United States have the capability to test current 
     air breathing engines under the operating conditions 
     experienced during takeoff, climb, cruise at flight speeds up 
     to Mach 3.8, approach, and landing. Looking to the future 
     over the next 10 to 30 years, air breathing engine test 
     facility requirements will be determined by engine size, 
     type, configuration, and air flow requirements.
       The Aeropropulsion System Test Facility at Arnold 
     Engineering Development Center, as currently configured, is 
     adequate for altitude testing of the newest generation of 
     high-bypass engines. However, a 40 percent increase in flow 
     capacity might be required to handle the next generation of 
     ultra-high-bypass, gear-driven propulsor engines such as the 
     PW4000 Advanced Ducted Propulsor. These engines could be 
     certified after the year 2000--if the aircraft manufacturers 
     develop new, larger aircraft requiring such engines. 
     Implementation of facility upgrades for these larger subsonic 
     engines would take four to eight years, so there is time to 
     ``wait and see'' before deciding how to proceed.

  Recommendations going beyond those of the national facilities study

       As previously indicated, the remaining four items go beyond 
     the recommendations of the National Facilities Study report. 
     These recommendations of the National Facilities Study 
     report. These recommendations will (1) reduce risk associated 
     with carrying out the actions recommended by the NFS and (2) 
     facilitate long-term efforts to provide U.S. users with 
     improved aeronautical ground test facilities.
       6. The Wind Tunnel Program Office should conduct trade 
     studies to evaluate design options associated with the 
     proposed new low speed and transonic wind tunnels.\9\ 
     Facility configuration trade-off studies conducted by the NFS 
     on Reynolds number, productivity, and life cycle cost appear 
     to be sound. However, additional configuration studies should 
     be conducted during the design phase of the wind tunnel 
     program. These assessments should take into account the 
     differences in tunnel and model parameters between subsonic 
     and transonic wind tunnel testing. They should evaluate the 
     merits of the following design options:
       a. Using a single tunnel to test both the low speed and 
     transonic speed regimes. While a single tunnel would be 
     unlikely to offer the same capabilities as two separate 
     tunnels, the extent to which performance and operational 
     costs would be compromised should be evaluated in terms of 
     savings in acquisition costs. This assessment should verify 
     the accuracy of projected utilization rates to determine if a 
     single facility could meet the expected demand for test 
     hours.
       b. Making incremental changes to the tunnel operating 
     pressures (e.g., from 5 to 5.5 atmospheres). Increasing wind 
     tunnel operating pressure would allow facility size and cost 
     reductions without sacrificing Reynolds number capability. 
     The extent to which higher pressures could be used without 
     unduly jeopardizing the cost, efficiency, and effectiveness 
     of the overall ground test process is unclear, and the 
     interaction between tunnel pressure and model design should 
     be investigated further for both the transonic and subsonic 
     tunnels. This investigation should take into account the 
     considerable differences that exist
      between these two flight regimes. In particular, use of 
     higher pressures is likely to be more feasible for 
     subsonic wind tunnels than for transonic wind tunnels 
     because of the differences in dynamic pressures.
       c. Including within the baseline design the ability to 
     provide future growth in Reynolds number capability through 
     use of higher operating pressures (up to 8 atmospheres), 
     reduced temperatures (down to about -20  deg.F), and/or a 
     heavy test gas (such as SF6). Incorporating these 
     capabilities into the new facilities would add significant 
     cost. There are also technical concerns regarding wind tunnel 
     tests using high pressure or gases such as SF6. However, 
     it would add only a few percent to the cost of the new 
     facilities to plan ahead for future upgrades that would use 
     one of these capabilities. For example, initially designing 
     the Low Speed Wind Tunnel pressure shell to withstand 8 
     atmospheres would facilitate subsequent facility upgrades to 
     higher operating pressures. Experience with existing 
     facilities shows that test requirements often evolve beyond 
     the expectations of the original designers. Failure to 
     initially build in growth capability would make future 
     facility upgrades highly unlikely and limit the ability of 
     future facility operators and users to enhance tunnel 
     capabilities. (Appendix D provides more information on how 
     pressure, temperature, and test gas impact wind tunnel 
     performance capabilities.)
       d. Improving the robustness of the tunnel designs. 
     Designing selected subsystems and components of the new wind 
     tunnels with margin for growth relative to pressure and 
     operating power could improve system reliability, increase 
     facility lifetime, and reduce the costs of future upgrades.
       In addition, the Wind Tunnel Program Office should ensure 
     that the new transonic 
     [[Page S4014]] and low speed facilities will be able to 
     adequately support development of supersonic aircraft. The 
     importance of low speed and transonic wind tunnels extends 
     beyond their application to subsonic and transonic aircraft. 
     They will also be of special importance to supersonic 
     aircraft such as high speed civil transports that must also 
     operate
      in lower speed regimes during take-off, acceleration, 
     transonic flight over land, and landing. The design of the 
     proposed new wind tunnels should be compatible with the 
     test requirements of higher speed aircraft to the extent 
     that this additional capability is affordable and does not 
     unacceptably degrade the tunnels' ability to execute the 
     primary mission. The detailed design phase of the new wind 
     tunnels should also ensure that features necessary to 
     adequately accommodate development testing of military 
     aircraft, including stores separation testing, are 
     incorporated into the design of the new wind tunnels as 
     appropriate. Ongoing efforts by the U.S. Air Force to more 
     closely define military requirements for future 
     development wind tunnels will assist in this effort.
       7. NASA and the Department of Defense should continue 
     support for facility research in the subsonic and transonic 
     regimes. The highest priority need in the area of low speed 
     and transonic facilities is for new development facilities. 
     Related research, which includes both vehicle- and facility-
     oriented efforts, is also important to long-term 
     competitiveness. For example, the ability to construct 
     practical development test facilities that use heavy gas 
     (such as SF6) and/or very high operating pressures (15 
     atmospheres or more) would (1) greatly reduce facility size 
     and cost and (2) increase Reynolds number test capability. 
     Continued funding of appropriate research is an essential 
     precursor to the development of future generations of ground 
     test facilities and future upgrades of existing and planned 
     facilities.
       8. NASA and the Department of Defense should expand 
     coordinated efforts that involve aerodynamic test facilities, 
     computational methods, and flight test capabilities. 
     Computational methods such as computational fluid dynamics 
     are used during the aircraft design process to analyze and 
     predict aerodynamic characteristics in all speed regimes. 
     However, they must be validated by experimental ground and 
     flight tests before they can be relied upon for design or 
     evaluation in any phase of development.
      Improved aerodynamic wind tunnel testing will provide a 
     better understanding of aircraft fluid dynamics, including 
     Reynolds number and boundary layer effects. This 
     understanding will permit more-accurate scaling of ground 
     test data to in-flight performance. Nonetheless, for the 
     foreseeable future, computational methods will not 
     eliminate the need for highly capable wind tunnels to 
     support development of advanced aircraft. Continued work 
     to improve computational methods and continued flight 
     exploration (e.g., X-planes) are required adjuncts to the 
     acquisition of new and improved wind tunnels. Better 
     scaling methodologies are needed as soon as possible. They 
     will be useful during the interim before new tunnels are 
     available, and, in the long run, they will extend the 
     utility of new tunnels for the design of very large and 
     usually configured future aircraft.
       9. NASA and the Department of Defense should develop a 
     continuing mechanism for long-term planning of aeronautical 
     test and evaluation facilities. Assigning the responsibility 
     to study future requirements and conduct long-range planning 
     to a permanently established body would provide greater 
     continuity than the current process of relying on 
     intermittent, ad hoc committees. Experience with current 
     facilities indicates that the service life of major new 
     facilities could easily extend to the middle of the next 
     century. The long-term utility of major new facilities will 
     be greatly enhanced if their designs are based on a broad 
     view of future test requirements.
       An overall assessment of Volume II of the NFS report and a 
     complete list of the ASEB's findings and recommendations 
     appear in Chapter 7.
                               footnotes

     \1\The National Research Council report ``Aeronautical 
     Technologies for the 21st Century'' (NRC, 1992) documents 
     historical trends and projects future gains in aircraft 
     performance as a result of technological advances.
     \2\Overall priorities are discussed in more detail in Chapter 
     6 starting on page 44.
     \3\Mach and Reynolds numbers are defined in Appendix D.
     \4\The U.S. National Transonic Facility has a Reynolds number 
     capability of 119 million, but its productivity is an order 
     of magnitude less than other large transonic facilities. 
     Thus, even though it has a limited (design-verification) role 
     to play in the development of new aircraft, it is not a 
     ``development'' wind tunnel. Its primary role is as a 
     research facility.
     \5\The NFS initially established a Reynolds number test 
     capability of approximately 30 million as a goal for both the 
     low speed and transonic wind tunnels. After assessing the 
     impact of performance goals on facility design and cost, the 
     NFS recommended accomplishing this goal in the low speed 
     regime using semi-span models. Semi-span models include only 
     the left or right half of an airplane. This increases the 
     Reynolds number capability of a given facility relative to 
     tests using full-span models.
     \6\The National Facilities Study included a very detailed 
     costing effort, which is documented in Volume II-A of its 
     final report.
     \7\Laster, M.L. June 17, 1994. National Aeronautical Test 
     Facilities Study Information Memorandum. Directorate for 
     Plans and Requirements, Arnold Engineering Development 
     Center. Arnold Air Force Base. Tennessee.
     \8\For a more thorough discussion of the factors affecting 
     the eroding U.S. position in aeronautics, the necessary but 
     insufficient role that advances in technology play, and 
     specific technology advances that are possible and desirable, 
     see ``Aeronautical Technologies for the Twenty-First 
     Century'' (NRC, 1992), pages 26-34 and the discussions of 
     current industry status, market forecast, and barriers for 
     each of the major speed regimes.
     \9\NASA has established a Wind Tunnel Program Office at Lewis 
     Research Center. This office, which reports to the NASA 
     Administrator, is now working with industry to develop an 
     acquisition strategy and conduct design trade studies for two 
     new low speed and transonic wind tunnels, as recommended by 
     the National Facilities Study. Participants in this effort 
     include veteran wind tunnel designers, operators, and users 
     from government and industry. If federal responsibility for 
     development of these facilities is reassigned, then the 
     designated successor should assume responsibility for actions 
     assigned in this report to the Wind Tunnel Program Office.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator from Missouri, I think, now wants to offer 
his amendment, which I have agreed to, as a second-degree amendment.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                 Amendment No. 332 to Amendment No. 330

 (Purpose: To provide a limitation on the use of funds for entry with 
  Russia into an agreement on exchange of equipment, technology, and 
                               materials)

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in the 
nature of a substitute on behalf of myself, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. 
Mikulski, and Mrs. Hutchison, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for himself, Mrs. 
     Feinstein, Ms. Mikulski, and Mrs. Hutchison, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 332 to amendment No. 330.

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

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be added, add the 
     following:
       Sec.   . (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     funds appropriated by this Act, or otherwise appropriated or 
     made available by any other Act, may be utilized for purposes 
     of entering into the agreement described in subsection (b) 
     until the President certifies to Congress that--
       (1) Russia has agreed not to sell nuclear reactor 
     components to Iran; or
       (2) the issue of the sale by Russia of such components to 
     Iran has been resolved in a manner that is consistent with--
       (A) the national security objectives of the United States; 
     and
       (B) the concerns of the United States with respect to 
     nonproliferation in the Middle East.
       (b) The agreement referred to in subsection (a) is an 
     agreement known as the Agreement on the Exchange of 
     Equipment, Technology, and Materials between the United 
     States Government and the Government of the Russian 
     Federation, or any department or agency of that government 
     (including the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy), that the 
     United States Government proposes to enter into under section 
     123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153).

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arkansas for 
working out what would have been a very troubling first-degree 
amendment that would have held hostage a very important cooperative 
scientific and space technology venture to address a foreign policy 
issue which, though widely important, was unrelated to the space 
station.
  The shuttle-MIR rendezvous program was a cooperative effort between 
NASA and Russia which has important benefits for both nations, and is 
being paid for by both nations. It is not a paid grant for assistance 
to Russia. The United States has contracted with the Russian Space 
Agency for a number of services and activities, excluding the launch 
and support of an American astronaut to their MIR space station.
  As we heard on the news today, the American astronaut has in fact 
come aboard the Russian space station. Our astronaut will utilize this 
Russian facility to conduct scientific experiments and will return to 
Earth aboard the space shuttle when it docks with the MIR space station 
in June. This mission will provide important experience and 
understanding of such docking procedures which are critical to the 
deployment of the international space station.
  In addition, the experiments conducted by the astronaut aboard the 
Russian MIR space station will provide the United States our first 
opportunity to obtain long-term microgravity scientific data.
  The amendment, as originally proposed, therefore attempted to 
threaten the Russians by saying that unless you 
[[Page S4015]] do it as we say, we will shoot ourselves in the foot, 
which did not make a great deal of sense because we made the mistake 
when Russia invaded Afghanistan. We punished our own farmers by cutting 
off grain sales to the Soviet Union. In that case, Russia was free to 
purchase cheaper foreign grain on the foreign market. Only U.S. 
producers were hurt. This amendment avoids the temptation to shoot 
ourselves in the foot again by denying our scientists and engineers the 
opportunity to utilize the investment made by Russia in the MIR space 
station.
  I am very pleased to say that with the efforts of Senator Hutchison, 
Senator Mikulski, and Senator Feinstein, we have worked out a 
compromise with our colleague from Arkansas. We all share concerns over 
the potential sale by the Russians of nuclear reactors to Iran. We 
believe that adequate safeguards against the proliferation of nuclear 
technology must be secured. The revised amendment, however, targets the 
Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy for loss of United States assistance 
should any sale be carried out without adequate nonproliferation 
guarantees. This, in fact, targets our efforts on the agency which is 
causing us great concern.
  With this modification, the amendment is strengthened, and focuses on 
the parties in Russia responsible for this sale of the reactor 
technology. I commend the Senator from Arkansas for calling our 
attention to this very troubling development.
  But I believe the substitute amendment is a good amendment, and I 
urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I do not want to delay this, because we 
have agreed to it. But I want to say this is not the sort of amendment 
that I would normally offer. I very much want the United States and 
Russia to develop a new cooperative attitude toward each other. I have 
voted for some funding for Russia, which is not very politically 
popular in this country. But I want Russian democracy to succeed. But I 
also want the Russians to show some appreciation for the assistance we 
have been giving them.
  The cooperative space effort which was the subject of my original 
amendment. I remain very much opposed to it, and I will try to kill it 
later on this year. But I support giving Russia aid to build housing 
for their military so they can dismantle their military forces faster, 
and giving them money so they can dismantle their bombers, nuclear 
warheads, and launchers. That is all very much in our interest. It is 
not just to accommodate them; it is in our interest. But then there is 
this gigantic space cooperation program; which is a jobs program in 
America, but which does not do anything else for us.
  But I want to say that when the Russians cavalierly say we are going 
to sell nuclear reactors to the biggest renegade nation on this planet, 
namely, Iran, I belong to the ``Wait-Just-a-Minute Club.'' There is not 
any question about the fact that more terrorism comes out of Iran than 
any other country on Earth. So I take very strong exception to the 
Russians irresponsibly cutting a deal to sell nuclear reactors to Iran, 
which has more oil than they could possibly put in all the generators 
they could build through the millennium. Iran can only want nuclear 
reactors for one thing. That is for a nuclear weapons program.
  Mr. President, this amendment is not terribly tough. My first 
amendment said we will stop all space cooperation for the Russians 
until the President certifies that the Russians have assured him they 
will not sell these reactors to Iran. That caused about 10 heart 
attacks around here in people who are interested in the space station. 
And, quite frankly, I like to cooperate with the President, who is very 
much opposed to my amendment.
  Finally, I yielded to this particular amendment, which is not totally 
toothless, because the Russians want our nuclear technology.
  They want it very badly. And the head of MINATOM, I think, will get 
the message. Perhaps the Russians will finally call off this deal to 
sell reactors to Iran. So now we are saying in this amendment to the 
Russians and to the President: Mr. President, you need to put all the 
pressure you can on President Yeltsin and the MINATOM agency, which is 
very independent, and you need to get a commitment from them. If this 
is not strong enough medicine, I promise you stronger medicine will 
follow because here we are spending about $1.5 billion a year trying to 
help the Russians. And that aid is not popular around this country.
  I know what is popular in this country as well as anybody does. I am 
saying that if we do not get some results out of this amendment, 
stronger medicine will follow. There is only one thing more 
irresponsible than the Russians selling nuclear reactors to Iran, and 
that is for us to sit by and do nothing.
  I thank Senators Feinstein, Bond, Mikulski, Hutchison, and others who 
worked with me in crafting this amendment, which is quite different 
from the one I originally offered. I am prepared to now vote on the 
amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the substitute 
amendment being offered by the senior Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], 
to the Bumpers amendment. I was pleased to work with my colleagues and 
the administration in helping draft this important amendment.
  I support Senator Bumpers' efforts to block the export of Russian 
nuclear reactors to Iran. However, the amendment misses the target. It 
threatens to jeopardize a program of great importance to the United 
States and other Western countries--the international space station--
and it penalizes the Russian Space Agency as opposed to the bad actors 
in Russia: the Ministry of Atomic Energy, or MINATOM.
  The Bumpers amendment would withhold funding for the first stage of 
the international space station program--the space shuttle-MIR 
cooperative effort--until the President certifies to Congress that 
Russia has agreed not to sell nuclear reactor components to Iran.
  As many of my colleagues know, the space shuttle-MIR Cooperative 
effort is a prelude to implementation of the space station program. It 
consists of seven shuttle flights to the Russian MIR space station that 
will reduce technical and scientific risks to the assembly and 
operation of the international space station. In addition, it consists 
of U.S. participation in the MIR program. Earlier this month, United 
States astronaut Norm Thagard was launched on a Russian spacecraft to 
the MIR space station to perform science investigations. Thagard will 
be aboard MIR for more than 90 days.
  The Bumpers amendment, if enacted into law, would put an end to the 
shuttle-MIR cooperative effort and essentially kill the international 
space station, a program that, according to NASA, is proceeding 
smoothly and meeting all cost, technical, and schedule milestones. This 
amendment would also impact our other international partners in the 
space station program--Europe, Japan, and Canada--who have already 
contributed over $8.5 billion to the program.
  While I cannot support Senator Bumpers's amendment because of its 
impact on the space station program, I, too, am concerned about the 
Russian export of nuclear reactors to Iran. That is why I am supporting 
the substitute amendment being offered by Senator Bond, myself, and 
others. Instead of punishing the Russian Space Agency--who, by the way, 
has been cooperating with our efforts to halt the proliferation of 
missile technology around the world--the substitute amendment would 
target the bad
 actors in Russia, MINATOM, the organization that signed the nuclear 
deal and will actually export the reactors to Iran.

  While protecting important programs that the United States has with 
MINATOM--such as the material protection control and counting program, 
as well as the high enriched uranium contract--the substitute amendment 
would block any agreement under section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act. A 
123 agreement is of great interest to MINATOM because it would give 
Russia's atomic energy agency broad access to United States nuclear 
technology and equipment, such as reactors, nuclear fuel, and major 
components for reactors. A 123 agreement would permit MINATOM to 
modernize its nuclear reactor program, thus making it more competitive 
internationally.
  [[Page S4016]] This substitute amendment hits the Russian atomic 
energy agency where it hurts. MINATOM wants a 123 agreement. In fact, 
it recently submitted a detailed proposal for such an agreement to the 
U.S. Department of Energy, where it is currently pending.
  I also believe that by targeting MINATOM instead of the Russian Space 
Agency, this substitute amendment will have greater influence over 
Russia's proposed sale of nuclear reactors to Iran. As the 
Congressional Research Service points out, MINATOM has a:

       * * * tendency to pursue policies independent of President 
     Yeltsin's stated positions. Many officials suspect that 
     MINATOM is more concerned about making money than about 
     controlling nuclear materials * * *. Many view MINATOM as a 
     largely independent, self-interested bureaucracy.

By targeting MINATOM directly, the United States will have greater 
leverage in trying to block the Russian export. The lack of a 123 
agreement could force MINATOM to reconsider the Iranian nuclear reactor 
deal.
  Senator Bumpers is right that we must do everything practical to stop 
Iran from becoming a nuclear-capable nation.
  Iran is a supporter of state-sponsored terrorism and funnels money to 
Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups such as Hezbolah;
  Secretary of State Warren Christopher said that Iran is on a crash 
program to acquire nuclear weapons; and
  Though the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] has found no 
evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, our intelligence 
agencies believe that Iran is actively pursuing such a program and, 
according to press reports, is 6 to 8 years away from having a bomb.
  A nuclear-capable Iran is a very real threat to the United States and 
the entire world. Even though the proposed Russian export of nuclear 
reactors to Iran is allowed within the context of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty [NPT], and even though the reactors are light-
water reactors, I believe that Iran is a reckless country that cannot 
be trusted with any type of nuclear technology.
  The Bond-Feinstein substitute amendment targets the bad actors in 
Russia that are proceeding with the export of nuclear reactors to Iran. 
I believe that this amendment will have a much greater influence on the 
Russians and will do more to encourage MINATOM not to export the 
nuclear reactors to Iran. In addition, this substitute amendment will 
not jeopardize a program that is important to California and the entire 
Nation--the international space station.
  I urge my colleagues to support the substitute amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bond-Hutchison-
Feinstein-Mikulski substitute to the Bumpers amendment. I want to thank 
the Senator from Arkansas for his cooperation in resolving this issue. 
Know that I support the policy questions that his original amendment 
raised, and am appreciative of the fact that when resolving one policy 
issue related to possible nuclear proliferation, we were not creating 
damage and havoc in America's space program.
  I urge the adoption of the substitute. I thank the Senator from 
Arkansas for his cooperation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the substitute amendment of the Senator from Missouri.
  The amendment (No. 332) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Procedurally, Mr. President, do we need to adopt the 
underlying amendment to which the substitute has just been adopted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, that is appropriate at some point. Is 
there further debate?
  Mr. BOND. No.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We will move to the adoption of the Bumpers 
amendment, as amended.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 330), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            Amendment No. 333

(Purpose: To rescind funds made available for the construction of wind 
                                tunnels)

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

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 333.

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

       At the appropriate place in CHAPTER VII of TITLE II of the 
     bill add the following:

                         ``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.''

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, today, the House of Representatives is 
voting on a very important piece of legislation called rescissions. 
They are proposing to cut $17 billion out of this year's budget. A good 
portion of that will be used to pay for California disaster aid. The 
net reductions in the House rescission is over $11 billion.
  As a Democrat, I want to say there are things in that rescission bill 
with which I disagree. But I applaud the people in the House who are 
indeed finding some spending cuts that we can make without discommoding 
this Nation and an awful lot of people. I might say, by way of 
digression, that I agree with 70 percent of the people in this country 
who say that every dime of that ought to go on deficit reduction, not 
for tax cuts.
  Further digressing, I am not voting for any tax cuts. I am going to 
vote for everything that will reduce the deficit of this country and 
keep faith with the American people. You cannot do that by saying here 
is a new $200 billion tax cut, and now we are going to start balancing 
the budget. Not only does that not make sense, it is not even popular. 
The poor person working on an assembly line will get enough to buy a 
13-inch pizza each Friday night out of the tax cuts. Based on the 
inflation figures coming out, there is a chance he is going to pay more 
interest on his house and car and on everything he buys on time if we 
inflate this economy with $200 billion in additional tax cuts.
  What in the name of all that is good and holy are we talking about? 
Tax cuts to generate economic activity? The inflation rate is up this 
morning to a level that is alarming to everybody, and Alan Greenspan 
raised interest rates in the last 14 months seven times to dampen 
economic activity. You have Greenspan on the one hand saying, ``I am 
raising interest rates to slow economic growth,'' and you have the 
Republicans in the House saying, ``We are going to give all this tax 
money to you to stimulate economic growth.'' You cannot have it both 
ways. You should not. We ought to put this money where everybody in 
America wants it--on the deficit.
  I am going to help the Republicans balance this budget by the year 
2002, if they will let me.
  That is why I am standing here today. Last year, Mr. President, with 
no authorization from anybody, the HUD-VA Appropriations Committees in 
the House and Senate went to conference, and approved $400 million for 
wind tunnels that was included in the Senate bill. Mr. President, $400 
million ain't beanbags.
  The Presiding Officer is smiling because he and I have gone after a 
lot of these boondoggles, from the super collider to the space station, 
and you name it. And the President, thank goodness, had the good sense 
to kill the advance neutron source. That is another $3 billion we were 
getting ready to spend. And now we have wind tunnels.
   [[Page S4017]] That is not the best of it. Not only did we go to 
conference with the House, which had nothing in its budget for wind 
tunnels, and approve this $400 million for wind tunnels to accommodate 
the aircraft industry even though it had not been authorized in either 
House, but here is what they said--and I want every one of my 
colleagues watching or listening to this in their offices and those on 
the floor, if they do not hear another word I say, I want them to hear 
this. Here is the text of the appropriations bill that came out of the 
conference committee:

       For construction of new national wind tunnel facilities, 
     including final design modification of existing facilities, 
     et cetera, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
     $400 million is to remain available to NASA until March 31, 
     1997, provided--

  Listen to this proviso.

     that the funds made available under this heading--

  Namely this $400 million.

     shall be rescinded on July 15, 1995, unless the President, in 
     his budget for 1996, requests the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration for continuation of this wind tunnel 
     initiative.

  This is what the conference report came back with. This will be 
rescinded unless the President asks for the money.
  Well, the President did not ask for the money in his fiscal year 1996 
budget. Now what is the argument? ``Did we ever fool you.'' Is that the 
argument? ``Boy, did you bite into this one.''
  You will never find anything easier to cut than this $400 million.
  Let me say to my Republican brethren who want to privatize 
everything: How can you go around talking about privatizing everything 
and then say to the aircraft industry, already is getting $60 million 
to study wind tunnels, how can you say to them, ``We know you would 
like to have these wind tunnels and we know you don't want to spend 
your money to do it, so we will spend old Uncle Sucker's money to build 
these wind tunnels for you.''
  You will hear people talking about, ``Oh, this deals with aircraft 
safety. This deals with aerodynamics. If we don't do it, the European 
Airbus consortium is going to eat our lunch.''
  That is kind of like the superconducting super collider. 
There is one in Geneva that was going to cost about $1 billion or maybe 
$2 billion, so we had to build one in Texas about five times as costly.
  Somebody is building wind tunnels over there, so we are getting ready 
to embark, Mr. President, not on a $400 million venture, but somewhere 
between $2.5 and $3.2 billion. And the project has not been 
authorized--$3 billion; $400 million of which the conference committee 
said will be rescinded unless the President asks for it. Now the 
President is not a piker about asking for money. He surely had some 
reason not to ask for it.
  And so, here we are cutting food stamps, cutting aid to children and 
homeless mothers--most of which is hardly applauded by the American 
people--cutting $1.7 billion to give the poorest children a job during 
the summer months. That is a cut that says, ``You kids hang around the 
pool hall this summer. We are cutting this program totally, because we 
have to start this wind tunnel.''
  I do not know, technically, how valid the arguments are about the 
need for these wind tunnels. All I know is we have a pretty healthy 
aircraft industry in this country and they ought to be doing it.
  Do you want to privatize something? Privatize the wind tunnels. It is 
corporate welfare at its worst.
  Mr. President, I do not think we have a time agreement on this.
  Is there a time agreement, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an agreement that limits time prior 
to a motion to table. Under that agreement, it is 45 minutes. The Chair 
believes that is divided, with 30 minutes reserved to the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 20 minutes remaining to the Senator 
from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, to some of the people around here who 
profess to be deficit hawks, along with me, let me implore you: Do not 
vote for this because it is going to be built in somebody's State. Do 
not vote for it because you want to help the Boeing Corp.
  One other point, Mr. President. The private sector is expected to put 
up 20 percent of the money. Think about this. Mr. President, here is 
the $64 question. I will let you guess. How much do you think they have 
committed so far? Oh, I can tell by the look on your face you already 
know. Zip. Not one penny.
  So I plead with my colleagues to be able to go home and say, yes, we 
took out $400 million, headed for $3 billion, because we believe in the 
private enterprise system in this country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator note the absence of a quorum?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum with 
the time to be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BUMPERS. 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. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I will just make one quick point, a very 
important point that I overlooked. And that is this rescission is in 
the House version of the defense supplemental we have before us today. 
So the House has already taken the $400 million out. And in order to 
avoid any conflicts, any conflicts in the conference with the House we 
should do the same thing here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need.
  Mr. President, our committee has recommended substituting $400 
million in public housing new construction funds for rescission rather 
than the wind tunnel appropriation.
  Very simply, this is an effort to get us back on track for 
transforming the out-of-control Housing and Urban Development policies. 
We need to stop spending in areas where we cannot spend money wisely, 
but we also need to save manufacturing jobs. New science and real 
manufacturing jobs are the things that depend upon this wind tunnel.
  My colleague from Arkansas has said, ``Well, we do not want to be in 
disagreement with the House.'' Mr. President, if we were not in 
disagreement with the House, life might be a lot simpler around here, 
but I do not think that we would be earning the trust that the citizens 
of our States have put in us, because I happen to think that the House, 
if, in fact, they have rescinded the wind tunnel authorization, has 
made a major mistake.
  The commercial airplane market in the United States is a $40-billion-
a-year enterprise which the United States dominated until foreign 
competition, specifically Airbus, with strong governmental support, 
weighed in with aggressively priced technically advanced aircraft. 
Airbus has captured about 30 percent of the market and now increasing 
competition is expected from Russia, China, Japan, and others.
  Critical to the continued U.S. competitive position in this growing 
market is the development of new technically advanced aircraft. Access 
to wind tunnels, such as the ones currently under study, are necessary 
for such development and such facilities do not currently exist in the 
United States.
  Airbus, by contrast, has several facilities available to it in 
European countries, including a new transonic facility in Germany. The 
development of these wind tunnels will be a joint venture between the 
Government and industry, with significant industry financial 
contributions. NASA and industry participants have underway an 
extensive study of design configuration of this wind tunnel complex, 
along with an assessment of financial and legal arrangements for a 
Government-industry consortium to build and operate the national wind 
tunnel facility.
  These studies began last year and will not be completed until fiscal 
year 1997. The appropriation of $400 million for the wind tunnel 
facility was made 
[[Page S4018]] last year before the schedule of the ongoing study was 
determined. The contingency included for this appropriation--which call 
for further funding in fiscal year 1996--therefore, did not adequately 
reflect the time necessary to conduct the study.
  Only after the analysis is completed will we be in a position to make 
recommendations on industry participation and further funding the 
complex. As I noted before, these decisions will be made in fiscal year 
1997, and the administration has requested supplemental language to 
change the previously enacted limitation to extend availabilities of 
this funding to that fiscal year.
  It is the committee's intention to recommend enactment of the 
administration's requested supplemental language. This item was not 
appropriate for inclusion in this defense supplemental and recision 
bill. It will be considered in connection with the next supplemental 
appropriation bill.
  Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven and one-half minutes remain.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to yield 5 minutes to my 
ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommitee, the Senator from 
Maryland, Senator Mikulski.
  After that, I would like to give 2 minutes to the Senator from 
California [Mrs. Boxer].
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the proposed 
amendment and in support of the Committee's recommendation regarding 
funding for the national wind tunnel complex.
  The reason I oppose the amendment is that I believe that in our quest 
for quick fixes to help ease the budget deficit, that we do not make 
the kind of shortsighted cuts which will cost us jobs and productivity 
in the long run.
  Wind tunnels are the 21st century test tubes for America's 
aeronautics industry. No industry defines our country's economy more 
than commercial aeronautics.
  The European aeronautics consortium, Airbus, started just 25 years 
ago. But since that time, they've gained a 35-percent market share in 
commercial aviation. The European Airbus consortium now make and sell 
more commercial planes than McDonnel-Douglas, second only to Boeing. 
They are gaining ground on us, year by year, and threaten the long-term 
dominance of the United States in this centerpiece of our manufacturing 
base.
  Mr. President, the commercial market for aircraft is forecast to be 
in excess of $800 billion in the next 20 years of which almost two-
thirds will be sales to foreign airlines. Russia, China, and Japan are 
weighing entry into this market.
  A vital factor in obtaining market share in the next century will be 
the ability of the U.S. manufacturers to introduce new aircraft that 
are capable of advanced performance through improved technologies.
  The new low-speed transonic wind tunnels will enable U.S. 
manufacturers to more effectively simulate flight conditions and reduce 
cycle times in the development of new aircraft and derivatives.
  It should come as no surprise that European governments have invested 
in six major wind tunnels in the last 15 years, which has provided 
Airbus with a distinct aerodynamic advantage.
  Mr. President, U.S. aircraft testing facilities are so far behind the 
times that American airplane makers must go to Europe to do much of 
their testing and face the threat of having their most promising 
technology compromised in the backyard of their biggest competitor.
  Commercial aviation is one of the few areas where U.S. preeminence in 
manufacturing now exists. We export far more than we import. This is 
one area of our manufacturing base where we still provide high-skilled, 
high-quality jobs for American workers.
  But unless we act to make this industry fit for duty, we run the risk 
that U.S. commercial aviation may go the way of the VCR, the 
automobile, the textile industry, or the TV.
  Mr. President, the $400 million that was appropriated in the fiscal 
year 1995 VA-HUD bill was provided to allow the Federal Government to 
join with the private sector in a cost-shared accelerated effort to 
develop these wind tunnel facilities. This is a Federal investment in 
pre-competitive research and development. It is not our intention to 
have the Federal Government pick winners and losers. We don't subsidize 
the production of commercial products. With this investment, we are 
simply making sure that U.S. companies who are up against other 
countries in this field have the kind of test facilities they need to 
retain their edge.
  Mr. President, if we are not willing to fight for aeronautics, what 
kind of manufacturing strategy do we have?
  It was an attempt to answer that question that persuaded Senator Bond 
and me to make the recommendation that we did. Rather than sacrifice 
future productivity and jobs, we elected to reduce funding available 
for public housing and new construction at HUD. We decided to defer 
some new starts and, given the administration's proposal to reinvent 
HUD which the VA-HUD Subcommittee will be addressing in the fiscal year 
1996 bill, it makes little sense to add to the existing public housing 
inventory.
  Mr. President, we need this wind tunnel initiative to go forward now. 
As we noted in the statement of managers that accompanied the fiscal 
year 1995 VA-HUD appropriations bill, the $400 million appropriated is 
needed to leverage reliable and resilient cost-sharing from the private 
sector and State and local governments that will bidding on potential 
sites for the wind tunnel complex.
  The total cost of the national wind tunnel complex is estimated to be 
between $1.8 and $2.3 billion. This is more than either the Federal 
Government or private industry can fund alone. What is required is a 
partnership between the public and private sectors to share costs and 
technical know-how.
  NASA has already established an industry team led by Boeing that 
includes McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, Pratt & 
Whitney, and General Electric. Working with NASA this industry team is 
developing engineering, performance, cost, financing and site 
evaluation options needed to lay the groundwork for a comprehensive 
plan and strategy for the development of the wind tunnels.
  Although the administration has not requested additional funding for 
the national wind tunnel complex in its fiscal year 1996 budget 
request, the President is proposing that the $400 million appropriated 
in fiscal year 1995 remain available until fiscal year 1997 to allow 
for the completion of the comprehensive study. Guided by this study, 
construction of the wind tunnels can begin in fiscal year 1996, 
provided that funding provided in fiscal year 1995 is available.
  There might be those in America who say, why does the U.S. Senate 
want to advocate more wind tunnels? The whole Senate is a wind tunnel.
  Well, Mr. President, I know how they feel. Very often more gets said 
than gets done. What we did when we advocated the building of a 
national wind tunnel complex--this is the new infrastructure that 
enables the United States of America to be competitive in terms of 
developing the new aviation technologies that we need to have in order 
to have the new aeronautic aviation designs for the new planes of the 
21st century.
  The reason I oppose this amendment is that I do not believe in our 
quest for quick fixes. Those kind of one-liners we can put out on talk 
rodeo or radio are so shortsighted that we think if we knock something 
out like this, we can grab onto how we cut out $400 million and saved a 
little muffin at the school lunch program, then we have been doing 
something.
  Mr. President, we need to have a future. We need to have jobs in 
manufacturing. The most important source of jobs in manufacturing right 
now are in our aviation industry, and yet we are being beaten to death 
in the new world market.
  Our competitors abroad have government-financed wind tunnels that are 
helping them develop the new technologies of the 21st century. That is 
what these wind tunnels are. They are test tubes for America's aviation 
industry.
  My colleague has spoken to the aeronautics consortium, Airbus, that 
started 25 years ago. With all the big bucks subsidies they get they 
have now gained a 35 percent market share in commercial aviation. The 
commercial 
[[Page S4019]] market for aircraft is forecast to be over $800 billion 
in the next 20
 years. Russia, China, and Japan are talking about getting into this 
market.

  Mr. President, keep in mind that the European Airbus consortium began 
in 1972 and by 1980 had a 20-percent share of the commercial market. By 
1990, Airbus controlled 30 percent market share by the year 2005.
  So we will have competition from fortress Europe and we will have 
competition from the juggernauts on the Pacific rim. This is why we 
need to develop this technology, so that we can continue to make sure 
we are not on a glidepath and heading into a crash when it comes to our 
aviation industry.
  This is a partnership with the private sector. We are not picking 
winners and losers. We are paying for the previous competitive 
infrastructure with cooperation from the private sector. The private 
sector will pay to use wind tunnels.
  We cannot afford further delay. We cannot continue to allow U.S. 
market share in aviation to erode. Make no mistake. The issues here are 
jobs today and jobs tomorrow. Jobs in manufacturing that employ 
everyone from high-tech engineers to highly skilled people in 
manufacturing.
  I believe the best social program is a job. I want America to 
continue to be ahead in aviation. This investment is what will help the 
United States be able to stay there and develop the products necessary. 
I urge my colleagues to vote to table the Bumpers amendment and to 
support the committee recommendation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. As of the previous request of the Senator from 
Missouri, the gentle Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President, for calling me a gentle 
Senator. I will, in fact, try to be one.
  While I agree with my friend from Arkansas on so many things, I think 
that this amendment is shortsighted for the economic future of our 
Nation.
  I think people listening to this debate would wonder, what is a wind 
tunnel, anyway? A wind tunnel is a place where we can test an aircraft, 
a new aircraft design, before it is fully built. We can simulate the 
impact of flying that newly designed aircraft. It is very important to 
the aerospace industry. We are talking here about civil aviation.
  As a matter of fact, a prominent NASA official has said, ``Wind 
tunnels and computers are the two most important tools in the research 
and development of new aircraft.'' Everyone would say immediately, of 
course, computers are critical. So are wind tunnels. I hope we will not 
lose that point.
  The U.S. aircraft manufacturing industry is critical to our economy, 
as the Senator from Maryland has said, and to our balance of trade. I 
certainly know that, representing the great State of California. It is 
also important to our country's technological leadership.
  Now, it is true that the industry is facing many challenges, and I 
want to point out why I think this amendment is off the mark. When my 
friend from Arkansas says that the companies can do this on their own, 
I would point out that is not so. Currently, our competitors in Europe 
are getting enormous subsidies from their host countries. Already, 
because they are building more state-of-the-art wind tunnels, we are 
losing market share to them.
  Mr. President, I do not think I need to go into too many details. The 
time is short. I ask unanimous consent that a letter that I wrote to 
Dan Goldin, the Administrator of NASA, back in September 1993, be 
printed in the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Hart Senate Office Building,

                               Washington, DC, September 29, 1993.
     Daniel S. Goldin,
     Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Dan: The purpose of this letter is to underscore yet 
     again the importance of the NASA National Wind Tunnel 
     Facility to the State of California. I understand that NASA 
     is preparing its long-range budget request for submission on 
     Friday to the Office of Management and Budget, and I urge you 
     to include in that request funds for new wind tunnel 
     construction.
       It is no secret that California is experiencing economic 
     hard times. Our aerospace industry, with its preeminent 
     technological base, highly-skilled workforce, and historic 
     ties to defense production, has been particularly hard hit, 
     with 128,000 jobs lost in the last several years alone. The 
     latest round of base closures portends even more job loss and 
     hardship throughout the state of California.
       The wind tunnel project is essential to continued U.S. 
     leadership in aviation technology. As you know, the 
     complexity of modern aircraft and the pressure of 
     international competition have created a critical need for 
     increased domestic productivity and improved simulation 
     requirements--and no current wind tunnel satisfies these 
     requirements. However, such improvements are possible through 
     construction of the new NASA wind tunnels.
       It is my understanding that the new wind tunnels would 
     support primarily civilian/commercial aircraft research and 
     development. I understand further that commercial aircraft 
     manufacturers would pay NASA for use of the wind tunnels, 
     offsetting over time some initial construction costs and 
     ongoing operating expenses.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Barbara Boxer,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would say to my friend from Missouri, 
thank you for leading this debate. I think this would be very foolish 
in the long run. Yes, in the short run we could save some dollars, but 
in the long run if we fall behind here it means the loss of jobs. Our 
economy cannot afford that kind of hit. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Nebraska 5 
minutes.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Arkansas for yielding.
  Mr. President, first, I am pleased to learn that even distantly we 
are reaching a point when we will move ahead and dispose of the 
remaining amendments and hopefully, pass the defense supplemental 
defense bill today.
  It is critical that we get moving on this. I am glad to see that the 
Senate has finally arrived at the position where they recognize we have 
to move on this bill.
  As I understand it, we will have a vote on this today. I have been 
listening with great interest, Mr. President, to the remarks of my two 
colleagues who have spoken before me. They made some very excellent 
points that I think the U.S. Senate should take a very close and very 
hard look at.
  In another time, in another day, I would be persuaded by the 
arguments made by the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from 
California. But the facts of the matter are this is a new day, this is 
a different day.
  We are going to be deluged, I say, Mr. President, all of us on all 
sides of various issues that are going to be upcoming with trying to do 
something about the United States of America continuing to spend more 
money than it takes in, however worthy.
  I will simply say that regardless of the excellent points that have 
been made by the two previous speakers, I must support wholeheartedly 
the effort to reduce these types of expenditures regardless of how 
worthy, given the situation that confronts us today.
  Mr. President, all of these things are good. The question is, can we 
afford them? If we are talking about programs like this, then that is 
just one more deep bite of the knife or the machete--call it what you 
will--into programs for the elderly, the poor, the School Lunch 
Program, Women, Infants and Children, and all of these other things 
that we think are tremendously important.
  I simply say that if we cannot make savings in programs like this 
that have already been zeroed out by the House of Representatives, then 
I suspect that we are going to have even more and more difficulty than 
we thought we had with regard to doing something constructively and 
thoughtfully about the deficit of the United States of America and the 
ever-skyrocketing national debt that is eating our economy alive.
  Therefore, I say notwithstanding the good, valuable, articulate, and 
well-thought out recommendations by those who are opposing the Bumpers 
amendment, I simply say that I must at this time not only vote for the 
Bumpers amendment, but I hope that the Senate on this occasion will 
rise to the occasion and do what I think we must under the 
circumstances that confront us, and that is to approve the Bumpers 
amendment.
  [[Page S4020]] I yield back the remainder of my time to my colleague 
from Arkansas, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 13\1/2\ minutes. The Senator 
from Missouri has 2 minutes 41 seconds.
  Mr. BOND. How much?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes forty-one seconds.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I want to reiterate that I voted for an 
appropriations bill last year that had language in it saying that this 
money was going to be rescinded, and the House kept their word and they 
rescinded it. We are reneging on something we voted to do last year.
  I just, frankly, cringe when I see us putting $400 million into a 
program like this. The Senator from Maryland a moment ago listed the 
people this is designed to help. Can you believe this? Listen: 
Lockheed, General Electric, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Martin Marietta, 
Northrup, and Pratt & Whitney.
  The kids who hang around the pool hall this summer, because we killed 
summer jobs, can fend for themselves, but we have to put $400 million 
in this year headed, listen to this, Mr. President, headed from 
somewhere between $2.5 billion and $3.2 billion for wind tunnels to 
assist seven of the biggest corporations in America.
  You know, Bob Reich hit a tender spot with me when he started talking 
about corporate welfare. How in the name of all that is good and holy 
can the U.S. Senate even consider going down this path toward a $3 
billion expenditure because Airbus--because Airbus--is building a good 
airplane?
  I heard the same arguments in the early seventies, in the late 
seventies that I just heard from my good friend and colleague from 
Maryland when the Japanese were eating the American automobile 
industry's lunch. The American automobile industry said, ``Well, people 
are not going to like those little old minicars, they are going to quit 
buying them.'' They did not quit buying them, and shortly, the American 
automobile industry was on its haunches, losing money hand over fist. 
We did not give them $3 billion, and they are at this moment the most 
viable industry in America because they sucked it up, pulled up their 
pants and did whatever they knew they had to do: Build a better 
automobile.
  But now we are saying to these seven corporate giants who have at 
this moment not committed one penny--they say, ``We'll put up 20 
percent of the money.'' You have not heard anybody say they have done 
it or offered to do it.
  So I am simply saying, you will never get a chance to save $400 
million easier, and if we are going to go through this laborious 
process this year of cutting virtually everything in sight, for God's 
sake, let us cut this.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator yield for just a question?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Is the Senator aware that the administration strongly 
supports the retention of the $400 million request?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am not familiar with the fact they 
strongly support it, and I am familiar with the fact they have asked 
for the study to be completed before they ask for any more funds for 
this project. But they are not committed and they are not proposing to 
be committed until the present study is completed and you will have 
plenty of time after that to decide and the Senate will, too. But for 
the time being, I am saying we ought to torpedo this misguided 
appropriation.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I am surprised the way the Senator characterizes this.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Well, I will change it in the Record.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I know they do it in the House all the time. I would 
hope we would not get into that in the Senate.
  If you yield the floor then, I would just like to bring to the 
attention of the Senator from Missouri that the administration has 
submitted a letter in support of the wind tunnel. I ask unanimous 
consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                   Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
     Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Mikulski: The Administration strongly supports 
     the retention of the $400 million appropriated in FY 1995 to 
     build the National Wind Tunnel Complex and reiterates its 
     request that the funds remain available until a decision 
     whether to proceed can be made during the FY 1997 budget 
     process.
       NASA, its government partners, and an industry team need to 
     continue to study and refine the wind tunnel concept and 
     financing options to support a well-informed decision on 
     proceeding with the project. At the completion of the current 
     contract, preliminary design will be complete and government/
     industry shares of cost and risk will be negotiated. Until 
     the study data can be carefully evaluated, it would be 
     premature to either rescind or augment the current funding.
       The Administration remains very concerned with the 
     significant erosion of the United States' share of the global 
     commercial aircraft market over the last 25 years. Several 
     recent studies, including the NASA Federal Laboratory Review, 
     have recommended construction of these highly productive and 
     capable wind tunnels to maintain the world-class capability 
     of the Nation's aeronautics industry. The Administration 
     believes that the timing of this critical decision requires 
     retention of the $400 million appropriation and we would 
     appreciate your support in this matter.
           Sincerely,

                                              John H. Gibbons,

                                    Assistant to the President for
                                           Science and Technology.

  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland. I was 
going to ask that this letter dated March 16 from the science adviser 
to the President, which says ``The administration strongly supports the 
retention of the $400 million appropriated in FY 1995 to build the 
National Wind Tunnel Complex and reiterates its request that the funds 
remain available until a decision whether to proceed can be made during 
the FY 1997 budget process,'' be printed in the Record. If this is the 
same letter dated March 16, if it is already printed, I will not need 
to ask for its printing.
  Mr. President, might I ask the distinguished Senator from Arkansas if 
he would be so be kind as to yield us 5 minutes of the time he has 
remaining. His wonderful oratory has brought forth far more speakers 
than we had envisioned. If the Senator could allocate us some of his 
time.
  Mr. BUMPERS. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes 48 seconds.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to 
yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Missouri for such 
allocation as he chooses.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator. Let me first begin by allocating 1 
minute to the Senator from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of 
the Senator from Arkansas which rescinds funds for the construction of 
new national wind tunnel facilities.
  This next generation of research facilities is absolutely essential 
for the maintenance of the competitive advantage of the United States 
that it currently enjoys in the field of commercial aviation. This will 
be a national and an international resource. The development of these 
facilities is absolutely critical to maintaining this position.
  I commend Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for recognizing the 
importance of the U.S. aircraft manufacturing facility as spelled out 
in this wind tunnel and restoring these important funds.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I allocate 1 minute of time to the Senator 
from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to add my remarks to those of 
the 
[[Page S4021]] Senator from Missouri and those of the Senator from 
Tennessee and the great Senator from the State of Maryland.
  This is exactly what responsible budgeting is. We have made a 
decision in the committee that as a priority we should be looking at 
the science projects that are going to create the new technologies that 
keep the new jobs in America.
  Mr. President, HUD is in a state of flux. We have been spending 
$86,000 per housing unit to construct housing under HUD. Once 
constructed, it costs $4,000 to $5,000 per year to maintain. There are 
great questions if that is the best use of taxpayer dollars. I think it 
is most responsible to take money from housing construction when we 
think we are going to go into vouchers, which are going to work better, 
and we put that money into big science which creates jobs for the 
future.
  Mr. President, that is what we are doing. We should table the Bumpers 
amendment and do what is responsible for the future of our country.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield the time remaining with the 
exception of 30 seconds, which I reserve to offer a tabling motion, to 
the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I wish to first thank the ranking member 
and the manager of this bill for this time, and I especially wish to 
thank my friend from Arkansas for allowing me just a couple extra 
minutes. I appreciate that very much. He feels very strongly about 
this, as a lot of us on the other side of the issue feel very strongly 
about it. But one has to look at what it is all about, because in 1994 
we appropriated $74 million for this program, and then in 1995 we 
appropriated another $400 million for the testing and related costs to 
move this program forward.
  Now, that move forward had a certain number of conditions to it. Now, 
if those conditions are not met, then by July 1 this $400 million will 
be automatically rescinded. That was the condition of the 
appropriation. But if they are met, then this money carries over into 
the 1996 appropriations and to further on develop the wind tunnels.
  We have to remember that as far as industrial wind tunnels in this 
country, we are not in very good shape. And once we go into the 
supersonic aircraft--and that is going to be the next generation of 
commercial aircraft for civil aeronautics--we are going to need the 
facility. Right now, 25 percent of the cost of your airplanes in this 
country goes to Europe for the use of their wind tunnels.
  I do not know how long it takes before we finally work out this whole 
problem, but basically let us be very up front about this because if 
the conditions are not met by July 1, this $400 million is 
automatically rescinded. There were conditions put on this 
appropriation. I am chairman of the authorizing committee.
  So what we are doing, we are allowing the administration and NASA to 
work out the details of how much private money is going to go into this 
program. It is going to be a mix.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would advise the Senator his time 
has expired.
  Mr. BURNS. I appreciate that. I have nothing to submit for the 
Record, but I would say this is going to be a commingled fund. I 
appreciate the time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am prepared to close the debate and get 
a vote on this amendment.
  Let me reiterate that this is corporate welfare, pure and simple. You 
heard the list of seven of the biggest corporations in America. They 
said they would put up 20 percent of the money for this. They have not 
committed one nickel--not a dime. If we cannot cut this $400 million, I 
shudder to think what is going to happen in this body the rest of this 
year.
  The American people have a right to demand that those people who 
said, ``I will be as careful with your money as I would if it were my 
own,'' will do just that. They have a legitimate nonnegotiable demand 
that you fulfill that promise. You cannot get it all out of welfare 
programs. You cannot get it out of food stamps. You can get some of it 
from those places. But now we are going to start on a $3 billion 
program to accommodate GE and Lockheed and Boeing and McDonnell 
Douglas, Pratt & Whitney, and Northrop. We are starting down the road 
with a $3 billion expenditure because they do not want to do it. The 
automobile industry did it. The aircraft industry could do it, too. If 
we start down that road of corporate welfare, I shudder to think where 
we are going to wind up with the deficit this year and next.
  So I plead with my colleagues, keep your commitment. Vote to cut 
spending.
  I yield the floor and yield back such time as I may have remaining.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. I thank my colleagues from Montana, from Texas, and from 
Tennessee for their very strong arguments in favor of the wind tunnel. 
It is extremely important for the commercial development of 
aeronautics. It is vitally important that we keep this technology and 
our developments on our shores. Because of the military applications, 
the distinguished ranking member and chairman of the subcommittee on 
defense also support the wind tunnels. Our future and our children's 
future in this area of science and technology depends on that.
  I now move to table and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BOND. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll to ascertain the 
presence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the 
roll.
  Mr. DOLE. 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. DOLE. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on the 
motion to table?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


                                Program

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I just wanted to announce before the vote 
started that at 12:30, we will be honored by the presence of King 
Hassan II of the Kingdom of Morocco. The King has been a loyal friend 
and ally of the United States, and I urge all of my colleagues to greet 
His Majesty and welcome him to the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  At this very moment, he is in a meeting in S-207 which will conclude 
at about 12:30. So if you can stay for a few moments after voting, I 
know he will appreciate very much meeting you.
  I thank the Chair.


               Vote On Motion To Table Amendment No. 333

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion to table the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas, amendment No. 333.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 105 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Pressler
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
                        [[Page S4022]] NAYS--35

     Baucus
     Biden
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Coats
     Conrad
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Ford
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     McCain
     Moseley-Braun
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Simon
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
       Bradley
       
  So the moton to lay on the table the amendment (No. 333) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 334

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that a member of the Armed 
   Forces sentenced by a court-martial to confinement and a punitive 
     discharge or dismissal should not receive pay and allowances)

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

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 334.

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

       On page 25, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
       Sec. 110. It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) Congress should enact legislation that terminates the 
     entitlement to pay and allowances for each member of the 
     Armed Forces who is sentenced by a court-martial to 
     confinement and either a dishonorable discharge, bad-conduct 
     discharge, or dismissal;
       (2) the legislation should provide for restoration of the 
     entitlement if the sentence to confinement and punitive 
     discharge or dismissal, as the case may be, is disapproved or 
     set aside; and
       (3) the legislation should include authority for the 
     establishment of a program that provides transitional 
     benefits for spouses and other dependents of a member of the 
     Armed Forces receiving such a sentence.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have an amendment that we will take a 
very short time on. It has been agreed to on both sides. We are 
expressing the sense of the Senate that a member of the armed services 
sentenced by a court martial to confinement and a punitive discharge or 
dismissal should not receive full pay and allowances.
  Mr. President, I will take but a moment to explain why this is such 
an important amendment and to express my gratitude to both sides of the 
aisle for agreeing to it.
  We know that, in the month of June 1994 alone, the Department of 
Defense spent more than $1 million on the salaries of 680 convicts. I 
want to point out that among those were 58 rapists, 164 child 
molesters, and 7 murderers, among others. I know that every single man 
and woman in this Chamber wants to put an end to that kind of a 
practice. I have legislation, and many Members on both sides of the 
aisle are cosponsors of that legislation that would put an end to 
paying these convicted felons with taxpayer dollars.
  That statute that I have authored is being considered in the Armed 
Services Committee today. I am very hopeful that it will move forward 
and become law. In the meantime, I think it is important on this bill 
that the Senate go on record as saying we oppose the military giving 
full pay to these convicted felons.
  In closing, I want to give you just one example. In California, a 
marine, a lance corporal, who beat his 13-month-old daughter to death 
almost 2 years ago still receives $1,000 each month, or about $20,000 
since his conviction. He spends his days in the brig at Camp Pendleton 
and does not pay a dime of child support and has managed to pack away 
this $25,000. I spoke with the murdered child's grandmother. She was 
totally shocked. She has not received a penny of support for the other 
living child that he still has. I know we all want to put an end to 
this.
  At this point, I will yield the floor and thank my colleagues on both 
sides for including this sense of the Senate.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bradley be added as a cosponsor 
of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
     military pay for military prisoners facing punitive discharges

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Boxer for her 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment concerning the anomalous situation in 
which some military prisoners facing punitive discharges continue to 
receive substantial amounts of military pay while in confinement.
  The amendment would express the sense of the Senate that:
  First, Congress should enact legislation that terminates the 
entitlement to pay and allowances for each member of the Armed Forces 
who is sentenced to a punitive discharge.
  Second, that the legislation should provide for restoration of pay in 
the event that the punitive discharge is set aside.
  Third, that the legislation should include authority for the 
establishment of a program that provides transitional benefits for 
spouses and other dependents of a member of the Armed Forces whose pay 
is terminated in such legislation.
  Mr. President, I would briefly like to outline the background of this 
issue.
  Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a court-martial has great 
discretion over the sentence. Depending on the maximum punishment 
authorized for an offense, a sentence can include a punitive 
discharge--bad-conduct of dishonorable--or dismissal of an officer, 
confinement, a reduction in rank, and forfeiture of pay. Although many 
individuals sentenced to a punitive discharge and confinement also are 
sentenced to total forfeiture of pay, there are exceptions.
  Recent new stories have highlighted the fact that some persons with 
substantial confinement and punitive discharges continue to receive 
military pay. On January 11, Senator Boxer introduced S. 205 with the 
goal of ending pay for such individuals.
  I support the purposes of the Boxer bill, and I congratulate her for 
initiating legislation to close this loophole. There are a number of 
technical questions which must be addressed by the Armed Services 
Committee with respect to the drafting of this legislation. These 
include:
  First, should the restriction on pay also apply to prisoners 
sentenced to substantial periods of confinement even though the 
sentence does not include a punitive discharge?
  Second, should the restriction apply at the time the sentence is 
announced by a military judge or at the time the sentence is approved 
by the commander who convened the court-martial?
  Third, what should be the impact of a commander's decision to suspend 
the effect of a punitive discharge?
  Fourth, how do we address the problem of prisoners who are currently 
receiving pay without violating the ex post facto clause of the 
Constitution (Art. I, sec. 9, cl. 3)?
  Fifth, how do we address the transitional issues that face innocent 
spouses and children of such prisoners who are stationed overseas or 
far from their home of record without creating an expensive 
entitlement?
  I have discussed these matters with Senator Boxer and have 
specifically addressed the questions to the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Personnel and Readiness, Edwin Dorn. Secretary Dorn has advised me 
that the Department of Defense is very close to completing a 
legislative proposal that would address my questions.
  Mr. President, I am confident that we can close this loophole. I look 
forward to working with Senator Boxer, and with Senator Coats and 
Senator Byrd, the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Personnel of the Armed Services Committee, in addressing this issue.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator 
from California has been cleared at our Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Defense and by the authorizers.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to advise the Senate that the 
Senate Armed Services Committee is in favor of this amendment, and 
there is no objection on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
   [[Page S4023]] The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 334 
offered by the Senator from California.
  The amendment (No. 334) was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 335

   (Purpose: To rescind funds for military construction projects at 
 installations recommended for closure or realignment by the Secretary 
       of Defense in the 1995 round of the base closure process)

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself and Mr. 
     Bradley, proposes an amendment numbered 335.

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

       On page 25, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

     SEC. 110. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN MILITARY 
                   CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.

       (a) Conditional Rescission of Funds For Certain Projects.--
     (1)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and subject 
     to paragraphs (2) and (3), of the funds provided in the 
     Military Construction Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 
     103-307; 108 Stat. 1659), the following funds are hereby 
     rescinded from the following accounts in the specified 
     amounts:
       Military Construction, Army, $11,544,000.
       Military Construction, Air Force, $6,500,000.
       Military Construction, Army National Guard, $1,800,000.
       (B) Rescissions under this paragraph are for projects at 
     military installations that were recommended for closure by 
     the Secretary of Defense in the recommendations submitted by 
     the Secretary to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
     Commission on March 1, 1995, under the base closure Act.
       (2) A rescission of funds under paragraph (1) shall not 
     occur with respect to a project covered by that paragraph if 
     the Secretary certifies to Congress that--
       (A) the military installation at which the project is 
     proposed will not be subject to closure or realignment as a 
     result of the 1995 round of the base closure process; or
       (B) if the installation will be subject to realignment 
     under that round of the process, the project is for a 
     function or activity that will not be transferred from the 
     installation as a result of the realignment.
       (3) A certification under paragraph (2) shall be effective 
     only if--
       (A) the Secretary submits the certification together with 
     the approval and recommendations transmitted to Congress by 
     the President in 1995 under paragraph (2) or (4) section 
     2903(e) of the base closure Act; or
       (B) the base closure process in 1995 is terminated pursuant 
     to paragraph (5) of that section.
       (b) Additional Rescissions Relating to Base Closure 
     Process.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     provided in the Military Construction Appropriations Act, 
     1995 for a military construction project are hereby rescinded 
     if--
       (1) the project is located at an installation that the 
     President recommends for closure in 1995 under section 
     2903(e) of the base closure Act; or
       (2) the project is located at an installation that the 
     President recommends for realignment in 1995 under such 
     section and the function or activity with which the project 
     is associated will be transferred from the installation as a 
     result of the realignment.
       (c) Definition.--In the section, the term ``base closure 
     Act'' means the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 
     1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 
     2687 note).

  Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Can the Senator agree to a time?
  Mr. McCAIN. I will not take more than 10 minutes. I would be glad to 
have a 20- or 30-minute time agreement.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I would like to propound that request.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield to the Senator for that purpose.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on 
the McCain amendment be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided in 
the usual form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to 
rescind $19.9 million of the fiscal year 1995 military construction 
funds for projects located on installations that have been recommended 
for closure by the Secretary of Defense. It provides for an automatic 
rescission of military construction funds for additional bases that 
would be recommended for closure or realigned by the BRAC commission. 
It also delays the effect of the rescissions until the President 
submits the final BRAC recommendations by July 15, 1995. And it would 
permit retention of these funds if the bases are removed from the list 
by the BRAC.
  Mr. President, let me say at the outset that all I am seeking here is 
that we not spend military construction money on bases that are on the 
closure list. I am befuddled, frankly, why there would be some 
opposition to this. I am not saying that we should do what I 
recommended some time ago, and that is, to have rescinded $6 billion 
worth of unneeded military spending. This is narrowly targeted to only 
those bases that are on the closure list.
  The net effect of this amendment would be to save hundreds of 
millions of dollars by eliminating unnecessary constructions at 
military bases that are being closed, not those that are being opened. 
I want to restate that. This is nothing to do with bases that are not 
either scheduled to be closed or will be scheduled to be closed as a 
result of the BRAC commission or the BRAC process.
  Spending scarce defense dollars on a project that stands a strong 
chance of becoming unnecessary due to the BRAC's action, in my view, is 
a senseless waste of money.
  Last December, I asked the President to defer spending on nearly $8 
billion in wasteful and unnecessary defense spending in the fiscal year 
1995 appropriations bill until shortfalls and readiness and other high 
priority military requirements were reviewed and addressed. I included 
nearly $1 billion that was in the military construction appropriations 
bill that were unrequested by the military and were on that list. Then, 
in January, I wrote to Secretary Perry asking that he defer obligation 
of funding for all military construction projects at least until the 
base closure recommendations were released on March 1.
 That letter was ignored.

  On its own, the Navy recognized the illogic of staring construction 
at bases that might be closed, and voluntarily deferred obligating its 
military construction funds. To my knowledge, though, the other 
Services did not take similar action.
  Finally, when the Secretary of Defense base closure list was 
released, I again wrote to him, suggesting that he defer spending on 
military construction projects slated to occur at closing bases or 
bases undergoing realignment. I listed about $150 million in projects 
at the bases included on the Secretary's recommendations. Of these 
projects, over $100 million was unrequested in the fiscal year 1995 
budget.
  And finally, I wrote to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
asking that he include in this bill rescissions of congressional add-
ons for military construction.
  I also suggested that the committee rescind over $6 billion in 
wasteful spending in the fiscal year 1995 defense budget, and 
reallocate the funds to higher priority defense needs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of those letters 
that I mentioned be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, January 23, 1995.
     Hon. William Perry,
     Secretary of Defense,
     The Pentagon,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: As you know, I wrote to President 
     Clinton on December 5, 1994, asking that he defer obligation 
     of nearly $8 billion in defense spending for programs which 
     contribute little, if anything, to national defense. While 
     that request is still pending at the White House, I am 
     writing to you today to ask your assistance in a related 
     effort.
       By March 1, you will release the final Department of 
     Defense recommendation for base closures and realignments. In 
     view of 
     [[Page S4024]] the expected magnitude of the changes, it is 
     inevitable that construction projects will be under way on at 
     least some of the bases recommended for closure in this 
     round. This is an egregious waste of millions, or even 
     billions, of taxpayer dollars.
       In my view, a fiscally responsible approach would be to 
     defer the obligation of funding for all military construction 
     projects approved for Fiscal Year 1995 until the results of 
     the Commission's deliberations are known. I urge you to 
     contact the President and request formal deferral of all 
     military construction projects until July 1 of this year. In 
     this way, we will avoid spending scarce defense dollars for 
     unnecessary construction at closing military facilities.
       I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest 
     opportunity.
           Sincerely,
                                                      John McCain,
     U.S. Senator.
                                                                    ____

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, February 28, 1995.
     Hon. William Perry,
     Secretary of Defense,
     The Pentagon,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: With the release this morning of your 
     recommendations for base closures and realignments, I believe 
     it is imperative to act immediately to forestall the 
     initiation of any military construction projects at bases 
     slated for closure, as well as at facilities scheduled to be 
     realigned to other locations.
       As you may recall, I wrote to you on January 23, 1995, to 
     ask that you seek deferral of all military construction 
     projects until your base closure recommendations were 
     publicly released. While I am not aware that you or the 
     President formally undertook such action, I understand that 
     the Navy may have voluntarily undertaken to defer obligation 
     of military construction funds because of the uncertainty of 
     the base closure process. I hope other Services recognized 
     the fiscal responsibility of waiting to initiate construction 
     projects until the base closure list was available.
       For your information, I have included a listing of military 
     construction projects, funded in the FY 1995 Military 
     Construction Appropriations Act, at bases which are 
     recommended for closure or realignment. This list totals $150 
     million in FY 1995 appropriations. At a minimum, I urge you 
     to ensure that none of the projects which would be affected 
     by your base closure or realignment recommendations are 
     undertaken until the BRAC Commission has completed its review 
     and submitted a final list to the President.
       As always, I appreciate your consideration of my views. I 
     look forward to hearing from you.
           Sincerely,
                                                      John McCain,
     U.S. Senator.
                                                                    ____

         FISCAL YEAR 1995 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS

 [For projects at bases recommended for closure or realignment by the 
                  Secretary of Defense, March 1 1995]

       MILCON projects at bases recommended for closure:

Texas: Brooks AFB, for directed energy facility...............6,500,000
Pennsylvania: Fort Indiantown Gap:
  Replace underground storage tanks...........................1,800,000
  Electrical targeting system upgrade...........................770,000
  Flight simulator and aeromedical complex....................4,584,000
                                                       ________________

    Total MILCON at bases recommended for closure............13,654,000
       MILCON projects at bases recommended for realignment:

California: Defense contract management office west...........5,100,000
Florida:
                                                             Eglin AFB:
    Climatic test chamber....................................20,000,000
    Aquatic training facility.................................2,900,000
    HC-130 parking apron......................................7,500,000
    MC-130 nose dock/AMU......................................5,000,000
    Airman dining facility....................................2,650,000
                                                         Homestead AFB:
    Hydrant and hot pit refueling system......................2,000,000
    Mobility processing facility..............................1,150,000
    Renovate barracks.........................................2,550,000
    Repair physical fitness center............................1,400,000
Georgia: Warner-Robbins (realign):
  Weapon system support center................................4,700,000
  J-STARS add to integrated support facility..................3,100,000
  J-STARS dormitory...........................................5,525,000
  J-STARS expanded flight kitchen.............................1,850,000
  J-STARS utilities/miscellaneous support.....................3,825,000
  Upgrade drainage system.....................................2,200,000
Montana: Malstrom AFB:
  Underground fuel storage tanks..............................1,500,000
  Underground fuel storage tanks minuteman FACS...............4,000,000
New Mexico: Kirtland AFB:
  Underground fuel storage tanks..............................3,200,000
  Child care center...........................................3,500,000
  Base support center.........................................3,500,000
  Repair water distribution center............................8,800,000
  Upgrade electrical distribution system......................3,000,000
  Replace underground fuel storage tanks........................900,000
Oklahoma:
  Corrosion control facility [DBOF]...........................8,400,000
  Extend and upgrade alternate runway........................10,800,000
  Storm drainage system.......................................1,243,000
Virginia: Fort Lee:
  Repair electrical distribution.............................11,000,000
  Soldiers ``One Stop Center''................................4,600,000
                                                       ________________

    Total MILCON appropriated for realigned bases...........135,893,000
                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, March 1, 1995.
     Hon. Mark Hatfield,
     Senate Committee on Appropriations,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that the Senate 
     Appropriations Committee will soon consider legislation to 
     provide supplemental appropriations for FY 1995 and to offset 
     additional spending with certain rescissions.
       I wanted to raise with you my concerns and suggestions 
     regarding a dangerous shortfall in defense funding. As you 
     know, the defense budget has been declining since 1985, with 
     a cumulative real reduction of nearly 45 percent by 1999.
       This severe reduction has made it imperative that we work 
     together to ensure that scarce defense dollars are spent only 
     for the highest priority military requirements, namely, 
     readiness, quality of life, and modernization. Therefore, I 
     strongly believe that supplemental appropriations should be 
     provided to restore the $2.55 billion diverted to 
     peacekeeping purposes as well as to redress, as best we can, 
     shortfalls in the FY 1995 appropriated level for military 
     readiness.
       I also believe that we have a fiscal obligation to offset 
     these supplemental appropriations with spending rescissions 
     in order to avoid any increase in the deficit. To this end, 
     as you review the FY 1995 supplemental appropriations and 
     rescission legislation, I urge you to consider for rescission 
     unobligated funds for programs included on the attached list 
     (Tab A).
       This list represents nearly $6.3 billion in defense budget 
     authority, and my rough estimate is that the outlay savings 
     in FY 1995 achievable by rescinding these funds would be 
     approximately $2.5 billion.
       The programs I have listed do not, in my view, contribute 
     directly to the readiness and capability of our Armed Forces. 
     They represent wasteful, earmarked, non-defense, or otherwise 
     low-priority programs which should not be funded at the 
     expense of readiness within the constraints of the declining 
     defense budget.
       I should note an important caveat to my rescission 
     recommendations. The list in Tab A is comprised primarily of 
     programs which were added by Congress in an attempt to 
     circumvent the funding priorities and procedures established 
     by the military Services. Some of these programs could 
     possibly represent military requirements which were only 
     identified by the Services after the Administration's budget 
     request was submitted to Congress. Such items could still be 
     funded in competition with other priorities within the 
     Pentagon's existing budget, but should not remain as 
     earmarked add-ons.
       The rescission of low-priority funding I've recommended 
     should be used to offset the Administration's request for 
     supplemental appropriations. As I said, however, even if the 
     cost of these unbudgeted operations is fully restored to the 
     appropriate accounts, readiness would remain seriously 
     underfunded in FY 1995. Therefore, I urge you to support 
     efforts to increase the amount of supplemental appropriations 
     made available to the Department of Defense to fully redress 
     the deleterious impact of declining defense budgets on 
     military readiness. Accordingly, programs not essential to 
     defense should be further reviewed to determine whether 
     additional rescissions could be made and the funds redirected 
     for high-priority military requirements.
       I submit that a number of the defense programs suggested 
     for rescission, such as most of the medical and university 
     research activities, more appropriately belong in domestic, 
     not defense appropriations bills, and should compete for 
     funding with those accounts. I have provided a list (Tab B) 
     of FY 1995 appropriations in the non-defense bills which 
     could be rescinded in order to make funding available for any 
     high-priority activities which were mistakenly funded in the 
     defense budget last year.
       In addition, I wish to express my support for the 
     President's $2.4 billion in FY 1995 rescissions. I believe 
     the Committee and the Senate should approve these 
     rescissions, and that the monies should be dedicated to 
     deficit reduction.
       Of course, I know that the Committee may have its own 
     rescissions in mind, and I understand that the House will 
     soon pass a rescission bill offering additional opportunities 
     which should be considered by the committee to fund 
     readiness, higher spending priorities and deficit reduction.
       [[Page S4025]] I know you have a very difficult task and I 
     appreciate your consideration of my views and request.
           Sincerely,
                                                      John McCain,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

 DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR RESCISSION AND REALLOCATION
                    TO HIGH PRIORITY DEFENSE PROGRAMS                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Fiscal Year 1995                          Amount  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major programs:                                                         
    B-2 bomber industrial base set-aside...................        $125M
    Industrial base set-asides, including $35 million for               
     tank engines and $1 million for nuclear submarine main             
     steam condensers......................................          36M
    Unrequested military construction Congressional add-ons         987M
    Unrequested Congressional add-ons for excess Guard and              
     Reserve equipment, including $505 million for C-130                
     transport aircraft....................................         800M
    C-21/C-XX aircraft.....................................          11M
    Terminate Technology Reinvestment Program..............         550M
    Former Soviet Union threat reduction...................          80M
    National security education trust fund.................          14M
    DOD support for Olympics and other celebrations........        15.4M
    Dual-use and conversion programs, including                         
     manufacturing technology, advanced simulation, etc....         1.5B
    Medical and university research........................         1.5B
Personnel:                                                              
    Homeporting of 2 LST ships at Pearl Harbor to transfer              
     Navy reservists from Oahu to Hawaii...................        10.0M
    Manning of additional C-130 units (see O&M)............         3.6M
O&M:                                                                    
    National Center for Toxicological Research in                       
     Jefferson, AR (bill)..................................         5.8M
    Schofield barracks, Hawaii easement (bill).............          9.5
    National Guard Outreach Program in Los Angeles school               
     district (bill--changed in conference to eliminate                 
     authorization requirement)............................        10.0M
    Additional C-130 operational support for units in                   
     California, Kentucky, West Virginia, Louisiana,                    
     Tennessee, South Carolina, and Ohio (bill and report).         31.6
    For Pacific Missile Range Facility, Hawaii, from O&M                
     funds (bill)..........................................         45.9
    Directed allocation of child development funds to                   
     Pacific region........................................         15.0
    National Training Center, George AFB...................          2.0
    Wild horse roundup, White Sands Missile Range, New                  
     Mexico................................................          1.5
    OSCAR project at Letterkenny Army depot................          1.9
    Presidio of San Francisco, CA, infrastructure                       
     improvements..........................................         10.0
    New Orleans NAS RPM backlog............................          6.0
    Charleston naval complex...............................          6.0
    Establish Chester W. Nimitz Center.....................          3.0
    Establish Joint Warfare Analysis Program at Naval Post              
     Graduate School.......................................          1.5
    Transport LCU ship to American Samoa...................          .85
    MacDill AFB operations.................................          5.5
    Electrical service upgrades at McClellan AFB, CA.......         1.65
    Modification of Air Force Plan No. 3, Tulsa, OK........         10.0
    Natural gas study and infrastructure planning..........          2.2
    Anchorage, AK fuel center..............................           .5
    Establish land management training center..............          2.5
    Washington Square, Philadelphia, PA renovation.........          2.6
    Cannon AFB dormitory and runway repairs................          2.2
    Improvement of navigational charts for Lower                        
     Mississippi River.....................................          1.0
    To return excess medical supplies and equipment from                
     Europe to the U.S. for ``use by Native Americans,                  
     local governments, and other deserving groups''.......          5.0
    RPM for reserve centers in Cambria and Indiana                      
     Counties, PA..........................................           .3
    Navy LST's in Pearl Harbor.............................          7.0
    C-130 operational support, Youngstown, OH..............         10.0
    WC-130 weather reconnaissance activities...............          2.0
    Los Angeles School District Youth Program..............         10.0
    Calumet, MI, armory repairs............................          .12
    Valparaiso, Gary, and Hammond, IN armory repairs.......           .4
    California armory repairs..............................          1.2
    Distance learning regional training network in West                 
     Virginia, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and                    
     District of Columbia..................................          7.5
    Establish continuity of operations center for Navy.....         13.0
    New Orleans F. Edward Hebert complex...................          5.0
Procurement:                                                            
    Pacific Missile Range Facility, HI, from procurement                
     funds (bill)..........................................         23.9
    Natural gas utilization................................          2.5
    Switch expansion at Schofield Barracks, HI.............           .5
    Procurement of industrial process and information                   
     systems equipment for industrial operations facility               
     at Tobyhanna Army Depot...............................         12.0
    Joint training analysis and simulation center..........         10.5
    Laser articulating and robotic system, Philadelphia                 
     Naval Shipyard, PA....................................          6.9
    Natural gas vehicles...................................         10.0
    Electric vehicles......................................         10.0
R&D:                                                                    
    Research on ocean acoustics at National Center for                  
     Physical Acoustics, provided as a grant to the                     
     Mississippi Resource Development Corp. including                   
     $250,000 for purchase of unspecified ``special                     
     equipment as may be required for particular projects''             
     (bill)................................................         1.0M
    For seismic research at Incorporated Research                       
     Institutions for Seismology (bill)....................         12.0
    National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (bill)......         20.0
    Establish an image information processing center                    
     supporting the Air Force Maui space surveillance site              
     (bill)................................................         13.0
    Transfer to Department of Energy for ``Center for                   
     Bioenvironmental Research'' (bill)....................         15.0
    Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research              
     (EPSCOR) (bill).......................................         20.0
    Los Alamos Meson facility..............................         20.0
    Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division...........         .167
    Jefferson Proving Ground, unexploded ordnance..........          5.0
    Joint Agriculture/DOD project..........................          4.5
    Hawaii Small Business Development Center...............          5.4
    Saltsburg Remediation Technology.......................          1.0
    Longhorn Army ammunition plant, TX.....................          8.0
    For first phase of $28.5 million project to establish               
     shallow water range capability at Barking Sands, HI...         11.0
    C-130J development.....................................          5.0
    Maui supercomputer.....................................         13.0
    Maritime Technology Office.............................         12.0
    Electric vehicles......................................         15.0
    Maui High Performance Computing Center.................          7.0
    Institute for Advanced Flexible Manufacturing Systems..          4.0
    Kauai, HI test facility................................          4.0
    Increase in defense research funds set aside for                    
     historically black colleges and minority institutions,             
     including minority women's institutions specializing               
     in science, math, and engineering, and tribal colleges         10.0
    Prototype disaster preparedness center in Hawaii.......          5.0
Other DOD programs:                                                     
    For nursing research (bill)............................         5.0M
    Requiring continued operation of Plattsburgh AFB                    
     hospital in New York (bill)...........................          3.0
    Transfer to Navy Mil Con for ROTHR in Puerto Rico                   
     (bill)................................................         10.0
    Police Research Institute (not in either bill).........          1.0
    Southwestern Oregon Narcotics Task Force (not in either             
     bill).................................................          1.0
General provisions:                                                     
    Incentive payments to subcontractors under Indian                   
     Financing Act (bill Sec. 8025A).......................         8.0M
    Mental health care dmonstration project at Fort Bragg,              
     NC, with open-ended price and program growth clause                
     (bill Sec. 8037)......................................         18.5
    Protection of 53d Weather Reconnaissance Squadron of                
     Air Force Reserve (bill Sec. 8047)....................         .651
    For independent cost effectiveness study of Air Force               
     bomber programs (bill Sec. 8101)......................          4.5
    For nuclear testing damage to Rongelap Atoll, for                   
     transfer to resettlement trust fund managed by                     
     Department of Interior (bill Sec. 8112)...............          5.0
    Requirement to contract within 60 days of enactment for             
     procurement of AN/USH-42 mission recorders on S-3B                 
     aircraft (bill Sec. 8133).............................         39.8
    Utility reconfiguration project at Philadelphia Naval               
     Shipyard (bill Sec. 8150).............................         14.2
    Direction to award contract to sole U.S. supplier of                
     nuclear steam generator tubing for aircraft carriers               
     (bill Sec. 8151)......................................         17.5
                                                                        
                                                                        
                      Fiscal Year 1994                                  
                                                                        
    Technology Reinvestment Program........................          77M
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Domestic Rescission Proposals


                          wastewater earmarks

       Over $1.2 billion dollars was earmarked for wastewater 
     treatment grants in the FY95 HUD/VA Appropriation bill. Very 
     few if any of these projects were authorized. A number of 
     these were not properly studied before the funding levels 
     were set and that some of the projects may have been funded 
     above the 50% cost share required under the Clean Water Act. 
     With this mind you I propose that we rescind funding for 
     these projects which were not authorized, and/or have not 
     been properly scoped and cost-shared. We have asked the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to provide a list of the 
     projects that meet this criteria and the dollar amount 
     eligible for rescission.


                     highway demonstration projects

       $352 million was appropriated for earmarked surface 
     transportation projects which do not necessarily represent 
     either federal, state or local priorities. We should rescind 
     any unobligated monies. Projects not yet commenced should 
     compete for selection among other priorities by state 
     transportation authorities through the applicable process. 
     The Department of Transportation is providing a list of the 
     project eligible for rescission.


                         special purpose grants

       The VA/HUD Appropriation bill for Fiscal Year 1995 included 
     $290 million in special purpose grants. According to 
     estimates, only $7 million of this funding has been properly 
     authorized. Examples of projects funded in the bill include:
       $450,000 for the construction of the Center for Political 
     Participation at the University of Maryland College Park;
       $750,000 for the Scitrek Science Museum to create a 
     mezzanine level in its building to increase exhibit space in 
     downtown Atlanta;
       $1.45 million to the College of Notre Dame in Baltimore, MD 
     for capitol costs including equipping and outfitting 
     activities, connected to the renovation of the Knott Science 
     Center; and $2 million for Depaul University's library to 
     provide direct services and partnerships with community 
     organizations, schools, and individuals in North Carolina.
       All of the unauthorized earmarks for which money has not 
     been obligation should be rescinded. HUD is preparing a list 
     of the projects which meet this criteria.


                              ellis island

       The Department of Transportation's Fiscal Year 1992 
     Appropriation bill provided $15 million for the construction 
     of a bridge to Ellis Island. The Park Services opposes the 
     bridge. In a 1991 study on the construction of the bridge 
     they wrote ``The permanent establishment of a bridge to the 
     island represents an adverse effect to the cultural resources 
     of the park, a National Register and World Heritage 
     resource.'' The funding for this project has not been 
     obligated and should also be rescinded.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the bill reported by the Senate 
Appropriations Committee that we are now considering does rescind some 
of the programs I recommended, including a small cut in TRP and the 
other research and defense conversion programs. On the domestic side, 
the bill includes rescissions in highway trust fund demonstration 
projects.
  But the committee-reported bill does not touch the many earmarks for 
special interest projects added by Congress. It does not rescind 
industrial base set-asides. It does not cut funding for DOD support to 
the Olympics and other international sporting events. It does not touch 
congressional add-ons for excess Guard and Reserve equipment. And it 
leaves intact several billion dollars for dual-use, defense conversion, 
and medical and university research programs that were earmarked.
  Further, the bill does not rescind any military construction funds. 
It does not rescind any of the nearly $1 billion in congressionally-
added military construction projects, much less funding for projects on 
bases slated for closure in this BRAC round.
  The projects which would be affected by this amendment should not be 
built anyway. No responsible DOD official would continue a construction 
project at any base which has
 been ordered to be closed.

  I think it is time to send a signal to the American people that we 
will not do this kind of thing anymore.
  Mr. President, I believe that the opposition's argument against this 
proposition will be that it is in reaction to an action triggered by 
the executive branch in the form of the recommendations of base 
closing.
  Mr. President, as we know, the BRAC is a nonpartisan commission that 
was 
[[Page S4026]] confirmed by Congress and the President must accept all 
of their recommendations or none. If this money is going to be 
rescinded anyway, then this amendment is redundant. The argument will 
be the rescission should be applied to all other accounts. Perhaps so.
  But, Mr. President, I hope that this amendment would be accepted. I 
see no reason, frankly, for it to be opposed. I would be glad to work 
with the committee in order to see that it is acceptable. I cannot 
imagine--I cannot imagine--any Member of this body seeking to continue 
a military construction project on a base that is going to be closed. 
It is beyond me.
  So I certainly look forward to the response of the managers of the 
bill. And, Mr. President, very reluctantly, very reluctantly, I may 
have to ask for the yeas and nays because of the clarity of this issue.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask unanimous consent that time be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                     Amendment No. 335, as Modified

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment by striking lines 5 and 6 on page 2 of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 335), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 25, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

     SEC. 110. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN MILITARY 
                   CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.

       (a) Conditional Rescission of Funds For Certain Projects.--
     (1)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and subject 
     to paragraphs (2) and (3), of the funds provided in the 
     Military Construction Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 
     103-307; 108 Stat. 1659), the following funds are hereby 
     rescinded from the following accounts in the specified 
     amounts:
       Military Construction, Army, $11,554,000.
       Military Construction, Air Force, $6,500,000.
       (B) Rescissions under this paragraph are for projects at 
     military installations that were recommended for closure by 
     the Secretary of Defense in the recommendations submitted by 
     the Secretary to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
     Commission on March 1, 1995, under the base closure Act.
       (2) A rescission of funds under paragraph (1) shall not 
     occur with respect to a project covered by that paragraph if 
     the Secretary certifies to Congress that--
       (A) the military installation at which the project is 
     proposed will not be subject to closure or realignment as a 
     result of the 1995 round of the base closure process; or
       (B) if the installation will be subject to realignment 
     under that round of the process, the project is for a 
     function or activity that will not be transferred from the 
     installation as a result of the realignment.
       (3) A certification under paragraph (2) shall be effective 
     only if--
       (A) the Secretary submits the certification together with 
     the approval and recommendations transmitted to Congress by 
     the President in 1995 under paragraph (2) or (4) section 
     2903(e) of the base closure Act; or
       (B) the base closure process in 1995 is terminated pursuant 
     to paragraph (5) of that section.
       (b) Additional Rescissions Relating to Base Closure 
     Process.--Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, funds 
     provided in the Military Construction Appropriations Act, 
     1995 for a military construction project are hereby rescinded 
     if--
       (1) the project is located at an installation that the 
     President recommends for closure in 1995 under section 
     2903(e) of the base closure Act; or
       (2) the project is located at an installation that the 
     President recommends for realignment in 1995 under such 
     section and the function or activity with which the project 
     is associated will be transferred from the installation as a 
     result of the realignment.
       (c) Definition.--In the section, the term ``base closure 
     Act'' means the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 
     1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 
     2687 note).

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, that would eliminate the placement money 
which was necessary for underground storage tanks at Fort Indiantown 
Gap and that would make this amendment more closely defined in that it 
only targets new construction--new construction--at this base which is 
earmarked for closure.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, with 
the time equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition for a moment 
just to be sure that I understand the thrust of the amendment of the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona. If I might have the attention of my 
colleague, Senator McCain, for just a moment. He and I were just 
talking briefly, and I wanted to be sure----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I advise the Senator from Pennsylvania that 
the time of the Senator from Arizona has expired. The Senator from 
Oregon has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. INOUYE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arizona be 
granted 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Pennsylvania may proceed.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague from 
Arizona.
  As I understand the thrust of the amendment, the provisions which 
would strike $1,800,000 to replace underground storage tanks has been 
deleted from the amendment because that change or that work may be 
necessary in any event; is that correct?
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SPECTER. And the items on electrical targeting systems upgrade, 
$770,000, and flight simulator and air medical complex, $4,584,000, and 
barracks, $6,200,000, will be reinstated in the event Fort Indiantown 
Gap remains open by proceedings under the Base Closing Commission.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SPECTER. Of course, I make these inquiries because of the concern 
which I have, and I know that my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator 
Santorum, shares these concerns. We believe Fort Indiantown Gap is an 
important installation militarily, and we intend to fight the matter 
before the Base Closing Commission. So the net effect of this 
amendment, which I understand the managers are prepared to accept 
without a vote, would leave Fort Indiantown Gap unharmed in the event 
that it remains open.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. I am aware how sensitive and difficult the issue of base 
closures are. I think it is well known to all of us that no one fought 
harder or continues to fight harder on behalf of the Philadelphia Naval 
Shipyard than my colleague from Pennsylvania. He understandably is 
committed to preserving jobs and the military presence in his State, 
and I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arizona for 
those generous remarks. I have not made a comment about the 
Philadelphia Navy Yard for a long time on the Senate floor. I said 
enough in the past that there really is not a need to say very much 
more.
  I would just make a couple of comments. That battle was lost in the 
Supreme Court of the United States on a very complex legal argument. 
Interestingly, the Harvard Law Review published an extensive review of 
that case, Dalton versus Arlen Specter, and came to the conclusion that 
the Court was wrong on its analysis of separation of powers. It is a 
very complicated constitutional issue as to how Congress may delegate 
to the President or executive agency authority to take action without 
sufficient standards.
  The thrust of my argument had been that the Navy actually concealed 
evidence from certain admirals that the yard should be kept open. But 
there were many other complex legal issues, and it was at least some 
satisfaction to 
[[Page S4027]] win the case in the Harvard Law Review if not in the 
Supreme Court.
  We got one interesting comment before the decision was reached. NBC 
television said that it was the ultimate in constituent service. We all 
say, ``I'm going to take that case to the Supreme Court of the United 
States.'' Well, we did.
  I thank my colleague for mentioning it and giving me an opportunity 
for that brief rejoinder.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, when I heard that the Senator from 
Pennsylvania was going to the U.S. Supreme Court in this case, I never 
had a doubt that he was correct. It is, however, heartening to know 
that the Harvard Law Review corroborates that conclusion that all of 
his colleagues reached.
  But seriously, it is the ultimate in constituent service and, I 
think, is an indication of the dedication that the Senator from 
Pennsylvania had to preserving the very livelihood of many of the 
residents of his State in the Philadelphia area. I know that he has 
their eternal gratitude for his herculean efforts.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank again my colleague, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, what is the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon has 5 minutes. The 
Senator from Arizona has 30 seconds.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Does the Senator from Montana wish any further time?
  Mr. BURNS. Just about 1 minute.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my chairman, and I thank the Chair.
  I am going to oppose and ask that this amendment be tabled. I think 
what we have here when we start looking at the BRAC, the Base 
Realignment and Closure Commission, we are all at once starting to send 
wrong messages before the process is even complete on those that are 
now being considered. I think probably the construction will not go on, 
especially new construction, on bases that are being considered now. I 
do not think that is going to happen.
  So I know where my friend from Arizona is coming from and what he 
wants to try to do. But I think as chairman of that committee, I would 
like to see the funds at least stay there, have a possibility of 
letting that Commission complete its duty, and then rescind that money. 
I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am confused by the comments of the 
Senator from Montana. He says the money is not going to be spent, that 
it would be restored if the base was off the list, and that is exactly 
what the amendment says.
  In all due respect to the Senator from Montana, I am confused by the 
fact that he would oppose an amendment that says that the money would 
not be spent, but if the base is off the rescission list, then it will 
be spent.
  I can only surmise that this is some kind of turf problem, but, Mr. 
President, as the chairman of the Military Readiness and Defense 
Infrastructure Subcommittee, I do not look kindly on spending money for 
military construction projects which are on a base closing list and 
should not be spent, with a provision that the money would be spent if 
the base was off the list.
  So, Mr. President, I will expend no more time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BURNS. I yield back the remainder of my time. I just think it 
sends the wrong message at this particular time in the process of BRAC. 
But I have no further comment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment from the Senator from 
Arizona because it is premature and unnecessary. Moreover, it can have 
unintended effects, which might result in forcing later expenditures 
that would wipe out any savings he might anticipate if the amendment 
were to be passed.
  First, Mr. President, the cuts he has anticipated in his amendment 
are premature and could affect the final decisions of the Base Closure 
Commission, prejudice the living conditions and rights of the people 
serving on those bases now and the communities which are associated 
with them. That would be unfair.
  Second, the amendment assumes that the committees charged with 
authorizing and appropriating funds for military construction projects 
have not anticipated or are adequately providing for savings resulting 
from the BRAC process. That is just not the case. Mr. President, if you 
look at last year's conference report on military construction 
appropriations you will find a reduction in the President's request of 
some $135 million, split evenly among the services, and some taken from 
defense-wide programs. This was in anticipation of the fiscal year 1996 
BRAC decisions, and we took a large sum because we anticipated a larger 
BRAC round, more closures, than actually have been recommended by the 
services and DOD than has in fact been recommended.
  Third, it is unclear why the Senator feels it unnecessary to amend 
this appropriations measure. The Appropriations Committee has followed 
the guidance of the authorizing committee and only funded those 
projects which have been authorized. Why not wait until the 
authorization bill is crafted and the result of the BRAC Commission are 
known, rather than guess now, send confusing signals to the communities 
which have been identified for possible action by the Commission.
  Does the Senator just want to penalize military communities further, 
in the name of spending cuts in this area?
  Fourth, DOD is not asleep at the switch on this matter. The 
Department is not going to allow spending for fiscal year 1995 military 
construction projects that are recommended for closure.
  So, Mr. President, I believe that both the Department of Defense, the 
authorization and appropriations committees are well aware of the need 
to reduce unnecessary construction programs resulting from the BRAC 
process, and have proven that they will take the action needed, in the 
framework of the BRAC decisionmaking process set up. No one wants to 
spend construction funds unnecessarily, and so I feel the amendment 
just jumps the gun, is not helpful, and prejudices the process that has 
worked well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to amendment 
No. 335 offered by the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will the Chair desist on that matter for 
another matter which has just been called to my attention by my 
colleague, Senator Santorum? And that is an issue--if we may clarify, 
if we can have just a minute to do that--an issue which arises in the 
event that Fort Indiantown Gap is realigned instead of closed, that 
whatever the consequence is, I just want to understand the intent of 
the Senator from Arizona that these funds will be reinstated if the 
function of Fort Indiantown Gap continues, even if it is called a 
realignment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if I may respond, if there is a 
realignment which keeps that base open, then this rescission would not 
apply.
  Mr. SANTORUM. If I can, if the base remains open as a Guard unit, 
which is what will happen, but is designated as closed by the BRAC 
because all active units will be pulled out, does that still maintain 
these programs?
  Mr. McCAIN. They do not. If it is a Guard installation, then we go 
through the regular functions, provisions for Guard units.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I would remind Senators all time has expired 
and all time was yielded back.
  The question occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 335 offered by the 
Senator from Arizona.
  The amendment (No. 335) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
   [[Page S4028]] The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 336

(Purpose: To rescind fiscal year 1995 funding for listing of species as 
threatened or endangered and for designation of critical habitat under 
                  the Endangered Species Act of 1973)

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

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 336.

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

       On page 28, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


                UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

                          RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

                              (RESCISSION)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-332--
       (1) $1,500,00 are rescinded from the amounts available for 
     making determinations whether a species is a threatened or 
     endangered species and whether habitat is critical habitat 
     under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.); and
       (2) none of the remaining funds appropriated under that 
     heading may be made available for making a final 
     determination that a species is threatened or endangered or 
     that habitat constitutes critical habitat (except a final 
     determination that a species previously determined to be 
     endangered is no longer endangered but continues to be 
     threatened).
       To the extent that the Endangered Species Act of 1973 has 
     been interpreted or applied in any court order (including an 
     order approving a settlement between the parties to a civil 
     action) to require the making of a determination respecting 
     any number of species or habitats by a date certain, that Act 
     shall not be applied to require that the determination be 
     made by that date if the making of the determination is made 
     impracticable by the rescission made by the preceding 
     sentences.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield----
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will be happy to yield, Mr. President.
  Mr. HATFIELD. On an understanding to the amendment.
  I now ask unanimous consent that the Hutchison amendment be limited 
to 40 minutes to be equally divided in the usual form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
  The amendment rescinds $1.5 million in funds for new listings of 
endangered or threatened species or designation of critical habitat 
through the end of the fiscal year, which is a little more than 6 
months from now. It provides that remaining funds may not be used for 
final listings of endangered or threatened species or final designation 
of critical habitat.
  The amendment does permit downlistings, changing a species from 
endangered status to threatened status. In H.R. 4350, the House 
regulatory moratorium bill, the House passed a moratorium on new 
listings or designations until the earlier reauthorization of the 
Endangered Species Act or December 31, 1996. Rescinding funds for a 
more limited time period will provide a time out from new listings 
controversies and will provide the momentum necessary for 
reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act.
  Mr. President, as many of us in this body know, we have a critical 
situation with the Endangered Species Act implementation. I do not 
think one Member of this body does not support the concept of 
protecting endangered species.
  What has happened is, I think, the regulators have really gone far 
beyond congressional intent, and we have found ourselves in many States 
across our country having endangered species declarations for baitfish. 
In the Panhandle of Texas, we have baitfish now being looked at to be 
put on the endangered species list.
  Now, I would not mind baitfish being on the list if it did not 
encroach on private property rights and the use of water. Water is very 
important for the farmers and ranchers in the panhandle. It is very 
important to the people of Amarillo. They rely on the water sources. So 
when you start saying to the people of this country we are going to 
take away water rights from people who are farming and ranching and 
making their living off the land, when you say we are going to take 
water rights from cities that need the drinking water supply, then you 
set up a choice. Then you say, OK, what is more important than water 
rights and private property rights of individuals?
  Well, I do not think it is a baitfish. I think we might have some 
instances in which it would be worth saving some sort of specie that 
was in imminent danger of being extinct with some economic damage, but, 
Mr. President, that is not what is happening.
  Let me take another example in my State of Texas. The jaguar is to be 
put on the endangered or threatened list. Now, the last time someone 
saw a jaguar in south Texas was sometime in the 1940's. There are no 
jaguars in Texas. Maybe one wandered up from Mexico during the Second 
World War, but when you are talking about taking private property 
rights because a jaguar appeared 30 years ago and has not been seen 
since, we once again have a crucial decision: What is right and best 
for the private property owners, for the taxpayers of our country, and 
for the endangered species and the preservation of nature.
  I just want common sense to come into the equation, and that is the 
issue here. My amendment will say time out. The time has come for us to 
look at the policies. And we are going to take up the reauthorization 
of the Endangered Species Act. When we do that, we are going to be able 
to look at scientific bases. How are we going to determine what is 
really endangered? The fact that the Tipton kangaroo rat has feet 1 
millimeter longer than the Herman rat, does that make the Tipton 
kangaroo rat take precedence over a farmer in California who was 
arrested and is now looking at a $300,000 fine and a year in prison 
because he might have run over a Tipton kangaroo rat, when the Herman 
rat, which is the same except the feet are one millimeter shorter, is 
not on the endangered species list?
  So we are going to be able to take that up in the Endangered Species 
Act reauthorization. We are going to be able to take up cost-benefit 
analysis. We are going to be able to look at the people who might lose 
jobs like the logging industry in the northwest part of our country, 
where people were put out of jobs that had been in families for 
generations to save a spotted owl.
  We are going to look at alternative habitats. We are going to look at 
the possibility that we could have taken spotted owls and put them in 
nearby public lands without any cost to the taxpayers and without the 
breaking down of the logging industry in the northwest part of our 
country, and most certainly without causing these people such 
disruption in their lives by losing their livelihood and their jobs. 
These people are being retrained. It is costing the taxpayers of 
America $250 million as the result of a bill we passed in 1993 to 
retrain workers who did not want to leave their jobs to save a spotted 
owl. So these are some of the things we are going to be able to take up 
in the Endangered Species Act reauthorization.
  Mr. President, you and I have talked about the importance of having 
full hearings on the Endangered Species Act, to hear from everyone, 
from the Fish and Wildlife Department, from people who are involved in 
saving the environment, from people who are involved in saving animals, 
and from private property owners and people who believe that the 
Constitution, the fifth amendment for private property rights, is in 
fact a part of the Constitution and is intact.
  So we know that it is going to take time to do that. But I wish to 
make sure, Mr. President, that we do not do something between now and 
the time of reauthorization or in this case until the end of the fiscal 
year that would put the rights of a baitfish above the farmers and 
ranchers in the Panhandle of Texas. We want to make sure that between 
now and the end of the fiscal year we do not have a jaguar that 
[[Page S4029]] would take away the leasing rights to many counties in 
south Texas. We want to make sure that things that go beyond the realm 
of reason do not happen in this country while we wait and do the 
Endangered Species Act reauthorization in the right way. That is what I 
wish to make sure, Mr. President, we are able to do.
  So I appreciate the opportunity. I wish to reserve the remainder of 
my time in case someone would speak against this amendment. I realize 
it would be hard to speak against this wonderful amendment, but 
nevertheless if someone decides to do it, I would like to be able to 
reserve the remainder of my time to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield whatever time we may have up 
to 5 minutes to my colleague from the State of Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the amendment proposed by the Senator from 
Texas is, I think, constructive and vitally important to people in many 
parts of the United States. With each passing month we learn more about 
the distortions in the lives of our people caused by the application of 
the present Endangered Species Act. A mere finding of threatened or 
endangered status for any species subject to listing automatically 
results in restrictions on the use of property, restrictions in 
economic activity, and in cultural, social, and community disruptions. 
This amendment will give both the country and the Congress breathing 
space for a period of approximately 6 months during which the 
Endangered Species Act itself can be examined, as it will be, by a 
subcommittee headed by the present Presiding Officer presiding over 
this body.
  I know he and I and the Senator from Texas all believe the Endangered 
Species Act should be continued, as it represents a real value held by 
all Americans, but that it must be changed so factors and values other 
than the species itself must be considered. Human values, people's 
jobs, their communities, their society, their culture must be weighed 
as we come up with balanced solutions to Endangered Species Act 
findings. That is not possible today under the act. The breathing space 
which will be imposed by the amendment of the Senator from Texas will 
allow that careful consideration to take place in this body. It will 
restore a degree of balance which is presently lost.
  This is not and has not been asserted by the Senator from Texas to be 
a long-term or full solution to the necessity of balancing human and 
other interests in our environment. It is a step to allow that process 
to take place in a more careful and rational and thoughtful manner. As 
such, to protect our people and our communities for a 6-month period 
while we discuss the Endangered Species Act, the amendment proposed by 
the Senator from Texas is valuable, I may say vital, and I hope it will 
be adopted by this body.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from 
Washington working with me on this amendment. He and I had been 
discussing the impact of these regulatory excesses on the economies of 
our respective States and he has been a valuable resource to me in 
putting this amendment forward. We are going to do everything we can to 
move in a positive direction to make sure we do what is right for this 
country, protecting private property rights and the abilities of our 
farmers and ranchers, while at the same time taking the time to 
reauthorize the protection of endangered species in a judicious and 
timely manner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, what is the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has 12 seconds 
remaining. The Senator from Hawaii has 15 minutes and 3 seconds.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield whatever time the 
gracious lady from California requires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here to stand up in 
opposition to this amendment. The Senator from Texas had put forward a 
moratorium on the Endangered Species Act as a separate bill, and 
appeared before a committee on which I served, the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, and, Mr. President, you are an able member of 
that committee and chaired the particular subcommittee before which the 
Senator from Texas appeared.
  We had a very long, complicated, and involved hearing on the wisdom 
of putting forward a moratorium on the Endangered Species Act. I have 
to say to you, Mr. President--and it is my very strong view--that in 
this U.S. Senate, with all the experience we bring to these issues, 
with all the expertise we bring to these issues, it seems to me to 
essentially stop the Endangered Species Act in its tracks, which is 
really what this amendment would do, is not the proper way to 
legislate. It is an abdication of our responsibility.
  I am very pleased that the ranking member of our committee has come 
to join this debate. I say to him that I will be finished with my 
comments in about 3 or 4 minutes. I am very pleased that he is here to 
lead this fight because it is quite appropriate that he do so.
  I do not know anyone in the U.S. Senate who is perfectly satisfied 
with the Endangered Species Act, who feels that it is perfect, who 
feels that it does not need to be fixed, who feels that we cannot 
improve it. And we are all quite dedicated to improving it. The 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, 
is a really great leader in this U.S. Senate. He, working along with 
our ranking member, last year proposed a new reauthorization of the 
Endangered Species Act. And together, in a bipartisan fashion, I have 
great confidence that they will lead this fight.
  I think to come on this floor in the U.S. Senate and to add an 
amendment to a defense emergency supplemental bill that deals with a 
very important and sensitive environmental issue is simply not the 
right way to legislate.
  Mr. President, 77 percent of Americans support maintaining or 
strengthening the Endangered Species Act, according to a May 1994 
Times-Mirror survey. Interestingly, even 72 percent of Texans support 
maintaining or strengthening the act.
  I have to say again that to torpedo the Endangered Species Act 
because there may be a problem in Texas is not the right way to 
legislate. I have been in Congress for awhile. I was 10 years in the 
House of Representatives, where I served very proudly, and 2 years 
here, where I am trying to do the best I can. When I have a problem 
that is local in nature, I do not bring it to the floor of the U.S. 
Senate and expect my colleagues to overturn an act that is supported by 
the American people. I will call in the various bureaucrats. I will sit 
them down around the table, and I will work with them.
  I know that my friend from Texas is an excellent Senator and works 
very hard and knows what she needs to do for her people. I strongly 
advise that she withdraw this amendment and handle her problems in 
Texas, because I frankly do not want to see us gamble with this.
  Let me explain what I mean. During the hearing that we held on the 
Senator's amendment, I asked her if she had ever heard of a Pacific yew 
tree. She said yes, she had heard of it, but she was not exactly sure 
what it had to do. I explained to her that the drug Taxal, which is in 
fact the one and only hope for curing ovarian cancer that we have at 
this time, and hopefully for preventing breast cancer, came from the 
Pacific yew tree. By the way, the Pacific yew tree was being used for 
its bark and was in danger of disappearing, and no one knew its value.
  Why do I raise this issue for my colleagues to hear? It is because, 
on average, endangered plant species have fewer than 120 individual 
plants by the time they are listed. The fact of the matter is, when we 
get down to a point because of this moratorium that we 
[[Page S4030]] lose that last plant that could hold the secret for the 
cure of Alzheimer's, or the secret of a cure for prostate cancer, what 
is the good of that type of legislation? I say it is very harmful.
  So in closing, Mr. President, I hope that we will all vote against 
this amendment. I do not think it has a place on a defense supplemental 
appropriations bill. If anything, we not only endanger species in this 
bill, we endanger ourselves if we vote for this amendment because we 
could, unwittingly, voting for this amendment, wipe out the last plant 
that holds the cure for some disease. We could wipe out the last 
animal. I know what I am talking about because we do not have grizzly 
bears anymore in California. The California grizzly is off the face of 
the Earth because we did not act in time.
  I think that the Environment and Public Works Committee, under the 
able leadership of Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus as ranking member, 
and you, Mr. President, as the very important chair of the subcommittee 
that will deal with it--I have my faith in you. And I hope we will 
defeat this amendment and get on with our job of reauthorizing the 
Endangered Species Act in due course, in due time, and with due 
diligence.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time is 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii controls 8 minutes and 
44 seconds; the Senator from Texas controls approximately 7 minutes.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield all of my time to 
the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my good friend, Senator Inouye from Hawaii.
  Mr. President, as ranking Democrat on the Environment and Public 
Works Committee, I must oppose the Hutchison amendment. The reason is 
really very simple. It is because the Endangered Species Act needs to 
be improved. That is the reason, so that farmers, ranchers, homeowners, 
and others have an easier time coping with the requirements of the act. 
But this is no way to fix it.
  At best, the Hutchison amendment is a makeshift stopgap measure that 
does not really solve the underlying problem. Let me repeat that: It 
does not solve the underlying problem. Once it expires, we are still 
faced with the problem. And worse, the amendment actually undermines 
our ability to make the act work while the situation deteriorates, 
deteriorates into false hope and false promises that things are going 
to be OK. Let me remind Senators of where things stand.
  In the last Congress, we held a series of hearings, an extensive 
series of hearings on the Endangered Species Act. We heard from a wide 
variety of people that were having problems from the act. We heard 
representatives of the national interest groups, all the way to 
individuals, individual landowners and homeowners, who had to cope with 
the designation of their property as critical habitat.
  I remember a hearing we held in Ronan, MT. Ronan is in the middle of 
grizzly habitat--the grizzly, an endangered species. Several hundred 
people packed the school gymnasium. The hearing lasted all day--a long, 
hot day, let me tell you, hot because of the physical temperature, not 
because of the emotion of people in the room.
  We made a lot of progress. We identified reforms that can 
significantly improve the act while continuing to protect against the 
extinction of the species. Reforms, like peer review of listing 
species, an outside panel of peer reviews of scientists, outside peer 
review panels that can give us outside advice, and a larger role for 
States.
  I think States, particularly State fish and game departments, who 
have to manage fish and wildlife in their State, should have a greater 
role, a greater reliance on incentives that have punishments, 
incentives for landowners, and particularly incentives for private 
landowners.
  I must say that the bill I introduced had the support of both the 
western Governors and the environmental community. There were 
significant major changes in that legislation, and had we been able to 
finish our work last year, I think a lot of the problems we are now 
talking about here today would have been solved. We would not be 
talking about them at all.
  This Congress, and the chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, Senator Chafee, and the chairman of the relevant 
subcommittee, Senator Kempthorne, the Presiding Officer, have indicated 
that they intend to reauthorize the act. We are going to reauthorize 
the act.
  Senator Reid and other Democrats on this subcommittee have made it 
crystal clear that they are prepared to cooperate and work to pass a 
reauthorization bill this year. They want to pass a bill this year. The 
opposition to the moratorium is not opposition to reform. It is for 
reform.
  The fundamental point I want to make here is if we are going to serve 
our people, let us reform the act. Let us not mislead them by passing a 
moratorium which does not address the underlying problems of the act. 
That, in my mind, is the best way to proceed.
  Otherwise, we all know what will happen. A floor amendment here, an 
appropriations rider there, a waiver, a moratorium, an exemption, a 
carve-out--what is the result?
 We wind up responding to the crisis of the moment. We do too much of 
that around here and we never get around to the basic issues that must 
be resolved if we are really going to improve the act.

  So, I believe, Mr. President, that the Hutchison amendment is a 
diversion. It is also more than that. The amendment cuts out money for 
species that are on the brink of extinction. That will make a bad 
situation worse. Some other species may be lost; others will survive, 
but, in the meantime, the population will have declined. As a result, 
our options will be more limited. Recovery will be more expensive. It 
will be more burdensome, not less.
  I am reminded, Mr. President, of the problem with the owl. The main 
reason the Pacific Northwest faced a critical problem with the spotted 
owl in old growth forests is because neither the State of Oregon nor 
the State of Washington nor the U.S. Congress, nor Presidents heeded 
warning signals to do something about the potential extinction of the 
spotted owl. Ten, 15 years ago, agencies concerned with this issue sent 
us warning signals. What did we do? We all ignored them. We swept them 
under the rug and did not address the issue. I say that is going to be 
the consequence here--isolated individual problems. As I said, the more 
we delay, the more our options are limited and the greater the problem 
becomes and the more expensive the solutions.
  Instead of shutting down the process, I believe we should be 
promoting efforts to go ahead, to conserve species before they are on 
the brink of extinction when greater flexibility exists to accommodate 
the legitimate needs of private landowners. This amendment would only 
affect the Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to list additional 
species. It does little or nothing to address the needs of private 
landowners who are affected by species already on the list. It does 
nothing about that. As a result, it is not only a shortsighted 
solution, but an incomplete one. It does not do what it purports to do.
  Mr. President, there are legitimate problems with the act. I believe 
we should sit down, work together, find ways to minimize the burden the 
act imposes on all landowners, and we should not adopt this amendment.
  At the appropriate time I will move to table this amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. How much time is remaining on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas controls 7 minutes 6 
seconds. The Senator from Hawaii controls 1 minute 52 seconds.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to yield up to 3 minutes 
to the Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Texas for 
offering this amendment and bringing to the floor of this Senate for 
the first time in this session what I think will 
[[Page S4031]] be part of a very critical debate that I hope we will 
resolve.
  Let me say that there is nothing wrong with this amendment and it 
ought to be enacted. We ought to vote to support a moratorium on 
further listings until the Senator from Montana, the Senators from 
Oregon and Idaho, and the Senator from Texas, have a chance to resolve 
a very bad law that needs dramatic fixing at this moment.
  We have heard rhetoric on this floor for the last 5 years that the 
Endangered Species Act is not working. It is costing hundreds of 
millions of dollars of lost economy and lost jobs, and we have done 
nothing about it. And now on the doorstep of an opportunity to change 
it, what is wrong with just stopping for a moment, stepping back from 
this administration's rush to judgment and in a panic throe list 
thousands of species simply because they think the Senate and the House 
are now going to change a law that has needed to be changed?
  So I applaud the Senator from Texas for offering this amendment. We 
have heard arguments on the floor to say, well, that is a local issue, 
that the Senator from Texas does not understand she has a local 
problem, so why does she not deal with it locally? It is not legal in 
Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and Montana, for this very act at this 
moment is dislocating people, economies, farmers, ranchers and business 
people with the cavalier attitude on the part of the implementing 
agencies that ``so be it.'' It is all in the name of the species, and 
to heck with people.
  I think it is time that this Congress resolve the issue, and do it 
quickly, first of all, with a moratorium and, secondly, with the 
responsible authorizing committees' handling of a reauthorization of 
the act. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee, yesterday, 
hosted a hearing on the very viability of a regional power system that 
is now being directly threatened by the impact of a decision and a 
proposed management plan by a Federal agency on the Endangered Species 
Act. That regional power organization has spent over $1.5 billion 
trying to save a variety of species of fish in the Columbian Snake 
River system. The process has been driven more by politics than by the 
good science that ought to make the decisions. If it is politics that 
is listing species instead of science, what is wrong with the amendment 
of the Senator from Texas?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. CRAIG. Let us support the amendment and bring about a moratorium 
and stop this rush to judgment.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, what is the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii has 1 minute 52 
seconds remaining. The Senator from Texas has 3 minutes 56 seconds.
  Mr. INOUYE. I ask unanimous consent that 8 additional minutes be 
allocated to the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Reserving the right to object. You are asking for 8 
minutes in addition to the 2 minutes? Are you asking for 10 minutes?
  Mr. INOUYE. Yes, Mr. President. This is to accommodate the Senator 
from Nevada and the Senator from New Jersey. Would you like to have an 
additional 8 minutes?
  Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would want an additional amount of 
time that would equalize it. I think we have set a time agreement here 
and perhaps we could accommodate to some degree, but perhaps not for 10 
more minutes.
  Mr. INOUYE. Five?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think that would be fine.
  Mr. INOUYE. I ask unanimous consent that 10 additional minutes be 
allocated for this debate, 5 minutes under the control of the Senator 
from Texas and 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Montana for allowing me just a few minutes to make some remarks, 
because I must say, because I come from New Jersey, the most densely 
populated State in the country, it does not mean that we have less of 
an interest about species that are in jeopardy, be they animal or flora 
fauna, than do they in the more remote parts of the country. And this 
debate, I think, ought to be taking place at a different pace and a 
different time. We just went through a hearing and a markup on Tuesday 
in the EPW Committee. It was carried and was going to be presented on 
the floor. Instead, I have to say that I am surprised that the Senator 
from Texas, after having won an agreement from the subcommittee to pass 
the amendment along, suddenly now it is attached to a rescission bill.
  What is the urgency, Mr. President, of moving this so quickly? Are we 
willing to say today that we do not want to continue preserving those 
species that may save lives, that may interest our children and our 
grandchildren in a particular type of fish, or a particular type of 
bird, or particular type of animal? I am on the Environment Committee, 
as is the Senator from Texas. One of the things that I did when we had 
the oil spill up in Alaska a few years ago was to get up there very 
quickly and talk to the people in the communities.
  They were heartbroken because of the threat to the abundant species 
that existed there, including bald eagles, including sea otters, 
including seals; grief stricken, Mr. President, grief stricken because 
it may be the end of a salmon run or a herring run or another bit of 
marine life around which whole cultures and whole communities were 
built.
  So the madness, the urge to get this done so quickly, is something, 
frankly, I do not understand. And to come along, after we have had a 
full discussion--and if not full enough, we can continue it--but to 
rush at this moment into a moratorium that says we cannot do anything, 
tie the hands behind your back--we had a $2 million rescission; no, let 
us increase it by another $1 million.
  I do not know exactly what the Senator from Texas has in mind, but I 
cannot believe that she or the proponents of this amendment would want 
to diminish the opportunity to protect a species that might, as we 
heard from the distinguished Senator from California, aid in fighting 
breast cancer or another type of disease.
  I know that there are trees that produce a bark that is used 
medicinally and very effectively.
  Mr. President, I rise today to express my dismay and unhappiness with 
the amendment offered by Senator Hutchison to increase the rescission 
of Fish and Wildlife funding and to restrict any remaining appropriated 
funds for making any final determinations that a species is endangered 
or that its habitat is critical.
  The $2 million rescission already included in the bill will severely 
jeopardize the Fish and Wildlife Service's activities to administer the 
Endangered Species Act. It will diminish their ability to protect and 
recover species, to increase public involvement and to comply with 
existing court orders.
  But this amendment, Mr. President, would effectively paralyze them.
  I must say when I saw this amendment come to the floor, I was very 
surprised.
  Just 2 days ago, our subcommittee held an expedited hearing on S. 
191, Senator Hutchison's bill, which would put a hold on administration 
of the Endangered Species Act until it is reauthorized.
  We expedited that hearing and agreed on holding a markup in good 
faith, even though some of us on the committee are philosophically 
opposed to this proposed legislation.
  Now it appears that the Senator has decided to bypass the committee, 
despite our willingness to work with her, and bring her proposal 
straight to the floor.
  I know that this act is not perfect. It has not been administered in 
the most effective manner. And we want to fix those problems.
  But Senator Hutchison's efforts to freeze the Agency in its tracks is 
no solution.

[[Page S4032]]

  The solution is to do what we began in committee on Tuesday: to 
seriously review what's right with the act, what's wrong, and what we 
can do to make it better.
  Mr. President, the American people support this act. A recent poll 
found that 77 percent of Americans want to maintain the ESA or even 
strengthen it. The American people understand that the ESA enables us 
to take proactive steps before the decline of a vulnerable species is 
irreversible.
  They want to save endangered species before key components of our 
ecosystem are relegated to the walls of natural history museums. we 
have a moral responsibility to make sure that does not happen.
  The listing of an imperiled species is necessary to ensure that it 
receives the protections of the ESA. Each time a species is listed, it 
sends out a warning signal that the ecosystem is in decline.
  There are currently 118 species that have been proposed for ESA 
listing. Senator Hutchison's amendment would render us powerless to 
protect the future of these 118 threatened species.
  And for those who might not care about that, I would point out that 
it also would effectively prevent the Fish and Wildlife Service from 
meeting with landowners and resolving their concerns about the way 
current policies affect their lives.
  Mr. President, this amendment accomplishes nothing. Our endangered 
species will continue to be endangered. The costs of recovery will 
continue to mount. And the Fish and Wildlife Service will find itself 
paralyzed to effect any improvements in the administration of this act.
  Those of us who serve on the subcommittee want to work together in a 
bipartisan manner to implement real reforms in the Endangered Species 
Act.
  Every Member who spoke at our committee's recent hearing on the 
Endangered Species Act, including the Senator from Texas, said as much. 
The general consensus following that hearing was that we would try to 
accomplish that goal--in the spirit of good faith and cooperation.
  Mr. President, this amendment coming between the subcommittee's 
positive action on the Senator's bill and the full committee markup 
expected next Thursday, would make it very difficult--if not 
impossible--to operate in that spirit.
  I urge my colleagues to table this amendment, and to support the 
Environment Committee's efforts to craft a more effective endangered 
species program.
  Mr. President, I would have to say I am amused by good friends and 
colleagues who stand on the floor talking about rhetoric. As the 
decibels increase and the pace increases, we are talking about perhaps 
major changes in the ecology of our society. I would not treat this 
quite this lightly. I hope that we are able to defeat this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has 3 minutes and 12 
seconds remaining; and the Senator from Texas, 9 minutes.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered by 
Senator Hutchison of Texas. It is about time this Congress begin to put 
a little bit of common sense back into the Endangered Species Act.
  Currently, there are about 60 listed or candidate species in Montana. 
And, there always seems to be a new species that some group wants 
listed or placed on the candidate list. The recent efforts by a group 
based out of Colorado who want the black-tailed prairie dog placed on 
the candidates list is an example of this.
  This amendment would rescind $1.5 million for the Endangered Species 
Act for the new listings and habitat. That's a good place to start this 
debate. Let's put this moratorium in place, and then let us reauthorize 
the Endangered Species Act to include common sense and protect species 
and habitat.
  The State of Montana needs this amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to state my cosponsorship of and 
support for the amendment offered by the Senator from Texas to rescind 
$1.5 million in fiscal year 1995 funding for certain new actions under 
the Endangered Species Act. I support this amendment for two reasons. 
First, it is generally acknowledged that the Endangered Species Act in 
its present form simply is not working as it should. Second, there is 
every indication the act will be thoroughly revised by this Congress. 
Consequently, this amendment will put a halt to spending more money on 
certain aspects of a program that all agree is broken and that will 
soon be fixed.
  There is little question that the Endangered Species Act is broken. 
The act was passed in 1973 with the noble goal of saving threatened and 
endangered species from extinction, and having fought long and hard 
over the years to protect my State's precious natural resources, I 
fully support the ideals underlying the act. Twenty years of 
experience, however, have revealed that the act is fundamentally flawed 
in its practical application. Specifically, the act allows those who 
administer it to create social and economic chaos among communities 
unfortunate enough to be located anywhere near a listed species.
  Let me give you an example of the chaos created by the act in my home 
State. The San Juan River runs through the northwestern part of New 
Mexico. Along the San Juan there is a dam, Navajo Dam, which has quite 
literally provided life to the residents of that part of the State. The 
dam ensures that the citizens in the surrounding cities and towns--
cities like Farmington, Aztec, and Bloomfield, towns like Turley and 
Blanco--have adequate supplies of water for domestic use all year 
round. The dam powers a 30,000 kilowatt hydroelectric plant which 
provides electric power to all of the area's homes and businesses. The 
dam supplies water to the many rural irrigation ditches in the area, 
thus allowing agriculture to flourish. The dam has created one of the 
most beautiful recreational lakes in the State, Lake Navajo. And the 
dam provides water for, what I am proud to say, is some of the best 
trout fishing in the United States; as a consequence it provides jobs 
for no less than 20 world-class fishing guide services as well as jobs 
for the accompanying tourist industry. So this one dam does it all; it 
provides food, water, electricity, jobs, and recreation for all of the 
citizens of that region.
  Living in the Colorado and San Juan Rivers, however, is a
   minnow known as the Colorado squawfish. This minnow has been listed 
under the act as an endangered species. Unfortunately for the people of 
northwestern New Mexico, a very small population of this minnow, a 
population which has never been recorded at more than 30 fish, is found 
in the area around Navajo Dam. As a result of this listing under the 
act, a committee was established to study how the squawfish might 
increase its numbers. As a part of this study, the committee would like 
to see what effects, if any, the historic, pre-dam flow of the San Juan 
River would have on the squawfish. To emulate this natural flow, the 
releases from Navajo Dam would have to be lowered to half of their 
current output for 4 months at the end of this year, and the committee 
has proposed that the Bureau of Reclamation do exactly that. Mr. 
President, this sounds to me as if we are using the people of the area 
as guinea pigs to study the squawfish.

  Needless to day, this proposal has both terrified and infuriated the 
residents of the Navajo Dam area. They are terrified because, if 
adopted, the proposal will leave them with completely inadequate water 
supplies, will greatly increase the cost of electricity, and will wipe 
out many of the fishing and tourist jobs upon which they depend. They 
are infuriated because this possible social and economic upheaval will 
occur solely for the academic exercise of determining whether or not a 
historic flow on the San Juan River will benefit the squawfish. 
Although I commend the Bureau of Reclamation for conducting town 
meetings to determine what effects the proposal will have on the people 
of the area, I believe that the fact that the proposal is being 
seriously considered at all indicates just how out of control the 
Endangered Species Act has become.
  Unfortunately, this is just one example of how economically and 
socially destructive the act can be and has been 
[[Page S4033]] on the people of my State. I could speak at great length 
about how listings have decimated the timber industries in small towns 
such as Reserve, NM. I suspect that most of the Members of this Chamber 
have been confronted with similar stories.
  These situations, however, have generated widespread recognition that 
the act has failed miserably to protect citizens from the social and 
economic burdens it creates. Just recently, in fact, even Interior 
Secretary Babbitt, long a defender of the act, recognized that the 
current listing process can produce ``unnecessary social and economic 
impacts upon private property and the regulated public.''
  Therefore, as I said at the outset, the Endangered Species Act is, in 
fact, broken. Fortunately, this new Congress, and Senators Chafee and 
Kempthorne in particular, have made revision of the act a top priority, 
and I am sure that they will do an outstanding job in this regard. It 
is for this reason that I am cosponsoring this amendment. Rather than 
allowing the continuation of a process that fails in practical effect 
to protect communities from social and economic devastation, this 
amendment will prevent moneys from being spent on new listings of 
threatened or endangered species and on new designations of critical 
habitat for the rest of fiscal year 1995. As I believe it only makes 
sense that we stop spending money on something that is broken and that 
will soon be fixed, I fully support this amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, might I ask the Senator from Texas, in 
terms of proceeding here, if she might want to speak now so we can even 
out the remaining time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will be happy to do that, if the 
Senator from Montana will agree to let me finish on my own amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Yes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Chair please notify me, then, when the time 
is equal?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas will have 6 minutes, 
approximately, but she will be notified.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Gramm be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. 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.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to respond to some of the 
things that have been said, because I think we have to put this in 
perspective.
  The Endangered Species Act expired in September 1992. It has not been 
reauthorized, although we have appropriated money for its 
implementation. So, essentially, today what we are doing is saying, no 
longer are we going to fully fund the implementation of this act that 
expired 2 years ago.
  We are not wiping out the implementation. I want to put this in 
perspective. We are taking out $1.5 million out of approximately $4.9 
million in the act. So there will be $3.4 million for the biologists 
and the workers at the agencies to continue doing their job.
  But what we are trying to do is say the time has come for us to put 
parameters around the implementation of this act because it has gone so 
far beyond reason.
  Senator Boxer and Senator Baucus have both agreed that no one is 
completely satisfied with the Endangered Species Act implementation. 
That is absolutely true, which is why we should stop doing it now, so 
that we can reauthorize it and tell the people who have gone so far 
beyond congressional intent exactly what Congress intended; that we 
intended to protect species, but that we most certainly intend to have 
common sense in the equation; that we are not going to put baitfish 
ahead of the water rights of farmers and ranchers; that we are not 
going to put the jaguar over the leasing rights of the ranchers in 
south Texas when nobody has seen a jaguar in Texas; that the golden-
cheeked warbler is not going to take precedence over the farmers and 
ranchers and people in the area of Austin, TX. That is what we are 
trying to do.
  The Senator from California indicated that this might be sort of a 
local bill, and why do we not just take care of Texas and let everyone 
else fend for themselves.
  Well, I would just mention that California now has 74 potential 
listings, any one of which could possibly go on the endangered or 
threatened endangered species list--74. I do not think this is local.
  In fact, I met with the leaders of the Los Angeles business community 
a few weeks ago when I was out in Los Angeles, and they told me of 
their two top issues, one is the overzealous regulation in the 
Endangered Species Act. I hear that from Arizona, I hear it from Idaho, 
I hear it from Montana, I hear it from New Mexico. This is not a local 
issue. Everyone agrees we have to do something.
  What I want to do is reauthorize it in a timely and judicious manner, 
and I want to have the time to do that.
  The Senator from New Jersey says, ``Why the rush? Why the rush?''
  The rush is not there. I introduced the bill to put a moratorium on 
the Endangered Species Act on January 7 of this year. It was March 7 
before we had a hearing in the subcommittee. The markup is scheduled 
for March 23. So will this bill be able to be acted on before the April 
recess? I do not know. I hope so, because we still need the moratorium 
bill because we need to stop the overzealous regulation of this act by 
every possible means until we can reauthorize the act with all of the 
players at the table.
  So this is not rushing. This is trying to keep a disaster from 
happening. It is trying to keep people from losing their jobs while we 
are taking this bill up in due course.
  It was mentioned that the Pacific yew tree is being used to be a part 
of a medicine that helps cure breast cancer. And I certainly am 
supportive of that. As the Senator from California knows, she and I 
agree on the need for more research for breast cancer.
  But, in fact, I think we have to understand that the Pacific yew tree 
is now being harvested by Bristol-Myers. That is one of the good things 
that can happen. When we do discover that there is a plant that can be 
used to help cure disease or keep us from having more disease, then we 
have the ability to harvest that tree, and that is exactly what is 
happening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is notified that she now has an 
equal amount of time as the Senator from Montana.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I serve as the ranking member of one of the 
subcommittees of the Environment and Public Works Committee, over which 
there is jurisdiction of the bill introduced by the Senator from Texas.
  I, in good faith, dealt with the chairman of the full committee and 
the chairman the subcommittee to work out a procedure to have hearings 
on her legislation. I was afraid something like this would happen, and 
it appears it has.
  If this is how we are going to do business, I am going to be real 
upset in the future in entering into any agreements on the Environment 
Committee of which I have any dealings. I am going to be as mischievous 
as I can on this floor.
  I dealt with the full committee chairman and the subcommittee 
chairman so that we could expedite a hearing on the bill of the Senator 
from Texas, have a full committee markup, and report this to the floor.
  Now if we, probably because of the procedure set up here, do not have 
the votes to table this, I personally am going to get as many of my 
colleagues as I can, if this amendment is adopted to this bill, as 
important as it is, I am going to do everything within my power to get 
the President to veto this bill so that we can come back here and do 
things the right way.
  I have stated numerous times that I believe the Endangered Species 
Act needs some work done on it. The State of Nevada is affected as much 
as any 
[[Page S4034]] other State. We are fourth in line as to endangered 
species listings.
  But this is not the way to treat a very important matter. I am very 
upset. I am going to do everything that I can to make sure that the 
President--if, in fact, this bill passes--will veto it so we can start 
conducting business as ladies and gentleman.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield the rest of our time to the 
Senator from Florida, Senator Graham.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The remaining time is 1 minute 20 seconds.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the distinguished Presiding Officer and I, 
in the last Congress, were ranking member and chair of the subcommittee 
which had jurisdiction over the Endangered Species Act.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, we were preparing to hold a series of 
hearings on this act with the goal of reauthorization in 1995. That is 
a goal which I hope we will continue to meet. I think it is important 
that we reauthorize this legislation.
  During the course of my chairmanship of that subcommittee, I learned 
some important things about the Endangered Species Act, and I would 
just briefly in my remaining seconds like to enumerate some of the 
things I learned.
  First, that the focus should not be so much on individual species as 
it should be on the habitat of those species. In many ways, the 
endangerment of a species is a signal of more fundamental problems in 
the habitat, problems which can have serious ramifications to the 
humans who occupy that habitat.
  Second, in many cases the charges made against the Endangered Species 
Act were actually the responsibility of some other Federal, State, or 
local action for which the endangered species became the scapegoat.
  Finally, Mr. President, I believe that we need to consider the 
reauthorization of this act. It certainly is in need of reform, but not 
the kind of amputation that is being proposed by this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I certainly understand when people 
have legitimate disagreements over the rights of private property 
owners versus the rights of animals and the concern that we have for 
protecting habitat.
  I do object to the characterization that this is somehow an 
inappropriate amendment. I do not think we can say that. We have had 
expedited procedures on the bill that would put the moratorium in 
place--a bill that was introduced in January, that had 29 signatures on 
the request for a hearing in late January, that was very much worked on 
and compromised to accommodate the concerns of people who were 
legitimately interested in this bill--until we finally got a hearing on 
March 7.
  We have not had a markup in committee. I think we can see from some 
of the concerns that have been raised that we may not be able to get 
this bill on the floor before April. I really do not think it is a fair 
thing to say that we have had expedited treatment of this bill.
  I think what is important is that we put some common sense into the 
implementation of the Endangered Species Act. Congress passed the bill. 
It has expired. In fact, we have not been able to reauthorize it 
because the concerns are so great and the disagreements are so large.
  So, we are going to take our time and we are going to reauthorize the 
bills, I hope, in a judicious way. The main thing we are going to have 
to do is put common sense into the equation.
  What I am trying to prevent today is the use of the next 6 months 
while we are taking this up in a rational way so that everyone can have 
their side aired and their view aired. I am trying to say, ``time 
out,'' so that silly things will not happen, so that bait fish and 
golden cheeked warblers and jaguars and salmon that are running the 
wrong way in a stream will not take precedence over the rights of 
farmers and ranchers who have toiled on their land and who are working 
for a living and providing the food for citizens to eat in this 
country.
  So I am very concerned that we act immediately. I think this is a 
great first step. I think it is a reasonable first step. I did not wipe 
out the whole agency. I just took $1.5 million out of $4.9 million. 
There is $3.5 million left. We are not going to lay people off. People 
will still be able to work. I think it is quite reasonable, and I did 
compromise with the chairman of the committee.
  I want to thank Senator Chafee for working with me on this amendment 
and for working with me in a fair way to try to get this bill heard. 
Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to table the Hutchison amendment 
and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Hutchison amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
and the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 106 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--60

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bradley
     Mikulski
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 336) was 
rejected.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the amendment 
violates rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate and is 
legislation on an appropriation bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken. The Chair 
sustains the point of order.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas appeals the ruling of 
the Chair.
  The question now before the Senate is, Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                   Vote On The Decision Of The Chair

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now before the Senate is, Shall 
the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 57, as follows:
              [[Page S4035]] [Rollcall Vote No. 107 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--57

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bradley
       
  So, the ruling of the Chair was rejected as the judgment of the 
Senate.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be 
vitiated on the Hutchison amendment and that Senators Gorton and 
Domenici be added as original cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 336) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________