[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 134 (Thursday, August 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12123-S12140]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




[[Page S 12123]]


             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report S. 1087.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1087) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and 
     for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following individuals be given privilege of the floor during 
consideration of this bill: Susan Hogan, Sujata Millick, and Joe 
Fengler.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. INOUYE. I ask my colleague to add Bobby Scherb and Ryan Henry to 
that list.
  Mr. STEVENS. I so ask, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President we are now going to begin consideration of 
what I hope will be the last bill before the recess, assuming that we 
take up and pass the authorization bill first, and we are prepared to 
yield at any time to the committee when they are here with a time 
agreement to finish their bill.
  This is the 1996 Department of Defense appropriations bill. The 
Senate should be aware that we are moving quickly this year on this 
bill. The House has just started their consideration of the bill and 
will complete their action when they return in September.
  In the Senate, as I have just mentioned, the negotiations on the 
authorization bill are continuing, but this bill before the Senate now 
is an original bill. We have to take this procedure. It is somewhat 
unusual. But that is to enable us to move this bill so it will be ready 
to pass on to the President before the end of the fiscal year.
  We have sought to accommodate to the maximum extent possible the 
initiatives that have been recommended by the Armed Services Committee 
in their bill as reported. We have faced a more difficult challenge, 
though, than any of the other three committees that deal with defense 
matters in the Congress. We are subject to the budget resolution to an 
extent that does not apply to the other three. The 602(b) allocation 
for this bill provided $1.4 billion less in new budget authority than 
was available to the House, and I am sure that the Senate realizes we 
are subject to a point of order in complying with section 602(b) 
allocations, that the point of order does not lie against any bill 
other than ours.
  Compared to the amounts authorized, our allocation is nearly $1 
billion less than the amount that was reported by the Armed Services 
Committee. As a result, there are many matters that were brought before 
us, requested by Members in particular, that we simply could not 
accommodate. If there is some reallocation of budget authority as we go 
through conference, we will, of course, work very hard to address those 
matters that cannot be considered today.
  This bill and the committee report have been available to all Members 
of the Senate since July 31. Every Member has had full opportunity to 
review the matters in the bill, and I personally have spoken with many 
Members of the Senate on specific matters and answered many inquiries 
that were delivered to us in writing. Those were answered in writing. 
Senator Inouye and I worked very closely during the consideration of 
this bill, as we have since we first began our partnership in 
considering this matter as either chairman or ranking member. We have 
each served in both capacities.
  We have jointly proposed a package of managers' amendments that will 
modify the bill to reflect many of the actions that have been taken to 
adjust the authorized accounts, and we will offer that package at a 
later time.
  However, all budget authority and outlays under our allocation have 
been consumed. Let me repeat that. We do not have room for any 
additional budget authority amendments or allocations which will lead 
to outlays. All funding amendments presented to this bill will require 
offsets.
  Mr. President, this bill does not contain the legislative initiatives 
that are included in the authorization bill. The legislation that is 
here before us now is an appropriations bill. After discussions with 
the ranking member and the leaders, it is our intention to move to 
table legislative amendments that are presented to this bill. The 
Defense authorization bill should be completed, as I indicated, 
hopefully, before we vote final passage on this bill. And the State 
Department authorization bill will come back to the Senate after the 
recess. We do not want legislative matters pertaining to those two 
bills to be considered in connection with this bill. In conference, we 
are going to have the most difficult time we have ever had. We do not 
need to try to carry to our conference on appropriations the disputes 
that pertain to the authorizations bills for the Department of Defense 
and Department of State.
  We hope we can preserve, incidentally, as much of the recess as 
possible. I am very hopeful we will finish this bill tomorrow so that I 
can be on a plane joining my family in Alaska tomorrow night. However, 
I wish to tell the Senate I am prepared to stay here into next week if 
it is necessary. I do not believe in letting an appropriations bill for 
defense just hang over the recess. We are prepared to finish this bill. 
The leader has indicated that he wants to have this bill finished, and 
I urge the Members of the Senate to accommodate us and help us get this 
bill finished.
  There is just no reason to repeat the debates on amendments that were 
offered to the authorization bill just this last week or amendments 
that are still in off-the-floor conferences that are being carried on 
on the authorization bill.
  I urge every Member of the Senate to be considerate about others now 
as we consider this bill and try to get it finished in order that we 
may all get on our airplanes or in our automobiles, for those who are 
lucky enough to be able to drive home, and enjoy part of August, as we 
should have been there last week as a matter of fact.
  Now, Mr. President, title 1 of this bill recommends $68.881 billion 
to fully fund the authorized active duty end-strength and the proposed 
military pay raise.
  The recommendation also fully funds the authorized increases in the 
basic allowance for quarters. There is an additional $100 million to 
address increased overseas-station allowance costs faced by military 
families deployed overseas because of the fluctuation in the value of 
the dollar.
  For operation and maintenance activities, the recommendation provides 
$79.930 billion, fully funding the proposed OPTEMPO for military 
training and readiness.
  There are no funds in this bill for contingency operations such as 
Bosnia. The House bill, as reported, does provide funding for 
operations such as Iraq. That issue will be considered in conference 
again depending on how we handle the allocation, but there is just not 
money available for those contingencies at this time in our 
consideration.
  We do fully fund the proposed civilian personnel pay raise that was 
recommended in the budget by the President.
  To authorize the shortfall and inadequate stock of barracks housing 
for single military personnel, our committee recommends an increase of 
$322 million for the renovation and refurbishment of existing barracks. 
This is only a downpayment, Mr. President. It will permit the services 
to make progress on one of the key quality-of-life issues that we have 
discussed with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  The bill also addresses several critical National Guard priorities. 
Full funding and legislative direction is provided to sustain the Air 
National Guard Tactical Fighter Force at 15 aircraft per squadron. A 
floor is set for civilian technicians, to maintain readiness support 
for the Guard. I point out to the Senate how much the Guard is involved 
in an active-duty partnership now in many areas throughout the world, 
including training in our own country. 

[[Page S 12124]]

  There is $100 million added for Army Guard operations and 
maintenance, to address partially the severe backlog in real property 
maintenance at Guard facilities and installations.
  Our bill provides an additional $5.8 billion for procurement, to 
sustain critical modernization programs.
  The committee based these decisions on the guidance provided, once 
again, by the military service chiefs. We sought to follow closely 
their recommendations and the recommendations given to us by the Armed 
Services Committee.
  Mr. President, $777 million is the authorized level provided for 
National Guard equipment. We have no specific earmarks. The bill 
language is included mandating that the Reserve and Guard component 
chiefs report their modernization priorities by December 1, 1995. We 
believe that the chiefs should make that allocation of these funds.
  The recommendation fully funds the ballistic missile defense 
initiative reported by the Armed Services Committee. And an additional 
$600 million is included.
  Mr. President, $300 million is provided to accelerated development 
and deployment of a national missile defense system. These are two of 
the items currently being discussed off the floor by the authorization 
committee.
  An additional $200 million is recommended to restore funds cut in the 
budget to continue the development of the F-22 for the Air Force.
  To address medical research priorities, $100 million is recommended 
for the Department of Defense research on breast cancer. These funds 
are to be available only for use to address the needs of military 
medical beneficiaries.
  Under the terms of the budget resolution conference, defense 
appropriations must relate to defense functions. We believe there are a 
great many women and women dependents in the military, and there is 
adequate reason to provide this money to the Department of Defense to 
continue their initiatives with regard to breast cancer. The House has 
structured their breast cancer initiative differently. Of course, that 
matter will be discussed in conference.
  Again, I have mentioned my good friend from Hawaii, Senator Inouye. 
The Senate should know that this bill reflects our joint views, as you 
will hear shortly. We continue to work closely on a strictly--not even 
bipartisan--nonpartisan basis. We see matters of defense I believe from 
the same point of view, from the point of view of those who served in 
World War II, Mr. President. And having that background, we are trying 
to maintain our military to meet the needs of the future.
  Again, I want to commend my good friend, who is our cochairman. We 
have both been chairman, and at times we forget who is chairman. I 
think that is the best way to run this subcommittee that deals so much 
with the needs of the military services and the men and women who serve 
us in the Armed Forces.
  We can, I think, complete this bill today with the cooperation of the 
Members of the Senate. We have already heard of several of the 
amendments that are coming. I personally discussed with those Members 
the opportunity to have a time agreement in advance so that the Senate 
will know how long we will take on these amendments, and if possible we 
will stack some of these amendments so we can have as much opportunity 
to not require Members to come back and forth to the floor so often.
  We will have several votes on this bill today, however, Mr. 
President. We hope to accommodate Members of the Senate, and urge their 
cooperation with us.
  Now, Mr. President, I yield the floor to my good friend from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, let me first begin by congratulating my 
subcommittee chairman, Senator Stevens, for recommending this bill to 
the Senate. And I would like to also thank my colleague from Alaska for 
his very generous comments.
  The bill that is now being presented to the Senate by the 
Appropriations Committee will protect critical military readiness 
programs. We hear much about readiness. This bill addresses that. It 
will fully fund the needs of our men and women in uniform and also 
provide a much needed increase in the modernization of our forces.
  In the long tradition of the Appropriations Committee, this bill was 
crafted in a bipartisan, or as the chairman has noted, a nonpartisan 
manner. I have had the privilege of working closely with Chairman 
Stevens in formulating this bill, as we have in the past. In some 
areas, the committee was constrained by authorization limitations which 
caused Chairman Stevens and I to recommend less than some of our 
colleagues might have wanted for certain programs such as defense 
conversion, the Seawolf submarine, or the B-2 bomber. But the chairman 
and I agreed that we would live within the limitations recommended by 
the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. President, I want to point out to my colleagues on this side of 
the aisle that this bill provides no policy statement on the ABM 
Treaty. I think that should be repeated. This bill does not contain any 
language or any policy statement on the ABM Treaty, nor does it have 
any limitation on the President of the United States in foreign 
affairs, and no other major policy issues.
  Adhering strictly to the rules of the Senate, this bill addresses 
spending priorities, not legislation. In fact, my colleagues should 
know that the chairman stripped 90 legislative provisions from the 
defense bill that was passed by this body last year. This is a very 
clear bill, a very clean bill, which addresses the spending needs of 
the Defense Department. And, Mr. President, I am proud to support it.
  The bill before the Senate provides nearly $80 billion for operations 
and maintenance to protect the readiness of our forces. It supports the 
military personnel levels requested by the President. It funds a 2.4-
percent pay raise for our military personnel and increases their basic 
allowance substantially--all consistent with authorization 
recommendations. The bill also raises procurement spending by nearly $6 
billion, up to $44.5 billion.
  To those who suggest that the bill provides too much for 
modernization, I note that even with these increases, we are still 
spending less than half of the amount the Senate recommended for 
procurement 10 years ago. I might add that Chairman Stevens and I asked 
each of the military Chiefs of Staff to meet with the Defense 
Subcommittee to review the needs of their respective services.
  The recommendations for procurement spending matched these 
requirements.
  The bill funds a very robust ballistic missile defense program, 
adding $300 million for national missile defense research and 
development. While some might disagree with this recommendation, it is 
the same amount already approved by the Senate; and it is $150 million 
less than recommended by the House. Research and development spending 
in total will increase by more than $1 billion compared to the present 
request.
  Mr. President, I believe it is essential that we invest in the 
readiness, quality-of-life, and modernization programs funded by this 
bill.
  As my colleagues know very well, only a very small percentage of 
Americans served in the military. Less than 1 percent of us have come 
forward to say that they are willing to stand in harm's way for the 
Nation. And so I believe it is our responsibility to make certain that 
we provide these dedicated men and women fair pay, decent living 
conditions, and the best equipment available. Those who choose to serve 
are our best deterrent of war and the means if necessary to defeat any 
adversary and safeguard our freedoms.
 And so we must support their needs, and I believe that this measure 
does just that.

  Mr. President, may I repeat that I am in full support of this 
legislation. It is a good, a fair, and a very important bill, and so I 
encourage all of my colleagues to support it.
  One of the major issues in this measure will be the increases that 
this committee has recommended in procurement. Yes, these are some 
programs that were not requested officially by the President of the 
United States, but these decisions were reached as a result of our 
consultation with the senior military officers and the senior civilians 
responsible for our defense. 

[[Page S 12125]]

  For example, we have added two DDG-51 destroyers at a cost of $1.4 
billion. The question may be asked, Why did we do this? The President's 
program calls for four destroyers. However, it calls for two at this 
moment and two at a later time, about 3 years from now. If we followed 
the administration's recommendation, that amount, $1.4 billion, would 
be increased by nearly $400 million. We can get a better deal by 
purchasing four at this time.
  There is another large item, the LHD-7 amphibious assault ship. It is 
$1.3 billion--a whole lot of money--but even this is in the program 
that the Defense Department has.
  We have decided to procure these items at this moment and not at a 
later date so that we can avoid the peaks and valleys that we usually 
experience. We have tried to level off our spending programs so that we 
will not be faced suddenly 2 years from now with a huge peak and then 2 
years after that with a valley.
  We have added, as the chairman noted, $777 million for National Guard 
equipment. These are requested by the adjutants general of the 50 
States. Yes, there was a time when National Guard troops were riot-
control experts, or they filled sandbags for flood control, they did 
civilian work. But today, as they did in Desert Storm, we have men 
piloting aircraft in the Bosnia theater. In Desert Storm, there were 
thousands of National Guard officers, men and women. So they are no 
longer local troops that take part in our national endeavors.
  We also added 12 F/A-18 Navy fighters, $487 million. This is beyond 
the President's request, but here again, the President's program, the 
Defense Department program, calls for the acquisition of these aircraft 
at a later date. And if you want to have a better contract deal, now is 
the time to purchase this.
  There is $300 million for Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has now gone 
beyond just guarding our coast. They have participated in Bosnia, and 
they still do; they participated in Desert Storm, and on top of that, 
we have directed the Coast Guard to conduct certain missions that were 
not heretofore part of their responsibility. They have a major 
responsibility in drug interdiction. The Coast Guard account, which is 
in the Treasury account, is not quite sufficient to meet all the 
payments, so we decided in the defense bill, because it is true defense 
work, to pick up part of the tab.
  We are appropriating $241 million to purchase a WC-130 Hurricane 
aircraft. I hope that my colleagues will be able to convince our 
friends who live in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
Florida, Louisiana, and Texas that this aircraft is not necessary. This 
is the aircraft that gives citizens of these areas advance notice that 
something horrendous is coming along. Yes, it is expensive, but we need 
this aircraft.
  The Army asked for one thing. It was not in the President's request: 
Comanche, $174 million. This is a helicopter program.
  What I have listed represents about 6 billion dollars' worth. Mr. 
President, if my colleagues carefully study what we have done, I am 
certain they will go along with the subcommittee. This is not fat, this 
is not pork, and if I may be a bit parochial and personal about this, 
none of these items are purchased in Alaska or Hawaii. We do not have 
the plants that build the fighter planes. We do not have the plants and 
the shipyards that build these ships and destroyers. The chairman and I 
believe that this equipment is absolutely essential at this time if we 
are to modernize our forces and to present to them the best we can in 
equipment.
  If these men, representing less than 1 percent of our population, are 
willing to step forward and say to us, ``We are willing to risk our 
lives and shed our blood for you,'' the least we can do is to provide 
them with the best protection. This will do it.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle will go along with the recommendations that Senator Stevens and I 
are now presenting.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


               Amendments Nos. 2350 through 2362, En bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a series of amendments 
that are technical, conforming and incidental. One is on Corps SAM; one 
LMT; one a study amendment; there is a pentaborane amendment; BIC; 
Hydra-70; the JTF; JAMIP; troops to cops; troops to teachers; energy 
savings; and the helicopter conversion amendment.
  These have been examined by Senator Inouye and by myself. I ask 
unanimous consent that it be in order that they be offered en bloc and 
adopted en bloc, and with a paragraph before each one explaining the 
action we have taken. These are to conform, basically, with the 
authorization bill request of Members or amendments that have been 
adopted each time we brought the bill to the floor.
  May I state for the record that both our staffs, and both of us, have 
studied these amendments very carefully, and we have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments en bloc.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes amendments 
     numbered 2350 through 2362, en bloc.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:
                           Amendment No. 2350

       On page 29, before the period on line 13, insert: ``: 
     Provided further, That of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph, $35,000,000 shall be available for the Corps 
     Surface-to-Air Missile (Corps SAM) program''.
                                                                    ____



                           Amendment No. 2351

       On page 29, before the period on line 13, insert: ``: 
     Provided further, That of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph, $3,000,000 shall be available for the Large 
     Millimeter Telescope project''.
                                                                    ____



                           Amendment No. 2352

       On page 29, before the period on line 13, insert: ``: 
     Provided, That of the funds appropriated in this paragraph, 
     not more than $48,505,000 shall be available for the 
     Strategic Environmental Research Program program element 
     activities and not more than $34,302,000 shall be available 
     for Technical Studies, Support and Analysis program element 
     activities''.


                           Amendment No. 2353

  (Purpose: To place a condition on the use of funds for destruction of 
certain pentaborane)
       At the appropriate place in the bill add the following:

     SEC.   .

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     under this Act may be used for the destruction of pentaborane 
     currently stored at Edwards Air Force Base, California, until 
     the Secretary of Energy certifies to the congressional 
     defense committees that the Secretary does not intend to use 
     the pentaborane or the by-products of such destruction at the 
     Idaho National Engineering Laboratory for--
       (1) environmental remediation of high level, liquid 
     radioactive waste; or
       (2) as a source of raw materials for boron drugs for Boron 
     Neutron Capture Therapy.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished 
managers of the bill for including my amendment on pentaborane into the 
managers' amendment. My amendment will prohibit the Department of 
Defense from destroying a material, know as pentaborane, until the 
Secretary of Energy certifies that the material will not be used by the 
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory for remediation of high level, 
liquid radioactive waste or as a source for boron drugs for the boron 
neutron capture therapy.
  I am told that it will cost the Air Force a little more than $1 
million to maintain the pentaborane material for 1 more year while the 
scientists and experts at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 
determine if this material can be used effectively in waste management 
or boron neutron capture therapy.
  The energy and water appropriations bill passed by the Senate 
includes $1 million for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory to 
make its assessment of the use of pentaborane. At present, the Air 
Force considers pentaborane a waste. My amendment directs the Air Force 
to maintain this material for 1 more year while pentaborane's possible 
uses by the Department of Energy are assessed.
  I want to once again thank the managers of the bill, the senior 
Senator 

[[Page S 12126]]
from Alaska, Chairman Stevens and the senior Senator from Hawaii, 
Senator Inouye, for their consideration of my amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2354

       On page 29, before the period on line 13, insert: ``: 
     Provided further, That of the $475,470,000 appropriated in 
     this paragraph for the Other Theater Missile Defense, up to 
     $25,000,000 may be available for the operation of the 
     Battlefield Integration Center''.
                                                                    ____



                           Amendment No. 2355

       On page 28, before the period on line 4, insert: ``: 
     Provided, That of the funds appropriated in this paragraph 
     for the Other Missile Product Improvement Program program 
     element, $10,000,000 is provided only for the full 
     qualification and operational platform certification of Non-
     Developmental Item (NDI) composite 2.75 inch rocket motors 
     and composite propellant pursuant to the initiation of a 
     Product Improvement Program (PIP) for the Hydra-70 rocket''.
                                                                    ____

                           amendment no. 2356

   (Purpose: To make funds available for the Life Science Equipment 
Laboratory, Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, for support of the Joint Task 
                        Force--Full Accounting)

       On page 8, line 13, strike out ``Act.'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``Act: Provided further, That of the funds provided 
     under this heading, $500,000 shall be available for the Life 
     Sciences Equipment Laboratory, Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, 
     for work in support of the Joint Task Force--Full 
     Accounting.''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2357

       On page 11, before the period on line 9, insert: ``: 
     Provided further, That of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph, $11,200,000 shall be available for the Joint 
     Analytic Model Improvement Program''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2358

       On page 11, before the period on line 9, insert: ``: 
     Provided further, That of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph, $10,000,000 shall be available for the Troops-to-
     Cops program''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2359

       On page 11, before the period on line 9, insert: ``: 
     Provided further, That of the funds provided under this 
     heading, $42,000,000 shall be available for the Troops-to-
     Teachers program''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2360

       On page 82, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8087. (a) Energy Savings at Federal Facilities.--The 
     head of each agency for which funds are made available under 
     this Act shall take all actions necessary to achieve during 
     fiscal year 1996 a 5 percent reduction, from fiscal year 1995 
     levels, in the energy costs of the facilities used by the 
     agency.
       (b) Use of Cost Savings.--An amount equal to the amount of 
     cost savings realized by an agency under subsection (a) shall 
     remain available for obligation through the end of fiscal 
     year 1997, without further authorization or appropriation, as 
     follows:
       (1) Conservation measures.--Fifty percent of the amount 
     shall remain available for the implementation of additional 
     energy conservation measures and for water conservation 
     measures at such facilities used by the agency as are 
     designated by the head of the agency.
       (2) Other purposes.--Fifty percent of the amount shall 
     remain available for use by the agency for such purposes as 
     are designated by the head of the agency, consistent with 
     applicable law.
       (c) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 1996, the head 
     of each agency described in subsection (a) shall submit a 
     report to Congress specifying the results of the actions 
     taken under subsection (a) and providing any recommendations 
     concerning how to further reduce energy costs and energy 
     consumption in the future.
       (2) Contents.--Each report shall--
       (A) specify the total energy costs of the facilities used 
     by the agency;
       (B) identify the reductions achieved; and
       (C) specify the actions that resulted in the reductions.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the two floor 
managers of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Senator 
Stevens, and the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, and 
their staff, for their management of the Fiscal Year 1996 
Appropriations Act for the Department of Defense.
  I would like to take a few moments to discuss an amendment I have 
proposed, which has been cleared by both sides. My amendment encourages 
agencies funded under the bill to become more energy efficient and 
directs them to reduce facility energy costs by 5 percent. The agencies 
will report to the Congress at the end of the year on their efforts to 
conserve energy and will make recommendations for further conservation 
efforts. I have offered this amendment to every appropriations bill 
that has come before the Senate this year, and it has been accepted to 
each one.
  I believe this is a common-sense amendment: the Federal Government 
spends nearly $4 billion annually to heat, cool, and power its 500,000 
buildings. The Office Technology Assistance and the Alliance to Save 
Energy, a nonprofit group which I chair with Senator Jeffords, estimate 
that Federal agencies could save $1 billion annually if they would make 
an effort to become more energy efficient and conserve energy.
  Mr. President, I hope this amendment will encourage agencies to use 
new energy savings technologies when making building improvements in 
insulation, building controls, lighting, heating, and air conditioning. 
The Department of Energy has made available for governmentwide agency 
use streamlined ``energy saving performance contracts'' procedures, 
modeled after private sector initiatives. Unfortunately, most agencies 
have made little progress in this area. This amendment is an attempt to 
get Federal agencies to devote more attention to energy efficiency, 
with the goal of lowering overall costs and conserving energy.
  As I mentioned, Mr. President, this amendment has been accepted to 
every appropriations bill the Senate has passed this year. I am pleased 
my colleagues support it, and again, I thank the floor managers for 
their assistance. Thank you.


                           amendment no. 2361

 (Purpose: To revise the availability of funds for loan guarantees for 
           the defense dual-use assistance extension program)

       On page 29, strike out the period at the end of line 13 and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``: Provided, That the funds made 
     available under the second proviso under this heading in 
     Public Law 103-335 (108 Stat. 2613) shall also be available 
     to cover the reasonable costs of the administration of loan 
     guarantees referred to in that proviso and shall be available 
     to cover such costs of administration and the costs of such 
     loan guarantees until September 30, 1998.''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2362

   (Purpose: To make $5,000,000 available for conversion of surplus 
 Department of Defense helicopters for procurement by State and local 
         law enforcement agencies for counter-drug activities)

       On page 32, line 19, strike out ``Provided,'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``Provided, That of the funds provided under 
     this heading, $5,000,000 shall be available for conversion of 
     surplus helicopters of the Department of Defense for 
     procurement by State and local governments for counter-drug 
     activities: Provided further,''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendments are 
considered and agreed to, en bloc.
  So the amendments (Nos. 2350 through 2362) were agreed to, en bloc.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am informed Senator McCain may have 
some objection. If he raises an objection, or any other Senator does, 
we will withdraw it and reconsider it. I believe we ought to just get 
along with these technical, conforming amendments. Therefore, I ask 
unanimous consent that they be adopted as I indicated, en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That has been done.
  Mr. STEVENS. I think the Senator from Iowa has an amendment.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa has an amendment 
which we have examined. It continues a policy we started last year at 
his request. I ask unanimous consent that he take 3 minutes and we will 
take 2 minutes to consider his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.


                           Amendment No. 2363

(Purpose: To improve the financial accountability of the Department of 
                                Defense)

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will not even bother to take the 3 
minutes. I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2363.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with. 

[[Page S 12127]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 82, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8087. (a)(1) Not later than October 1, 1995, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall require that each disbursement by 
     the Department of Defense in an amount in excess of 
     $1,000,000 be matched to a particular obligation before the 
     disbursement is made.
       (2) Not later than September 30, 1996, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall require that each disbursement by the 
     Department of Defense in an amount in excess of $500,000 be 
     matched to a particular obligation before the disbursement is 
     made.
       (b) The Secretary shall ensure that a disbursement in 
     excess of the threshold amount applicable under subsection 
     (a) is not divided into multiple disbursements of less than 
     that amount for the purpose of avoiding the applicability of 
     such subsection to that disbursement.
       (c) The Secretary of Defense may waive a requirement for 
     advance matching of a disbursement of the Department of 
     Defense with a particular obligation in the case of (1) a 
     disbursement involving deployed forces, (2) a disbursement 
     for an operation in a war declared by Congress or a national 
     emergency declared by the President or Congress, or (3) a 
     disbursement under any other circumstances for which the 
     waiver is necessary in the national security interests of the 
     United States, as determined by the Secretary and certified 
     by the Secretary to the congressional defense committees.
       (d) This section shall not be construed to limit the 
     authority of the Secretary of Defense to require that a 
     disbursement not in excess of the amount applicable under 
     subsection (a) be matched to a particular obligation before 
     the disbursement is made.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my amendment is not controversial. I 
believe it has been cleared on both sides.
  My amendment addresses the $30 billion unmatched disbursement problem 
at the Department of Defense or DOD.
  My amendment continues to ratchet down the thresholds at which DOD 
must match a disbursement with an obligation before making a payment.
  Under Section 8137 of last year's bill, Public Law 103-335, any 
disbursement over $5 million has to be matched with its corresponding 
obligation before a payment could be made.
  The $5 million threshold took effect about a month ago, on July 1, 
1995.
  We know that the DOD Comptroller, Mr. John Hamre, is wrestling with 
the problem. We know he is doing his very best to comply with the law.
  He tells us he is doing it.
  And there is no reason why he cannot do it.
  We know, for example, that one of the major DOD contract payment 
centers, the one at Columbus, OH, processes about 2,200 invoices per 
year that exceed $5 million.
  There is no reason in the world why DOD's vast army of bookkeepers 
cannot make the necessary matches on 2,200 payments per year.
  That is a small number.
  It is a modest threshold.
  Well, on October 1, 1995, the law ratchets the threshold down even 
further.
  On that date, any payment over $1 million must be matched with its 
corresponding obligation before a payment is made.
  That threshold just keeps us marching in the right direction, toward 
the zero threshold goal.
  That is where all DOD disbursements are matched with their 
corresponding obligations before payment.
  That is where DOD needs to be.
  At the $1 million threshold, DOD has to make matches on about 12,300 
invoices.
  Mr. President, with 25,834 employees, I think DFAS, the Defense 
Finance and Accounting Service, should be able to make matches on 
12,300 invoices.
  We need to keep the pressure on.
  DOD must develop a capability to match all disbursements with 
obligations in advance of making payments.
  We must keep marching down the road toward that goal.
  My amendment today would lower the threshold one more notch, to 
$500,000, effective October 1, 1996.
  That is one year from now.
  That is plenty of time to automate the linkages between DOD's check 
writing machine and the accounting ledgers and contracting books.
  There is a breakdown of electronic communications between DOD 
disbursing and accounting.
  That is the problem Mr. Hamre is trying to fix. He is trying to 
integrate the two operations.
  We want to help him do it, but at the same time, we need to keep the 
pressure on.
  At the $500,000 level, DOD will need to make payments on about 25,000 
invoices per year.
  His interim Electronic Data Interchange System should be up and 
running by the time the $500,000 threshold kicks in.
  Matching 25,000 invoices should then be a piece of cake.
  Mr. President, I have raised so much fuss over the unmatched 
disbursement problem for one reason.
  The $30 billion in unmatched disbursements tells me there are no 
effective internal controls over a big chunk of the DOD budget.
  This means that those accounts are vulnerable to theft and abuse.
  The recent cases at Reese Air Force Base, TX, and the DFAS Center in 
Norfolk, VA, brought this problem home hard.
  Two crooks were able to tap into the DOD money pipe undetected and 
steal millions of dollars over a period of several years.
  Both individuals were caught only by chance because of outrageous 
personal behavior.
  They were able to steal millions of dollars for one simple reason.
  DOD does not do very basic accounting work before making a payment.
  The check writing machine is on autopilot.
  The money goes out the door. Then DOD begins to worry about matching.
  DOD tries to make the matches after the fact, often long after the 
fact.
  By waiting months or even years to make the matches, supporting 
documentation disappears.
  It is missing. Or worse, it does not exist.
  Either way, without supporting documentation, DOD does not know 
whether the payment is legitimate. Without documentation, it could be 
fraudulent.
  Until the matches are made, we do not know whether a payment is 
legitimate or fraudulent.
  So it was easy for the crooks in Texas and Virginia to operate 
undetected.
  Mr. President, that is why we need to take the next step and put the 
$500,000 threshold in place.
  If we go step by step, we will eventually get to the point were there 
are effective, but very basic, internal control devices in place.
  I thank my friend from Alaska, Senator Ted Stevens, and my friend 
from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, for backing me up on this issue.
  Their support is crucial to getting the job done. They have been 
behind me 100 percent. I appreciate all the good support.
  They held a hearing on the issue on May 23. They understand it and 
know how important it is.
  A year from now we can review the situation and make adjustments if 
needed.
  Mr. President, I hope the committee is prepared to accept my 
amendment.
  I simply want to thank the chairman and the ranking members, not only 
for their cooperation this year but this is building on cooperation I 
had from the chairman and ranking member last year on my attempts to 
bring some discipline to the matching of disbursements with checks 
being written. This does build on what we did last year, I think in a 
very responsible way.
  I suppose the taxpayers might say it is too timid of a way, that we 
have a major problem, and we will work at it slowly to get it 
accomplished. This amendment is one more step. I thank the managers for 
their cooperation.
  Mr. STEVENS. We took up this matter during the hearing on this bill 
with Dr. Hamre, the comptroller of Defense Department. We have worked 
with him. We were pursuing the matter at the request of the Senator 
from Iowa last year. That furthers the concept that we are going to try 
and make certain that we have the identification of the invoice of 
disbursement. It is not always as easy as it sounds, since disbursement 
could take place literally in Italy and the invoice could be located 
somewhere in a small town in Iowa. But, as a practical matter, we are 
going to try to make sure that they marry up through the computer 
process. The Senator is right. I am prepared to accept the amendment.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the Senator 
in this process. This is a continuation of 

[[Page S 12128]]
the process that was started last year, and we commend the author.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2363) was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have no other amendments pending. I 
have some 80 amendments on the list on my desk here. We would like to 
proceed. If Senators do not want to come and offer their amendments, I 
will be happy to make a motion to go to third reading quickly.
  I think we have a good bill. This bill provides the lowest level of 
spending of any of the authorizations on the DOD bill, as I have 
indicated, because of the limitations on the committee due to the 
allocation and the budget process, but we have met the real 
requirements of the bill. We have discussed this with the 
administration, and there is some indication of the dissatisfaction, 
but we believe we can explain to the administration why we have done 
what we have done. This bill should be accepted for the purpose of 
funding the activities of the Department in the next year.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this bill be printed in the 
Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 DOD Appropriations Bill

       Total funding.--The subcommittee allocation provides 
     $242.483 billion in new budget authority, and $243.069 
     billion in outlays. The markup package fully consumes all 
     budget authority and outlays set for the subcommittee. In new 
     budget authority, this level is about $1.4 billion below the 
     House subcommittee, and is about $800 million below the 
     estimated new budget authority levels reflected in the Senate 
     reported DoD authorization bill.
       Contingency operations.--Bill does not provide any funding 
     or authority for U.S. military operations or deployments to 
     Bosnia.
       Personnel.--$68.881 billion.
       Recommendation fully funds authorized military end-strength 
     for 1996. Fully funds requested pay raise for military 
     personnel, and the authorized increase in the Basic Allowance 
     for Quarters. Also provides an additional $100 million to 
     cover increased overseas station allowance costs due to the 
     decline in the value of the dollar versus the budget 
     estimates.
       Operation and maintenance.--$79.930 billion.
       Recommendation fully funds proposed OPTEMPO level for 
     military services. Fully funds civilian personnel pay raise. 
     Provides an additional $322 million for the renovation and 
     refurbishment of barracks for enlisted personnel. Increases 
     ship repair funding by $150 million. Freezes funding for 
     Environmental Restoration activities at the 1995 level. 
     Reduces funding for assistance to Russia by -$46 million. 
     Eliminates Administration request of $65 million for payments 
     to the U.N. for Peacekeeping from DoD.
       National Guard and Reserves.--Directs that Primary Assigned 
     Aircraft (PAA) levels for fighter squadrons remain at 15, and 
     provides necessary O&M and Personnel funding to sustain those 
     units. Directs the civilian technician workforce levels not 
     be reduced, and provides necessary funding to maintain 
     current levels. Adds $100 million for Army National Guard O&M 
     to address Real Property Maintenance backlog. Recommendation 
     provides authorized level of $777 million for National Guard 
     and Reserve Equipment, and identifies priority items.
       Procurement.--$44.460 billion.
       Provides $5.8 billion over the budget request to restore 
     critical modernization programs. Highlights include: +$82 
     million for Apache helicopter multi-year procurement; Funds 
     to continue UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter procurement; +$120 
     million for OH-58 ``KIOWA WARRIOR'' upgrades; Funds for 
     multi-year procurement of the M1-A2 tank upgrades; Includes 
     for Army medium and heavy trucks/HMWVV; Funds for 24 F-18C/D 
     Navy aircraft; Funds for 8 AV-8B aircraft upgrades; Fully 
     funds V-22 procurement; Funds LHD-7 Amphibious assault ship; 
     Funds four DDG-51 class AEGIS destroyers; Advance procurement 
     for two new Attack Submarines; Continued funding for the SSN-
     23 SEAWOLF; Funds 6 additional F-16 aircraft; Funds 6 
     additional F-15 aircraft; Fully funds C-17 program/advance 
     procurement for 1997; Provides additional $75 million for the 
     NDAA airlift program; Funds 5 WC-130 aircraft; Provides 
     funding for HAVE NAP, AGM-130 precision munitions; and 
     Provides funding for B-1 upgrades and advanced munitions.
       Research and development.--$35.474 billion.
       Provides $343 million over the budget request for weapons 
     research, development and testing. Highlights include: Full 
     funding for authorized Ballistic Missile Defense program; 
     BMDO level includes +$300 million for National Missile 
     Defense; +$174 million for the RAH-66 ``COMANCHE'' 
     helicopter; +$200 million for the F-22; Full funding for F-
     18E/F development; Reduced TRP to authorization level; 
     Includes +$100 million for Breast Cancer research; Includes 
     +$20 million for AIDS/HIV research; Increases funding for 
     Marine Corps Amphibious Assault vehicle; Increases funding 
     for Marine Corps UH-1/AH-1 upgrades; and Reduces FFRDC 
     spending by -$90 million to authorized level.
       Other accounts.--SEALIFT: Fully funds sealift procurement, 
     adds $50 million for ``national defense features'' as 
     authorized; DBOF: Adds $300 million for supplies for Coast 
     Guard for defense/counternarcotics missions; INTELLIGENCE 
     PROGRAMS: Provides funding consistent with levels reported by 
     the Senate Intelligence Committee; and COUNTERNARCOTICS: 
     Provides authorized level of $680 million for DoD drug 
     interdiction missions.

  Mr. STEVENS. I yield to my good friend, the chairman of the 
authorization committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to commend the able chairman of 
the committee for the fine job he has done and the able ranking member 
for the good job he has done. It is a very difficult situation to work 
these things out. I think they both have shown great wisdom and shown 
tremendous dedication in working this bill out. I am anxious to see the 
Senate pass it.
  Mr. STEVENS. We are grateful to the chairman of the authorization 
committee not only for his comments but for his presence on the floor 
as we consider these amendments. We look to him for guidance and 
support as far as this process is concerned.
  Mr. President, I will soon suggest the absence of a quorum and hope 
that amendments will be presented. I am perfectly able to make a motion 
to proceed to third reading. I do not see anybody here on the floor 
that would object to that. I hope we get amendments pretty quickly.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask each of the Cloakrooms to put out 
the notice that if we do not have an amendment by 11:50 a.m., I am 
going to move to third reading.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I was hoping to obtain clarification from 
the distinguished Senator from Alaska with regard to language on page 
191 of Senate Report 104-124, under the heading ``Mission recorders.'' 
This language implies that a digital version of the AN/USH-42 recorder 
is currently in use by the Navy.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for pointing this 
out. A more precise rendering of the language will be as follows:

       The Committee urges the Director of DARO to evaluate the 
     requirement and potential utilization of Digital Video Tape 
     Recorders on both manned and unmanned tactical reconnaissance 
     systems. This assessment should consider the potential 
     benefit of a small, lightweight, low-cost, digital variant of 
     the AN/USH-42 video recorder.

  Mr. INOUYE. I agree with the language proposed by my friend from 
Alaska.
  Mr. BREAUX. Thank you.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I want to take this opportunity to commend the chairman 
and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Defense for their support for 
the Defense Department's Financial Management Training and Educational 
Program.
  This program, strongly supported by the Department of Defense, will 
establish urgently needed programs to give the Department's financial 
managers and accountants the necessary training that their private 
sector counterparts take for granted. This program will provide the 
educational resources to make these workers more effective and 
efficient and thereby help the Defense Department save millions of 
taxpayers' dollars.
  In its report, the committee provides for full funding of the 
training program 

[[Page S 12129]]
operations in fiscal year 1996. It also states that the committee 
expects the Defense Department to accommodate any long-term leasing 
costs for the planned facility within the amounts appropriated in the 
account for operations and maintenance, defensewide.
  I believe that the Department will accommodate these costs in the 
manner suggested. I would like, therefore, to clarify the view of the 
Appropriations Committee. Is it the understanding of the committee that 
once the Department meets the reporting requirements contained in the 
Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1996 on the necessity for 
establishing a Center for Financial Management Training and Education, 
the Department will be free to enter into a capital lease for the 
establishment of the center without seeking further appropriation of 
funds or reprogramming authority?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, that is my understanding. The committee 
acknowledges the justification for the training and education program, 
to ensure that the Defense Department's financial managers receive the 
necessary professional training. As stated in its report, the committee 
intends the Department have the authority to enter into a capital lease 
for the Center for Financial Management, Education, and Training, using 
funds appropriated in the operations and maintenance account.
  Mr. INOUYE. I concur with my colleague, the chairman of the Defense 
Subcommittee. The Defense Department has the authority to proceed with 
this worthwhile project, once the requirements contained in the fiscal 
year 1996 Defense Authorization Act are met.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senators for their comments.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks about 
the pending legislation. I say to my friend from Alaska that I have 
basically three amendments. I think two of them may be acceptable in 
talking with the staff.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator is correct; the first two 
amendments are agreeable. We would be pleased to consider those and get 
them out of the way.
  We are going to accept two of the amendments. Senator Inouye and I 
have agreed. The third amendment we will request a rollcall.
  Mr. McCAIN. If it is OK with the Senator from Alaska, I will make my 
remarks, do the first two, and then the third, if that is agreeable.
  First, Mr. President, I congratulate both the Senator from Alaska and 
the Senator from Hawaii. This bill has been a dramatic reduction in the 
so-called earmarks, from some $6 billion last year to about $820 
million this year. A lot of the previous bill language that was 
obligating funds has been moved to report language. Obviously, that is 
a significant improvement.
  I also would like to talk about the overall aspects of the bill, 
which I think are extremely laudatory. The bill increases funding for 
force modernization by nearly $7 billion above the budget request.
  Additional funding is provided for tactical aircraft, DDG-51, missile 
defense and other important programs recommended by the Armed Services 
Committee. The bill terminates many nondefense and low-priority 
military programs such as DOD support for the National Science 
Foundation antarctic research program, U.N. peacekeeping assessments, 
Nunn-Lugar funding for activities other than weapons demilitarization, 
and more than half the requested funding for the technology 
reinvestment program.
  The bill does provide an additional $777 million for unrequested 
Guard and Reserve equipment, with which I strongly disagree, but unlike 
the Armed Services Committee bill, it provides the funding in generic 
categories and leaves the decisions on specific items to the Guard and 
Reserves' component themselves. I very much favor this approach to 
prioritize among programs.
  Last year, I advised the Appropriations Committee that I object to 
bill provisions in proposing amendments which violate four basic 
criteria; namely, funding which is unauthorized, locality-specific 
earmarks, research facility earmarks, and other earmarks that 
circumvent the normal competitive award process, unrequested add-ons 
that would be subject to a point of order, and transfer disposal of 
Federal property or items in a manner that circumvent existing laws.
  In addition to conference reports, items added in conference which 
were in neither bill I would consider objectionable. Unfortunately, 
this bill includes provisions which violate some of those criteria.
  There are five provisions in the bill language which, in my view, are 
in variance with at least one of the criteria outlined above. One is 
the earmark of $15 million for environmental remediation at National 
Presto Industries. No authorization exists for this program. This 
matter is the subject of an ongoing dispute between the Army and 
National Presto Industries as to liability for contamination at the 
site.
  This is a matter which I believe should be resolved between the 
parties, which may end up involving litigation. A legislative solution 
at this time, in my view, is not appropriate.
  Second, authority to spend $20 million to transfer federally owned 
educational facilities on military installations to local education 
agencies. No authorization exists for these expenditures, nor has the 
Armed Services Committee reviewed and approved such a policy.
  Third, $1 million earmarked for the Marine and Environmental Research 
and Training Station. No authorization exists for this spending and no 
direction is provided concerning the type of research to be conducted 
or the need for that research. I understand that the Navy does not want 
to continue doing business with this organization because of the 
difficulty of dealing with them in the past.
  Fourth, authority for the Coast Guard to draw $300 million from the 
defense business operations fund, known as DBOF. This is an 
unauthorized appropriation and a new authority not considered in the 
Armed Services Committee. Expenditure of DOD funds for Coast Guard 
activities have been a recurring problem in past years, and this 
provision would greatly expand the ability of the Coast Guard to draw 
on DOD funds.
  Finally, addition of $25 million for the environmental remediation 
trust fund at Kaho'olawe Island.
  Certainly DOD has responsibility to clean up this site, but adding 
funds to a trust fund which already totals a great deal of money I 
believe is a rejiggering of the defense priorities and a waste of 
scarce defense resources.
  These provisions I do not believe have a place on this bill and 
should be subjected to the full review of the Armed Services Committee. 
The amendment I will be offering would not strike the provisions in the 
bill, it would merely subject them to the review of the authorizing 
committee and require a specific, separate authorization before the 
funds could be expended to implement the provisions.
  Let me emphasize, the amendment would require authorization rather 
than just strike the funding, because there may be a difference of view 
as to the necessity for the expenditure of those funds.
                            seawolf funding

  In addition, section 8080 of the bill contains a number of funding 
transfers, including allocation of additional funds for the Seawolf 
submarine.
  Last year, the Congress imposed a legislative cap on procurement 
costs for the first two Seawolf submarines. The cap could automatically 
increase for inflation adjustments as well as changes in labor and 
other laws. It did not permit, however, an automatic adjustment for 
other cost increases, such as change orders or contractor claims.
  In the fiscal year 1995 ship cost adjustment request, the Navy 
identified cost increases in the Seawolf program of $65.9 million.
  Only $34 million of this increase--the amount attributable to 
inflation--is allowable under the legislative cost cap.
  Therefore, to ensure that the Seawolf program cost remains with the 
legislative cost cap, the Navy identified $31.9 million in offsetting 
reductions.
  Unfortunately, in the bill before the Senate, the Appropriations 
Committee did not include the recommended rescission of $13.6 million 
in fiscal year 1991 shipbuilding funds to keep the Seawolf program 
within the legislative cost cap.
  I am offering an amendment which would add this rescission into the 
committee bill, ensuring that the Seawolf 

[[Page S 12130]]
cost cap is not breached only 1 year after it was imposed.


                        report language problems

  Throughout the committee's report language, there are additional 
earmarks and set-asides for special interest projects. While report 
language is not amendable in the Senate, it still carries weight with 
the Department of Defense in allocating funds among programs. 
Therefore, I believe it is inappropriate to include earmarks for 
specific facilities or locations in the report language.
  Let me list just a few of the items in the report language which I 
find objectionable.


                            medical earmarks

  The sum of $5 million is earmarked in report language--I want to 
emphasize report language--for research on ``elastin-based biomaterial, 
polymerized by human enzymes and capable of injection molding and other 
tissue replacement application''; additional funds are earmarked ``to 
conduct biologic
 implantation to evaluate immunological responses and healing and to 
prepare data for FDA submission preparatory to human clinical trials'' 
I will not bother to ask the managers what that means.

  Earmarks of unrequested funds for a number of medical research 
programs: $425,000 for serum cholesterol, $2.025 million for nutrition 
research, $1 million for dengue fever, and $3.878 million for 
``Medteams'';
  The sum of $11.2 million for unrequested program to ``demonstrate a 
transportable plasma waste treatment system at the Western 
Environmental Technology Office'';
  For spinal/brain research $5 million, and $20 million for the DOD/VA 
``core'' medical research programs;
  Additional $120 million for AIDS and breast cancer research;
  ``* * * the committee urges the Department to provide not less than 
$8,000,000 in financial and technical support toward the study of 
neurofibromatosis'';
  ``* * * the committee urges the Department to provide not less than 
$1,000,000 in financial and technical support toward the study of 
Paget's and related bone diseases'';
  The sum of $5 million earmarked for the Military Nursing Research 
Program.
  Other earmarks are: $5.4 million in unrequested funding ``to continue 
ongoing efforts with an established small business development center 
to be administered as in previous years, focused on developing 
agricultural-based services, such as bioremediation. The committee 
supports targeted research and development projects and agricultural 
development activities in zones surrounding military installations'';
  The sum of $1 million for the Mississippi Resource Development 
Corporation for ``continued research and development programs at the 
National Center for Physical Acoustics, centering on ocean acoustics'';
  Earmarks for continuing research: $5 million for the Center for 
Astronomical Adaptive Optics, $650,000 for National Solar Observatory, 
and $3 million for Pacific Software Research Center;
  The sum of $8 million to be ``competitively awarded to a qualified 
Washington, DC, region-based institution of higher education with 
expertise and programs in computational sciences and
 informatics capable of conducting research and development that will 
further efforts to establish an effective metacomputing testbed'';

  Three million dollars of theater missile defense funds earmarked for 
operation of Kauai test facility; and
  Earmark of unlimited counterdrug funding for Southwest border 
information system, to ``permit acquisition of automated systems by 
Federal, State, and local law enforcement offices involved in this 
program.''
  There are a number of other provisions which bear mentioning, because 
they are so egregious: $3.85 million for family housing and wastewater 
treatment plans for Hawaii; over $40 million for Pacific missile range 
improvements and support; $2.6 million to transfer Bryant Army Heliport 
to the Army National Guard at Fort Richardson, AK; additional $10 
million earmarked for C-130 operations, and an unauthorized add of $88 
million for unrequested C-130 aircraft; $30 million for the Allegheny 
Ballistics Lab, which was specifically rejected by the Armed Services 
Committee; $2 million for a natural gas boiler demonstration; $11.5 
million for a training satellite for Air Force Academy cadets; another 
$15 million of unrequested funding for the High Altitude Auroral 
Research Program in Alaska; another $15 million for research on 
electric vehicle technology; $1 million for brown tree snake research; 
authority to procure computer terminals for local law enforcement 
officials participating in Southwest border control programs.
  Mr. President, there are others. I will stop.
  First of all, I emphasize this is report language, not bill language. 
But, for the life of me, I do not know what a number of these projects 
have to do with defending our vital national security interests. I can 
imagine that the brown tree snake is a threat to the very vitals of 
this Nation, but I do not know, nor have I ever heard, that the brown 
tree snake posed a threat to our national security.
  As I say, there are many others that are very worthwhile programs, 
such as breast cancer research, AIDS--I do not know very much about the 
study of neurofibromatosis, but I have not heard yet in testimony 
before the Armed Services Committee that neurofibromatosis is a threat 
or a consideration of the Pentagon.
  Paget's and related bone diseases, I am sure are also another that 
deserve our attention, but I do not think in this bill.
  I do congratulate my colleagues for their restraint and their 
understanding that these defense dollars are becoming less and less, 
and that they have exercised significant restraint. Therefore, I would 
like to offer the first two amendments to my colleagues, that are 
acceptable, in order. Then I will go to the third, move to the third 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2372

 (Purpose: To limit the total amount that may be obligated or expended 
    for procurement of the SSN-21, SSN-22, and SSN-23 Seawolf class 
                              submarines)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for myself 
and Senator Dodd and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] for himself and Mr. 
     Dodd, proposes an amendment numbered 2372.

  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 82, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8087. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
     total amount obligated or expended for procurement of the 
     SSN-21, SSN-22, and SSN-23 Seawolf class submarines may not 
     exceed $7,223,695,000.
       (b) The amount of the limitation set forth in subsection 
     (a) is increased after fiscal year 1995 by the following 
     amounts:
       (1) The amounts of outfitting costs and post-delivery costs 
     incurred for the submarines referred to in such subsection.
       (2) The amounts of increases in costs attributable to 
     economic inflation after fiscal year 1995.
       (3) The amounts of increases in costs attributable to 
     compliance with changes in Federal, State, or local laws 
     enacted after fiscal year 1995.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in behalf of myself and Senator Dodd, I 
will be brief.
  Last year, the Congress adopted an amendment to the fiscal year 1995 
Defense authorization bill which capped the procurement cost of the 
first two Seawolf submarines at $4.759 billion, the total amount 
identified by DOD as necessary to complete construction of these two 
boats.
  The amendment was necessary to control escalating costs of the 
program.
  When the total cost of the Seawolf program is taken into account, the 
cost per submarine is over $4.3 billion.
  The procurement-only cost of the first two Seawolf submarines has 
risen $1.4 billion since the contracts were signed.
  In December 1983, the Secretary of the Navy set a procurement cost 
ceiling for SSN-21 of $1.655 billion; current costs are almost $2.433 
billion. The initial cost estimated for the SSN-22 was $1.718 billion; 
current costs are almost $2.236 billion.
  SSN-23 is currently estimated to cost a total of $2.4 billion, 
although just 

[[Page S 12131]]
last year the Navy was estimating $2.3 billion.
  In September 1993 and again in May 1994, Navy officials confirmed the 
cost of the first two Seawolf submarines at $4.673 billion, which was 
the amount I included in my original amendment to establish a cost cap. 
But then, on June 9, 1994, the Navy wrote to me indicating that the 
cost of the first two Seawolf submarines would go up another $126 
million. The final cost cap amount allowed only approximately $86 
million of these increases, because they were deemed to be truly 
uncontrollable--inflation and labor law changes.
  Early this year, the Navy replaced the Seawolf program management 
team, allegedly because of escalating costs above the legal cap--
perhaps as much as $40 to $70 million. The new management arrangement 
seems to be working well and is structured to allow the Navy to keep a 
close eye on costs, and hopefully, no further taxpayer dollars will be 
required to finish the first two submarines. I wonder, though, why the 
program was allowed to escalate out of control for so many years.
  Therefore, I offer an amendment to expand the existing cost cap to 
include the third Seawolf submarine. The provision establishes a 
procurement cost cap of $7.2 billion on the three Seawolf submarines. 
This includes an additional $2.4
 billion for the third submarine, as well as an increase of 
approximately $34 million for inflation since the enactment of the cost 
cap last year.

  The provision allows for the same automatic increases for inflation 
and labor law changes as the existing cap. It also exempts the future 
costs of outfitting and post-delivery for the submarines. These are 
costs which will undergo congressional review and require authorization 
and appropriations in the future.
  When the Defense budget has declined 35 percent since 1985, with a 
projected decrease of nearly 10 percent by the end of the decade, 
Congress should insist on fiscal responsibility for every dime of 
taxpayer dollars we are asked to approve.
  We cannot allow a return to the uncontrollable cost escalation that 
we have seen on the first two submarines, and I believe that imposing 
the same strict cost controls on the third Seawolf would be to the 
advantage of the American taxpayer.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor on this amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will limit myself at this time to the 
Senator's pending amendment. I will answer the comments he has made at 
a later time.
  I believe Senator Inouye will concur. We have examined this amendment 
dealing with the Seawolf. We have no objection. It carries out a 
limitation. I might add, however, that it does precisely what the 
Senator is objecting to. It is an appropriations bill. Providing the 
necessary oversight and limitation on expenditures of funds is what we 
have done throughout the bill and in the report. We have, with regard 
to the Seawolf, this time not totally funded the Seawolf. We have 
incrementally funded the Seawolf in order that we may have the funds 
available from outlays for dealing with other projects which are in the 
bill, which the Senator from Arizona, I think, has rightfully 
acknowledged was a pretty good idea.
  We have no problem with this. It puts a limitation on the expenditure 
for the Seawolf on the calendar year basis, which is what we intended 
to do. I think we do in the report.
  Senator Inouye and I are prepared to accept this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Arizona.
  The amendment (No. 2372) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2374

(Purpose: To add a rescission recommended by the Department of Defense)

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

       The Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), for himself and Mr. 
     Dodd, proposes an amendment numbered 2374.

  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 71, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 1991/1995'', 
     $13,570,000.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to say to my colleague that the 
reason I proposed the last amendment--I had not intended to--was 
because of the situation regarding the authorization bill.
  I think there is significant question as to whether there will be a 
defense authorization bill this year. I included it in the Defense 
authorization bill.
  But the reason I put it on this bill was because of the enormous 
uncertainty as to whether there will be an authorization bill in light 
of the continuing failure to reach agreement on the ballistic missile 
defense issue.
  Last year, the Congress imposed a legislative cap on procurement 
costs for the first two Seawolf submarines. The cap could automatically 
increase for inflation adjustments as well as changes in labor and 
other laws. It did not permit, however, an automatic adjustment for 
other cost increases, such as change orders or contractor claims.
  In the fiscal year 1995 ship cost adjustment request, the Navy 
identified cost increases in the Seawolf program of $65.9 million.
  Only $34 million of this increase--the amount attributable to 
inflation--is allowable under the legislative cost cap.
  Therefore, to ensure that the Seawolf program cost remains within the 
legislative cost cap, the Navy identified $31.9 million in offsetting 
reductions.
  Unfortunately, in the bill before the Senate, the Appropriations 
Committee did not include the recommended rescission of $13.6 million 
in fiscal year 1991 shipbuilding funds to keep the Seawolf program 
within the legislative cost cap.
  The amendment would incorporate this rescission into the committee 
bill, ensuring that the Seawolf cost cap is not breached only 1 year 
after it was imposed.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand the Navy has expressed no 
objection to this amendment. It is a matter of moneys that are there 
that could be rescinded at this time. It totally rescinds $13.57 
million in the Navy accounts that are there from 1991 to 1995.
  I have no objection if the Senator wishes to offer this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Arizona.
  The amendment (No. 2374) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2375

  (Purpose: To prohibit use of funds for programs and activities for 
             which appropriations have not been authorized)

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

       The Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2375.

  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 82, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8087. (a) Funds available to the Department of Defense 
     for fiscal year 1996 may not be obligated or expended for a 
     program or activity referred to in subsection (b) except to 
     the extent that appropriations are specifically authorized 
     for such program or activity in an Act other than an 
     appropriations Act.
       (b) Subsection (a) applies to the following programs and 
     activities:

[[Page S 12132]]

       (1) Environmental remediation at National Presto 
     Industries, Inc., Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
       (2) Transfer of federally owned educational facilities on 
     military installations to local education agencies.
       (3) Activities at the Marine and Environmental Research and 
     Training Station.
       (4) Support for Coast Guard activities from the Defense 
     Business Operations Fund.
       (5) Contribution to the Kaho'olawe Island Restoration Trust 
     Fund.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to emphasize that this amendment 
would be to require authorization for the expenditure of these funds 
before the funds are expended as outlined in the appropriations bill.
  It would not strike the language. It would simply add language 
requiring that authorization be obtained for these programs.
  The first--I have discussed these before--is the earmark for $15 
million for environmental remediation at the National Presto Industries 
for which, as I pointed out, there is no authorization for the program. 
In addition to that, there is an ongoing dispute between the Army and 
this corporation as to liability for the contamination of the site.
  The second one is the authority to expend $20 million to transfer 
federally owned educational facilities on military installations to 
local education agencies. There is simply no authority for that.
  The third is the $5 million earmarked for the Marine and 
Environmental Research and Training Station. No authorization exists 
for this.
  Finally, the authority for the Coast Guard to draw $300 million from 
the Defense Business Operations Fund, and the addition of $25 million 
for the Environmental Remediation Trust Fund for the Kaho'olawe Island.
  Mr. President, I have discussed these at some length in my previous 
remarks.
  So, therefore, I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I believe that the Senator from Arizona 
has presented his point of view ably. I thank him for the comments he 
has made concerning the bill as a whole.
  We have a difference of opinion with regard to the functions of the 
Appropriations Committee as compared to the Armed Services Committee. 
It is my feeling that it is our responsibility to look over the request 
for money to be spent by the Department of Defense to try to allocate 
it within functions within the Department and within the various 
services to the best of our ability,
 keeping in mind that the Department has a request for many things.

  The Armed Services Committee deals with the broader general defense 
policies and with the confirmation of the particular persons that are 
nominated to carry out the Commander in Chief's functions through the 
Department of Defense. They have the oversight of planning. They have 
the oversight of a great many matters, and they basically authorize 
general functions.
  In recent years, there has been a tendency of some members of the 
Armed Services Committee to try to get down to the point where I think 
they would like to limit the number of paper clips that each agency can 
buy. We are inclined to oppose that. We are at that point now because 
we believe we have the right to put limitations on the expenditures of 
moneys or to allocate the moneys to particular functions when they are 
dealing with categories of line items, and the line items in this 
instance are important.
  Take, for instance, National Presto. That is the environmental 
remediation site at Eau Claire, WI. It was first addressed in the 1988 
defense bill. This year we have language that limits the funds only to 
implement the Army's agreement on that site.
  Now, under the circumstances, that is limiting the expenditure of 
funds that we have authorized. It is a limitation on expenditures which 
is entirely our responsibility and not the responsibility of the 
authorization bill. This was offered by Senator Cochran in our 
subcommittee and voted on by the subcommittee, approved by the full 
committee, and has been brought to the floor as our recommendation on 
the limit of expenditure of funds contained in this bill. I think that 
is a good example of what we are all about.
  With regard to the transfer of funds for the support of the Coast 
Guard activities from the Defense Business Operations Fund, we plead 
guilty. The Coast Guard is a defense entity in times of war. In order 
to keep it so that it can be a defense entity, we have since 1981 
provided a substantial amount of defense funds either directly or 
through the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for 
the purchase of fuel or supplies that can be used. They acquire them in 
this instance from the Navy facilities.
  We have authorized the Coast Guard under this bill to draw services 
and logistics support for defense missions from the Navy. Now, they 
have had a whole series of defense missions, whether it is Haiti or the 
Cuban refugee concept or some of their activities in the blockade of 
Iraq.
  There is a whole series of things the Coast Guard is doing. As a 
matter of fact, in my opinion, it ought to be 10 times this amount to 
repay the Coast Guard for what they are doing. But this ensures the 
Coast Guard can participate in these missions. They are also involved 
in the counternarcotics mission with the Navy in both the Atlantic and 
southern commands, and they have really I think had an impact on their 
overall readiness for their other activities that are very important in 
areas such as law enforcement, safety inspections, et cetera. They have 
to reduce their effectiveness in dealing with their civilian role 
during peacetime in order to participate in peacetime in semi-military 
activities.
  This $300 million is a bare minimum. I wish to serve notice to the 
Senate that next year it will be more. If anyone believes it is wrong, 
the bill you have just voted on, transportation, assumes that this $300 
million is there.
  If the Senator from Arizona wants to help the Coast Guard, if he does 
not want it here, then he should offer the amendment, in my opinion, to 
the Coast Guard. Those of us who support the Department of Defense--and 
I am sure the Senator from Arizona does, as I do--ought to realize that 
the Coast Guard is one of the echelons of the Department of Defense 
even in peacetime now.
  I think that this, as I said, is a very small payment of what it 
should be for them. Incidentally, they come under the jurisdiction of 
the subcommittee that I chair in the Commerce Committee, and my friend 
from Arizona serves on the Commerce Committee similarly. This is a 
great problem for us because of the fact we cannot today increase the 
funding for the Coast Guard through the authorization that has been 
given to us in the Commerce Committee. This is the one way we can 
assure that the Coast Guard will not decrease its effectiveness in 
dealing with civilian operations because of its overwhelming ongoing 
semi-military and military operations in peacetime.
  I also want to say to my friend with regard to the matter of the 
federally owned educational facilities on military installations, we 
have over a period of time now fostered a concept of transferring the 
educational facilities on military installations to the local school 
districts.
  We ran into a problem not only in my State but other States where the 
school districts said they could not take over those and operate them 
because they did not meet State standards. So we have over a period of 
years now funded it. In 1993, 1994, 1995, we funded the upgrade of 
those federally owned and operated schools so that they would reach the 
level that would meet State law. The understanding at the time was they 
would be transferred to the school districts in the various States, and 
the main reason is, under their laws they cannot operate in schools on 
property owned by somebody else.
  This is a formality now to carry out agreements that have been in 
effect, in my opinion, for some 3 to 4 years. They are really not 
earmarked, incidentally, I say to my friend from Arizona. We have 
recognized the priority list established by the Department of Defense, 
and we have funded it according to their priority list. As the schools 
have been upgraded to meet State standards, they have in fact been 
transferred. I think this is almost the last of them. I am not sure we 
are totally at the last of them.
  I think, again, it is within the prerogative of the Appropriations 
Committee to do exactly that, to pursue a policy to reduce costs to the 
Federal Government. We have pursued that by seeking to transfer these 
schools to 

[[Page S 12133]]
local operations. We had to meet the obligations to upgrade them so 
they would meet State fire and safety codes, and now we have done that. 
So this says that they should be transferred upon completion of the 
repairs that we have already financed and we continue to finance in 
this bill.
  Similarly, I have to say, Mr. President, if the Senate wants to look 
at the details of the Department of Defense health program, it begins 
on page 199 of the report. I am proud of this. I think that we have 
within the Department of Defense a series of dedicated people. Again, 
it is peacetime. There is no war ongoing. They have some tremendous 
capabilities to do research. They are the ones who got us the various 
vaccines over the years starting with malaria, hepatitis. You name it, 
it was the Defense Department's research group that has really been at 
the cutting edge of research in this country, and that includes AIDS.
  As early as 1982, we started a fund to try to deal with AIDS. Why, 
Mr. President? We found an increasing number of people in the services 
were contracting AIDS throughout the world, and we had an increasing 
problem. We had people enlisting and after they were enlisted, they had 
AIDS. We had to have some basic funding for research to determine how 
to deal with that issue.
  As I said before about breast cancer, we have literally thousands of 
young women coming on now into the Department of Defense, and they have 
to have that kind of medical attention. Based upon that medical 
attention, we should have the capability of giving the Department of 
Defense the money to continue research to help to deal with that 
disease that afflicts so many young women of childbearing age.
  Those are the people enlisted in the Army, the Navy and the Air 
Force. And the Department has willingly taken on the task of being a 
partner in this type of research. I say I would oppose the Senator's 
amendment, if for no other reason than that.
  I stood here and tried to limit the involvement of our defense funds 
to meet legitimate problems that the Department of Defense is concerned 
with. But this money is being dedicated, I think, to research that is 
needed.
  Go through it. We have disaster management training. There is no 
question about it, we need that. We have funds for the support of the 
comprehensive health care system. We are looking at neurofibromatosis. 
That is a study that has, I think, the Department's full backing. We 
are developing a regional center for advanced cancer detection.
  Again, Mr. President, if we are attracting the best of our young 
people, the people, as Senator Inouye says, who come forward and are 
willing to place themselves in harm's way, one of the harm's, 
unfortunately, that they get in the way of is different forms of 
diseases. And we have within our Department of Defense the capability 
to conduct research, not only assisting those individuals who develop 
these diseases, but using those people to help us better understand the 
way those diseases affect the younger people of America.
  I cannot think of a thing in that health care section of our report 
that I would want to change or that I would want to see the Senate 
delete. There is another item here--I do not know whether the Senator 
from Hawaii wants to talk about it--with regard to the contribution of 
the Kaho'olawe Island restoration fund. That is a fund that we 
created--no, that is a contribution. The funds have already been 
created to remediate an area of Hawaii that was severely impacted by 
the use of live ammunition, as I recall. I cannot understand why we 
should not use Federal money for that.
  Mr. McCAIN. May I respond?
  Mr. STEVENS. I have to tell the Senate, I hope the Senate will join 
with us. I am going to move to table the Senator's amendment as soon as 
he has had a chance to explain it.
  If my friend wishes to chat about it, I will be glad to yield to the 
Senator from Hawaii. Mr. President, there are two things I will close 
with. One is that the Senator from Arizona and I have a disagreement 
over the role of the Appropriations Committee vis-a-vis the Armed 
Services Committee. There is no question about that.
  But with regard to this amendment, it goes further than that. This 
says that the Senator from the Armed Services Committee can ask us to 
delete these items without having sat in the hearings, without having 
sat in the meetings we have had, the subcommittee and full committee 
consideration, bipartisan review of every item that he has here.
  I point out that there was no objection in either the subcommittee or 
the full committee to any one of these items from anyone. I believe 
they are examples of the kinds of limitations we should put on Federal 
funds or on those functions that receive Federal funds.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if I may respond to the bill that was just 
submitted by my dear friend from Arizona.
  First, on the Kaho'olawe Island restoration. Kaho'olawe is an island 
in the Hawaiian chain. Soon after the election of President Eisenhower, 
the President felt that the military of the United States required 
considerable training and upgrading. The Korean war had indicated that 
our troops were not trained properly and that our Navy was 
insufficiently supplied.
  Therefore, he called upon the territory of Hawaii--we were not a 
State at that time--and requested the use of this island. The Governor 
of that island and the legislature consented. The President issued an 
Executive order that said, when we find that we are no longer in need 
of this island as a target island, we will return it to the people of 
Hawaii in a habitable condition. That is what it says, ``habitable 
condition.''
  Soon after the island was transferred to the Federal Government for 
use as set forth in the Executive order, that island was just bombarded 
with everything from bombs to 18-inch shells, grenades, et cetera. This 
became the major training area in the Pacific Ocean, and it continued 
until about 5 years ago. All of our Navy pilots, Air Force pilots, Navy 
ships, and oftentimes ships from other countries, at our invitation, 
used this island for target purposes. They were not duds, they were 
live ammunition. So this island is just inundated with unexploded 
ordnance.
  About 5 years ago, the U.S. Government decided that this island was 
not necessary for target practices. But then they looked over the 
island and they felt that if we were to return this island to the 
people of Hawaii in a habitable condition, it would cost possibly a 
couple billion dollars.
  And so once again the people of Hawaii said to the Federal 
Government, we will set aside certain areas of this island and let us 
clean them up. We realize that to clean the whole island would cost 
billions of dollars. So this Congress authorized the expenditure of 
$400 million to partially clean the island.
  Mr. President, it should be noted that all these years from 1953, our 
Government used that island and did not pay even $1 a year. No other 
State would have provided land for that purpose for less than market 
value. We got no pay. And so now the time comes to return the island, 
and the Senator says the cleanup should not proceed.
  Mr. President, it should be also noted that this island just happens 
to be the most sacred island for our native Hawaiians. The most 
important temple, Heiau, is located on this island. This island also 
was the focal island for the trips to Tahiti. Long before Columbus ever 
set sail in the Atlantic Ocean, Hawaiians were traveling from Polynesia 
to the Hawaiian Islands, and this island was a focal island. So this is 
a very important island.
  This Congress authorized this money. Granted, the authorization was 
not initiated by the Armed Services Committee. But this Congress did 
authorize it.
  The Senator from Arizona also mentioned the brown tree snake. There 
is $1 million for the eradication of the brown tree snake. I do not see 
it in the bill, but he mentioned that.
  The brown tree snake was first discovered on the Solomon islands. 
Soon after World War II--and this is in the record--a military cargo 
ship, because it was not appropriately cleaned up, carried a few brown 
tree snakes when it landed on the island of Guam. The brown tree snake 
just flourished to the point where six species of birds have been wiped 
out there. They are no longer in existence because these snakes love 
birds. They eat eggs and eat birds. 

[[Page S 12134]]

  Furthermore, as a result of this colony of brown tree snakes on Guam, 
the people of Guam experienced brownouts almost every night. These 
snakes like these electrical towers. There are brownouts all the time.
  Obviously, the people of Hawaii fear the brown tree snake, and we 
have found that the few brown tree snakes that have been located on 
Hawaii have come through the military, through the aircraft. We 
recently found one in Scofield barracks.
  Mr. President, we pride ourselves in being the home for many of the 
exotic birds. The few that remain on this globe are found in Hawaii. If 
this brown tree snake ever found a home there, then the endangered 
species program we have would have to be set aside because they will 
just wipe our birds out.
  Mr. President, there is $1 million to the military, and they want 
this so that they can set up a program to make certain that these 
snakes do not travel from Guam to Hawaii.
  The other measure that my friend from Arizona mentioned, which is not 
here, is the Pacific missile range facility. This program was requested 
by the Navy. The title, the name and designation of this facility is 
misleading. It says ``missile range.'' The major purpose of this 
facility is a submarine training and target facility. Up until 
recently, it was a highly classified activity. You do not see much of 
it because it is under water.
  All of our training facilities to date are deep-water facilities. The 
Pacific missile range is deep water, but it is also shallow water. It 
is the only shallow-water testing and targeting facility in the United 
States.
  In today's possible warfare, we must excel in the skill of fighting 
in shallow waters. This is what it is.
  It is true, it was not authorized by the Armed Services Committee, 
but it was requested by the military, and we believe that request was 
justified.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on the issue of the Kaho'olawe cleanup, 
let us make it clear that we want it cleaned up. But the fact is, there 
is right now $116 million already in the account to clean up this 
island. And by the way, for some reasons that are not clear to me, 10 
percent of everything appropriated goes to the State of Hawaii, but 
that is not the initial point here.
  Right now, there is $50 million remaining available in Navy 
environmental cleanup accounts, another $66.75 million remaining in the 
trust fund, more than sufficient to proceed with 1996 planned efforts. 
The Navy expects to spend $26 million during 1996 for cleanup 
activities. That would leave approximately $90-some million left in the 
account.
  The reason why I say it is not necessary at this time, not that we do 
not want the island cleaned up, but there are many other areas in 
America that need to be cleaned up as well. I do not know how many 
Superfund sites there are in America or how many bases, including one 
in my own State, that still needs to have funding to be cleaned up.
  As far as the Eau Claire Ordnance Works is concerned, in 1988, the 
Army entered into an agreement with this company, NPI, concerning the 
funding and the cleanup of the Eau Claire site. The Army agreed to 
request authorization for $5 million for site-related environmental 
restoration costs incurred by NPI or NDC after January 1, 1984, for 
past production-related activities. Although the agreement provided for 
Army funding of cleanup costs, it also specifically denied any 
acknowledgment of liability or fault with respect to any matter arising 
out of or relating to the site. These two aspects of the agreement 
cause the document to be contradictory on its face.
  According to the Army, the fundamental premise of the 1988 agreement 
to request environmental restoration funding was that the Eau Claire 
facility would ``continue to be an integral part of the Army's 
mobilization base.'' It is the Army's position that further funding 
requests were contingent upon the continued mobilization status of the 
Eau Claire site. NDC or NPI could terminate that status at will. The 
Army maintains that with no reciprocal obligation to continue 
participating as part of the Army's mobilization base, it would be 
difficult for NDC to argue that the Army agreed to incur an obligation 
to continue to request additional funding regardless of NDC/NPI 
mobilization status.
  In 1988, $5 million was appropriated but not authorized. Most of the 
original appropriation was expended for studies and an alternative 
water system for a nearby town. Pursuant to the 1988 agreement, funding 
in excess of the $5 million was expressly conditioned on congressional 
authorization.
  In 1992, the Army determined that the Eau Claire facility was no 
longer a critical national defense need. Then in 1993, $7 million was 
appropriated but not authorized. The Army unsuccessfully challenged 
this earmark. The $7 million was expended for studies, combined water 
system installation, bottled water and groundwater treatment.
  In 1995, $2.3 million was earmarked for environmental restoration of 
the Eau Claire site in the Department of Defense appropriations 
conference report. There was no authorization for this purpose. 
According to the Army general counsel's office, that conference report 
earmark does not have the force of law. The Army comptroller has not 
released the money.
  The Army believes that it has no liability for contamination of the 
Eau Claire site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation and Liability Act, known as CERCLA. The Eau Claire 
facility is a formerly used defense site owned by the Government from 
1942 to 1948. The Army Corps of Engineers has completed a PRP study 
concluding that there is no evidence related to disposal of hazardous 
substances at the site during the period the Government owned the 
property. According to Army general counsel, the Army did not exercise 
the degree of site control from 1978 to 1992 such as to warrant 
concluding that it was a PRP during that period.
  To date, the Army has expended about $12 million for Eau Claire site 
remediation. NPI has requested another $15 million for environmental 
remediation of Eau Claire, citing the 1988 agreement as the legal basis 
for such funding.
  The Army signed the 1988 agreement that established an obligation to 
request Eau Claire site remediation funding in the amount of $5 million 
initially, and to request additional authorizations.
  The Army did not clearly identify the underlying premise of its 
agreement as a condition precedent to additional requests for 
authorization for remediation funding.
  The Army's expressed willingness to request funding authorization for 
site remediation suggests that the Army has historically acknowledged 
some level of liability but now wishes to alter that position.
  The 1988 agreement also denied liability or default with respect to 
any matter arising out of or relating to the Eau Claire site.
  The sub rosa purpose for the 1988 agreement was to keep NPI 
financially afloat so that it could maintain its mobilization status on 
behalf of the Army.
  The Army's PRP study indicated that the Army had no CERCLA liability 
with the Eau Claire site.
  To continue to compel the Army to fund the Eau Claire site for 
remediation simply based on a contractual relationship that it shared 
with NPI, sets a very bad precedent for the Department of Defense.
  The factual basis for this claim is ripe for litigation, not 
legislation.
  What would be most beneficial in this situation is to encourage the 
parties to work out their differences as they agreed to do in the 
context of the 1988 agreement. I might add that the Army opposes 
earmarking funds for this site remediation.
  Mr. President, I do not know if the $20 million to transfer federally 
owned educational facilities on military installations to local 
education agencies is good or bad. It has never been brought up to the 
authorizing committee.
  As far as the Coast Guard to draw $300 million from DBOF, if they are 
for contingency funds for Haiti and others, I suggest they come out of 
funds which are for ongoing contingencies, and their operations would 
be part and parcel for that.
  The Senator from Alaska is right that we do not agree on the 
respective roles of the appropriations and authorization committees, 
and I am sure that 

[[Page S 12135]]
we will continue to have that sometimes intense but always respectful 
difference of opinion. But I say to my friend from Alaska, his 
authority to limit expenditures is something that I see exercised in 
the breech and the exercising of his authority to increase spending is 
something that I see exercised with great frequency. Therein lies much 
of our difference of opinion.
  Mr. President, I want to say that I appreciate enormously the 
dedicated effort that the Senator from Alaska has made for many, many, 
many years, long before I was a Member of this body, to ensure that we 
had an adequate and strong national defense.
 And my sentiments are the same for the Senator from Hawaii and his 
dedicated efforts. I know that the Senator from Alaska and the Senator 
from Hawaii know I will continue my efforts to avoid earmarking and 
unauthorized expenditures of funds. I will also admit to the Senator 
from Alaska that there are bound to be certain gray areas in which 
there is an open and honest difference of opinion as to what needs to 
be authorized and what needs to be appropriated.

  So I thank my colleague from Alaska for his indulgence on this issue. 
I am prepared to accept a voice vote on this amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I simply want to point out, as the 
managers have already so capably done, that these provisions are 
included after a review by the committee and a decision by the 
committee that the allocations of the funds were justified. I suggested 
that we approve the provision relating to the Eau Claire, WI, site 
where environmental remediation is obviously needed, and has been 
agreed to by the Army in a previous written agreement that goes back to 
1988.
  The fact is that that agreement has not been kept on the part of the 
U.S. Army. So the funds are available in this bill for that purpose, 
and the committee report spells out that they are, much like the 
committee report did in 1993, where it concludes with this language: 
``The Department of the Army has not fulfilled its commitments under 
this agreement.'' The Department is encouraged, and the funds are made 
available, to complete the obligation and keep its part of this 
bargain. It is a difference of agreement.
  I urge the Senate to go along with the recommendations of the 
managers of this legislation.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for a vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2375) was rejected.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is there a possibility that we can limit the time on 
this amendment?
  Mr. DORGAN. I would be agreeable to a time limit. I know there are 
likely to be people who will want to speak on this. On the other hand, 
we have debated missile defense issues generally on the Defense 
authorization bill in recent days for some 8 or 9 hours.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will serve notice to the Senate that 
when the Senator completes his remarks I will move to table the 
amendment.
  This has been debated on the Armed Services Committee bill, and it is 
part of an item that is in conference now. I hope the Senator will 
understand that we want to move this bill along. It is a matter that 
was debated at length on the other bill.
  It is my intention to move to table at the completion of the 
Senator's remarks.
  Mr. DORGAN. I am more than amenable to having a short time limit, but 
I would like an up-or-down vote on the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I will be happy to have an up-or-down vote if we have a 
time agreement.
  Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy to do that. I understand we want to try 
to avoid recorded votes between 1 and 2.
  Mr. STEVENS. We can postpone the time. Others are standing in line.
  Mr. DORGAN. I would be amenable to a 1-hour time agreement equally 
divided.
  Mr. STEVENS. I believe that is agreeable. With the vote to take place 
at a time to be mutually agreed upon following completion?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes. That would include no second-degree amendments.
  Mr. STEVENS. No second-degree amendments.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, can I ask the Senator from Alaska if he 
would add to that one-half hour for the amendment that I will offer 
after the Senator from North Dakota on my side, and one-half hour in 
opposition, also without no second-degree and with an up-or-down vote? 
It would be the amendment I just gave the Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. With regard to the amendment of the Senator from New 
Mexico, there would be no second-degree amendments prior to the motion 
to table. If the Senator's amendment is not tabled, it would be subject 
to a second-degree amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I see very little percentage in me 
agreeing to a time limit under those circumstances.
  Mr. STEVENS. I will make the same offer. I intend to move to table 
any amendment that was debated on the Armed Services Committee bill.
  Mr. President, has the time agreement been entered into on the 
amendment of the Senator from North Dakota?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No unanimous-consent request has been made.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 
hour, equally divided, with no amendments in the second degree, and we 
will have an up-or-down vote at a time to be agreed upon following the 
expiration of the hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2377

   (Purpose: To reduce the amount authorized to be appropriated for 
                       national missile defense.)

  Mr. DORGAN. 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 North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, 
     Mr. Bradley, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Feingold, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2377.

  Mr. DORGAN. 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 29, beginning on line 12, strike out 
     ``$9,196,784,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 1997.'', and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``$8,896,784,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 1997: Provided, That, of the amount 
     appropriated under this heading, not more than $357,900,000 
     shall be available for national missile defense.''.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have agreed to a time agreement even 
though this is an enormously important issue, because we have spent 
many, many hours debating the general issue in recent days on the 
Defense authorization bill. My amendment would eliminate the $300 
million additional funding that was added in the appropriations bill 
for something called national missile defense. It was added to the 
Defense authorization bill, and now added to the appropriations bill.
  We already had a debate on this on the authorization bill, and I lost 
by three votes in stripping out the $300 million extra that was written 
into the bill that the Secretary did not ask for. This is not money the 
Secretary said we need, that he wanted. This is $300 million extra that 
was put in the Defense authorization bill, and now put in the Defense 
appropriations bill, for a national missile defense program.
  Let me try to describe what all of this means. We can go back to the 
mid to early 1980's and President Reagan's announcement one evening at 
a press conference of his idea to build an astrodome over America--star 
wars, it was called. If you kind of put an astrodome over our country 
in the form of star wars defense, you create a shield against incoming 
intercontinental ballistic missiles from the Soviet Union. 

[[Page S 12136]]
It was a very expensive proposition, but at a time when we were in the 
middle of the cold war with the Soviet Union, the Reagan administration 
pushed very hard to initiate a star wars program, to create a shield 
over this country that incoming missiles could not penetrate because 
they would be shot down.
  A lot has happened since 1983. The Soviet Union no longer exists. It 
is a name consigned to the ash bin of history. The Soviet Union is 
gone. Since 1983, we have entered into arms agreements with the Soviet 
Union that result now in having missiles cut up and destroyed in the 
Soviet Union that previously were sitting in silos with nuclear 
warheads aimed at American targets. Those missiles are now being taken 
out of the silos, dismantled, and destroyed under our arms agreement, 
initially made with the Soviet Union, and now continuing to be carried 
out with Russia and the Republics.
  But one thing has not changed in the intervening period, and that is 
the appetite for folks who are invested in an arms program to continue 
to build that program.
  The Soviet Union is gone. The cold war is over. We are now allies 
with Russia in a whole range of areas. We just had our astronauts up in 
space with the Russians, cavorting around the space lab.
  The Russians are now taking their missiles out of their silos and 
cutting them up and destroying them, and the American taxpayers are 
helping pay for that destruction because it is part of arms control and 
it makes a lot of sense.
  It makes a lot more sense to pay for the destruction of missiles that 
were previously aimed at the United States than for us to build a new 
weapons program with all of the tens of billions of dollars that costs.
  One thing has not changed; that is the appetite to build the programs 
that were started. So we come to 1995 and something called national 
missile defense, ergo, star wars. New title, new description. But look 
on page 186 of the report before the Senate on the defense 
appropriations bill:

       National Missile Defense. The committee has provided $670.6 
     million, an increase of $300 million over the budget request. 
     The committee has taken this action to accelerate the 
     development of a national missile defense system. The 
     committee endorses the realignment and augmentation of 
     funding for BMDO and endorses the realignment and funding for 
     1996. The committee shares the commitment articulated in the 
     report on the defense authorization bill that adequate 
     resources should be made available to facilitate the 
     deployment of an operational national missile defense system 
     at the earliest possible time that can fully protect all 50 
     States.

  Now, what does this mean? What this means is the Secretary of 
Defense, in asking Congress for the money he thinks is necessary for 
the security of this country, asked for $371 million to continue to do 
research and development on a national missile defense program in the 
event that in the ensuing years, a threat develops that would persuade 
the Department of Defense authorities that they might want to deploy a 
national missile defense system.
  What did the Congress do? Well, those who were beating their chests 
day after day earlier this year about the Federal budget deficit, the 
fact that this country is up to its neck in debt and has enormous 
yearly budget deficits, have changed their tune. Those same folks who 
were bellowing and crowing and beating their chests about the budget 
deficit said, ``You know, what we would like to do is to add $300 
million more to this account that the Secretary says he does not want 
and does not need.''
  In fact, this is just a small part of it. They actually said, in this 
entire bill, we will add $7 billion that the Secretary did not ask for. 
We will buy trucks, ships, and planes that the Secretary of Defense did 
not ask for, because we think it is in the national interest. Seven 
billion dollars was added in the authorization bill, and most of it is 
in the appropriations bill, that the Secretary of Defense said he does 
not want and does not need.
  Included in that $7 billion is $300 million for star wars. Some will 
object and say this is not star wars. Well, read it.
  This bill says the following: First of all, we ought to deploy a new 
national missile defense system by 1999. That is 4 short years from 
now. Second, it ought to be a multiple-site system; that, by 
definition, means we want to break the ABM Treaty.
  The ABM Treaty is the foundation for the arms control agreement that 
now results today in Russia in the destruction of missiles that used to 
be aimed at us. They are torn up, cut apart, and destroyed.
  Those arms treaties result in that. That is progress. That is 
success. I say when you have thousands of missiles and you are 
destroying rather than building more, that is success.
  But to deploy a new multisite national missile defense system 
immediately abrogates the ABM Treaty. Then this bill says that as a 
component part of that system, we will have a space-based component. 
Well, putting weapons in space violates the ABM Treaty too. So all of 
that simply abrogates the ABM Treaty.
  Some may want to do that, and think the treaty is irrelevant and 
ought to be changed. I think it is the foundation that has led us to a 
position where rather than building new missiles, we are helping to 
destroy old ones that used to be aimed at us.
  I suppose of all the folks in this Chamber who ought to be supporting 
this, it ought to be me. One of the likeliest sites for national 
missile defense is northeastern North Dakota. Most everybody says that 
would be one of the first sites because that is where the only ABM 
system was ever built.
  In the early 1970's, this country built an antiballistic missile 
system, and spent billions of dollars doing it. Within 30 days of it 
being declared operational, it was mothballed. Within 30 days of this 
antiballistic missile system being declared ready and operational it 
was closed and mothballed.
  The ABM Treaty provides if we have another ABM site, it shall be in 
that same State. If anybody in this Chamber probably would be expected 
to support this because it is likely in part to be built in North 
Dakota, I suppose it would be me. But I do not support it because I do 
not think this country ought to spend money it does not have on things 
it does not need.
  That is the case with star wars. It is out of step. It is out of 
time. It makes no sense in the current circumstances to initiate the 
development of a new $48 billion program, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office statistics--$300 million this year, yes, 
but it would cost an estimated $48 billion in total.
  Now, what is the threat and what is the administration's policy? 
Well, let me read a statement of the administration's policy. These are 
the folks who run the Defense Department. ``The bill would direct the 
development for deployment by 2003,'' and the bill also says the 
initial deployment in 1999, ``of a multiple-site system for national 
missile defense that, if deployed, would be a clear violation of the 
ABM Treaty. The bill would severely strain U.S./Russian relations and 
would threaten continued Russian implementation of the START I treaty 
and further Russian consideration of the START II treaty.''
  Incidentally, they are involved in the issue of consideration of 
ratifying the START II treaty at this point. This could not come at a 
worse time and could not be, in my judgment, a worse policy. ``These 
two treaties will eliminate strategic launchers carrying two-thirds of 
the nuclear warheads that confronted the Nation during the cold war.''
  We are saying that the treaty which was the foundation for all this 
arms control progress is a treaty we now essentially ought to violate.
  Now let me read a statement from Secretary Perry, the Secretary of 
Defense:

       The bill's provisions would add nothing to DOD's ability to 
     pursue our missile defense programs and would needlessly 
     cause us to incur excess costs and serious security risks.

  I do not know how you can say it more clear than that. You have a 
Secretary of Defense that says you do this and you cause this country 
additional security risks. You have a Secretary of Defense that says he 
does not want this $300 million, and a bunch of folks that call 
themselves conservatives saying not only do we not care if you do not 
want it, we insist we give it to you and you spend it. This makes no 
sense to me. 

[[Page S 12137]]

  Now, some will stand up in this Chamber and say, ``You do not 
understand anything about defense. You oppose all these things.'' I 
support a strong defense. I supported many weapons programs which I 
think are necessary for the country. I have also been willing to stand 
up and confront some programs that I think are complete total 
boondoggles, this among them.
  Some will say, well, you do not understand; maybe it is not Russia, 
maybe it is not the cold war, but it is a new threat, they tell us. In 
fact, several stood on the floor of the Senate recently in the last 
week and said: It is a new threat; you do not understand. It is Iraq, 
it is Saddam Hussein, it is the country of Iran, it is Muammar Qadhafi 
and Libya; it is North Korea, in fact. That is what they say. They 
bring charts out and they show big pictures of missiles that North 
Korea is developing.
  Well, all the credible experts in intelligence tell us there is no 
credible threat to this country in the next decade from a terrorist 
nation delivering a nuclear warhead with an intercontinental ballistic 
missile. It is far more likely that a terrorist nation, if it managed 
to get sufficient materials with which to produce a nuclear bomb, would 
threaten this country with a suitcase bomb, or with a bomb in the trunk 
of a rusty old car parked at a dock in New York City; or perhaps with a 
small glass vial of deadly biological agents smuggled into this 
country.
  But that, unfortunately, does not augur for a defense mechanism that 
would allow one to build a $48 billion program with jobs all over the 
country to construct a new missile program and relight the torch of the 
arms race at exactly the time we have started to make progress, to see 
the destruction of missiles that used to be aimed at us.
  No, it is hard to dim the appetite in these Chambers for weapons 
programs. It does not matter what year it is. You just change the 
argument. It does not matter that the Soviet Union does not exist; just 
debate Korea. Just say Korea has some missiles now.
  Listen to some defense experts; in fact, maybe listen to the folks 
back home. Listen to the taxpayers. Do you want to talk about a threat 
to this country? Maybe the threat to this country ought to be best 
described as debt and deficits, a $5 trillion debt and nearly $200 
billion in annual deficits.
  In a circumstance where when we debate that, the very folks who now 
tell us that they want to stuff the Pentagon's pockets with $300 
million this year that the Pentagon does not want, and up to $48 
billion in the future, to build a star wars system, the very same 
people who say that they are the warriors in confronting the budget 
deficit become wallflowers when the defense budget comes to the floor 
of the Senate
 because they are the ones who are the wild-eyed, reckless spenders. 
They are the ones who say it does not matter to us that we do not need 
it, it does not matter to us that nobody asked for it. We insist, in 
fact we demand that we build it and spend it.

  We have already had a vote on this issue: $300 million for early 
development, 1999, a new star wars national missile defense program. We 
already had a vote on it. I lost, 51 to 48. That was in the defense 
authorization bill.
  This is the appropriations bill. Someone might argue, ``Well I voted 
to authorize it but I really did not vote to spend the money.'' Here is 
where we are going to decide who is willing to vote to spend the money 
on something we do not need. This is when we find out who is really the 
steward of the taxpayers' dollar.
  As I finish this discussion I cannot help but also point out there is 
a tendency in this Chamber--and it is probably a tendency that has been 
around for a long, long while--to say if you do not support this sort 
of thing you do not support a strong defense. In fact, someone stood up 
on the other side of the aisle last week and said: You know, what the 
folks who do not want to build the star wars system are saying is let 
us protect everyone else but America. Let us not protect America.
  What a bunch of babble. What a lot of babble coming from folks who 
talk that way. We spend $260 to $300 billion on defense in this 
country. We build bombers and fighters and tanks and trucks and we 
build weapons, sophisticated and unsophisticated. The fact is, we spend 
so much more than any other country in the world on defense that you 
are embarrassed to see the ratio. You can add up all the rest of the 
expenses by all of our allies and we still spend more than all of them 
by far.
  So for anybody to suggest if you do not swallow this minnow, if you 
are not willing to build this project, start a new star wars and 
abrogate the ABM Treaty, somehow you do not care about this country--I 
say that is the kind of debate that largely renders thoughtfulness 
irrelevant in this Chamber.
  I do not mind if somebody stands up and prints a cardboard cutout of 
some hyperinflated missile threat from North Korea. If they really want 
to do that, they have every right to do that. But it does not comport 
with what the intelligence experts say.
  I do not mind if somebody says, you know, it is true we cannot afford 
to have poor kids at school have an entitlement to a hot lunch because 
we do not have the money; it is true we cannot afford to fully fund 
Medicare for the elderly because we do not have the money; and it is 
true we have to make it more difficult for kids to go to college and 
for their parents to pay for it because we do not have the money for 
student financial aid--that is all true, but then they say it is not 
true we are short of funds when it comes to building star wars.
  I respect the debate about priorities. Those folks who believe that, 
that this is wrong and that is right, that investment in human 
potential is not what helps our country but investment in the Star Wars 
program when the Soviet Union is gone, they think that is the right 
priority--I respect that difference. But I have minimum high regard for 
those who stand on the floor and say those of us who would oppose a new 
Star Wars program that will cost up to $48 billion somehow do not want 
to protect America. The best way to protect America, in my judgment, is 
to not spend money we do not have on something we do not need; and not 
abrogate the ABM Treaty. This treaty is a vital part of arms control, 
and it is arms control agreements that have put us where we are now 
with now, helping to destroy missiles that were previously aimed at us.
  I intend to ask for a record vote. I want people to register how they 
feel about spending this extra $300 million, and consigning us to spend 
an extra $48 billion, reignite the arms race and abrogate the ABM 
Treaty with this kind of foolishness.
  With that, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Who yields time?
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, at the outset, I believe the record should 
show that a week ago, when this amendment was proposed to the 
authorization bill, I did support with some reluctance this amendment. 
Today I stand before my colleagues as one of the managers of the 
appropriations measure. In the past week, several things have happened 
which places this amendment in a different light.
  First, this measure has been voted upon after an 8-hour debate and 
the vote was close, 51 to 48. Second, the underlying proposition, which 
is the possible abrogation of the ABM Treaty, is now very seriously 
negotiated by our leadership, Mr. Dole and Mr. Daschle, by members of 
the State and Defense Departments, and by the senior members of the 
Armed Services Committee. At this moment, Mr. Warner, Mr. Cohen, Mr. 
Nunn, and Mr. Levin are very seriously discussing this matter.
  Many of us have been assured that this negotiation process is moving 
along in a very fruitful fashion; that we can anticipate some sort of 
resolution. And therefore it is with that understanding that the 
appropriating committee came forward and presented our bill. There is 
an understanding that, if a resolution is reached, we would be set 
aside and the authorizers will come into the picture.
  Third, this $300 million is for research and development. The amount 
of $48 billion has been mentioned. The $48 billion is a possibility in 
the future, if--and I say if--this country should decide to establish 
an antiballistic missile system, setting up bases all over 

[[Page S 12138]]
the United States. That decision has not been made and I believe that 
at this stage it is very unlikely that a decision of that nature would 
be adopted by this Government, or by this Congress. Therefore, I hope 
my colleagues here will be a bit more patient and wait until the 
negotiators have concluded their meetings, wait until our Defense and 
State Department officials have expressed their views, and wait until 
the authorization measure is taken up in the appropriate fashion and 
votes are taken to make their final decision.
  Therefore, I must advise my colleagues that on this vote I will be 
voting with my chairman which would be against the proposition.
  Mr. President, how much time have I consumed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 4 minutes and 15 
seconds.
  Mr. INOUYE. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me make a couple of additional 
comments.
  There is no one for whom I have higher regard in the Chamber than the 
Senator from Hawaii. I regret that he will not be able to vote for the 
amendment. But I want to make a couple of additional points.
  There are negotiations going on right at the moment. I have been at a 
number of meetings today on this subject. Frankly, I doubt very much 
whether those negotiations are going to be able to bridge the gap. Some 
of us essentially want a multiple-site missile program, with a space-
based component, both of which will violate the ABM Treaty. Others of 
us believe this is a gold-plated boondoggle, it wastes the taxpayers' 
money, and it will commit us to spending $48 billion for a national 
missile defense system that probably does not work and that we 
certainly do not need.
  But I point out that the $300 million that is in this bill is $300 
million specifically in the authorization bill designed to lead to 
deployment. It is not as innocent as just research. If it were, I maybe 
would not be on the floor in quite this manner. But it is designed to 
lead to deployment of this system. That is the dilemma.
  I fully understand the appropriators who bring this to the floor 
generally would support what they have written in the appropriations 
bill. But I want to make one final point.
  The fact that something has been authorized does not necessarily mean 
that it must be appropriated. Any number of things have been authorized 
by Congress. But then, any number of times, we decided subsequently 
that maybe we could do that but when you looked at all the priorities 
we did not have the money and we were not going to fund it. The 
decision here is, are we going to fund it? Are we going to pay for it?
  I ask my colleagues, all of those who believe that we ought to deploy 
a new star wars program, where are you going to get the money? Where 
does the money come from? What are you going to cut to fund it? Which 
taxes are you going to raise to pay for it? Those are a series of 
questions that ought to be answered if we commit ourselves to spending 
this kind of money on a project that I think this country does not 
need.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 25 minutes and 40 seconds. The 
Senator from North Dakota as 8 minutes and 53 seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Hawaii has 
already spoken. I shall not repeat what he said. I say to the Senate, 
when are we going to decide whether this bill is going to pass? This 
amendment was debated before, as the Senator from Hawaii has indicated. 
It was a matter within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services 
Committee, not our committee. There are times when we debate something 
in that jurisdiction, but this is not one of the times.
  I just say simply to the Senate that, if this amendment is not 
tabled, as far as I am concerned I am going to ask the majority leader 
to pull the bill down. I see no reason for us to debate once again hour 
after hour after hour comments that were considered by the Senate in 
connection with the Armed Services Committee.
  The Senator has every right to offer this amendment. Unfortunately, I 
feel I have the duty to move to table it. We had an agreement to vote 
up or down. That is even worse really. But it is worth the price. We 
must have the support of the Senate to defeat the amendment. I am 
prepared to yield back my time if the Senator is.
  We have an understanding, I might say to the leader, that we will not 
vote before 2 o'clock. But we will have other amendments that are ready 
to go. So we will proceed with other amendments right away.
  The Senator has some additional time, Mr. President. It is I hope 
going to be a precedent for the Senate that we determine not only now 
but for future considerations of this bill that if there are amendments 
considered in connection with the Armed Services Committee bill it will 
not be considered on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair might advise the Senator that there 
is a vote scheduled on this but the Chair understands there has not 
been an agreement yet as to what time that will be.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would say to the majority leader and the 
managers of the bill that I have no intention of delaying. That is why 
I agreed to a rather short time period. I would have no objection to 
setting a time for the vote at 2 o'clock. I would have no objection to 
moving to other amendments. There are some who may wish to use the 
remaining time, if we could simply provide the remaining 8 or 9 minutes 
if there is someone between now and 2 o'clock who wants to come to 
claim that on this side of the issue. I would have no objection to 
doing it. I have no objection to getting to a vote here at a time 
specific.
  Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator will yield for an inquiry. What is the 
time situation now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 3\1/2\ minutes and 
the Senator from North Dakota has 8 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we each 
retain 8 minutes and let us put this amendment aside.
  Mr. DORGAN. No objection. I would ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I asked for that because I do not know if someone on 
this side might wish to answer the Senator. I do not think so. Whenever 
the leader wishes to call this back up, there is a possibility of 16 
minutes definitely before the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Each side will retain 8 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. 
Bingaman] has an amendment that he indicated he wishes to offer. We are 
prepared for that, and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] is here 
with an amendment. There are several amendments coming.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. The Senator from North Dakota indicated to me that he would 
be willing to vote at 2 o'clock unless you want to stack the next 
amendment and his at the same time. That would save some time, too.
  Mr. STEVENS. We are happy to hold this amendment whenever it is, at 
the leader's convenience.
  Mr. DOLE. I would suggest that, if we are going to have another 
amendment by Senator Bingaman which might require a rollcall, we have 
two at once.
  Let me indicate to my colleagues who are not here--the managers are 
here and they are prepared to discuss amendments--that it looks as 
though now this will be the last bill to come up before we go home. So 
when it is over, it is over, if we get a very tight time agreement on 
the DOD authorization bill. If we cannot get that time agreement, we 
will be back to DOD. But if we get a very tight time agreement, which 
would not take more than 4 or 5 hours when we come back, we would do 
that on Tuesday the 5th and then go to welfare reform.
  So for those people who have come to me and left notes under the door 
saying ``Let's get out of here,'' and all of 

[[Page S 12139]]
these things, here is their opportunity to come to the floor and offer 
their amendments and enter into a very short time agreement. It will 
speed up the process and make the managers very happy, and many others 
will be pleased, I might add.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Byrd pertaining to the submission of Senate 
Resolution 162 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of 
Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Are we in a period 
of morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as if in morning 
business for such time as to introduce several bills.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Burns pertaining to the introduction of 
legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair, and yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana.
                  marine corps mps enhancement program
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I wonder if I might engage the 
distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee 
in a brief colloquy.
  Mr. STEVENS. Certainly, the Senator from New Hampshire may proceed.
  Mr. SMITH. First of all I want to commend the Senators from Alaska 
and Hawaii for their fine work in formulating this appropriations bill. 
I know that the subcommittee was confronted by some significant fiscal 
challenges, and I appreciate their outstanding work in balancing 
resources with our military requirements.
  One issue that I am concerned with, however, is the Marine Corps 
Maritime Preposition Ship [MPS] Enhancement Program. As my colleagues 
know, the MPS Enhancement Program would add an additional ship to each 
of three Marine Corps preposition squadrons. These ships would be 
loaded with an expeditionary airfield, two M1A1 tank companies, a fleet 
hospital, Navy mobile construction equipment, a command element 
package, and additional statement. These assets will provide tremendous 
flexibility for crisis response and contingency operations.
  Last year, under the leadership of the Senators from Alaska and 
Hawaii, the committee appropriated $110 million for the first ship in 
the MPS Enhancement Program. This was an important statement of support 
for the preposition concept in general, and the Marine Corps program in 
particular. The Armed Services Committee has sustained the momentum on 
the MPS Enhancement Program by authorizing $110 million in fiscal year 
1996 for the second ship in the program.
  In reviewing the legislation before us, I am unclear as to what the 
recommendation of the committee was with respect to the second MPS 
enhancement ship. I wonder if the Senators from Alaska and Hawaii could 
comment on this issue.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from New Hampshire is correct in his review 
of the legislative record on this issue. The Appropriations Committee 
did fund the first ship last year, and is supportive of the Marine 
Corps MPS Enhancement Program. At the time the committee marked up its 
legislation for fiscal year 1996, it was unclear whether the Navy was 
moving forward with the program established in the fiscal year 1995 
authorization and appropriations bills. The committee was concerned 
over the lack of noticeable progress in acquiring and converting the 
first ship under the program. The committee was also confronted by some 
significant funding shortfalls in the shipbuilding and conversion 
accounts.
  However, the committee did direct that the Secretary of Navy may 
obligate appropriations up to $110 million for the procurement of a 
second MPS ship in fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. INOUYE. Let me assure the Senator from New Hampshire that the 
committee did carefully consider this matter. It is the view of Senator 
Stevens and myself that the language in our legislation provides 
authority to move forward with the second ship in the MPS Enhancement 
Program. I expect this issue will be further explored during 
conference, as well.
  Mr. SMITH. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member for 
their comments. I gather from their statements that the Appropriations 
Committee continues to support the Marine Corps Maritime Pre-position 
Ship Enhancement Program, but is concerned over delays by the Navy in 
moving forward to implement the program established last year in the 
authorization and appropriations bills. Is it fair to say that if the 
Navy can convince the committee that their program is sound, and that 
they can demonstrate that they are fully exploring means to reduce 
overall program costs, such as multiple ship contracts, that the 
committee would be inclined to support a second ship in fiscal year 
1996?
  Mr. STEVENS. I think that is an accurate description.
  Mr. INOUYE. Yes. That is correct.
  Mr. SMITH. I thank my colleagues for their comments, and fine work on 
this bill. I look forward to working with them on this important 
program.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to discuss with the 
distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Defense 
Subcommittee a matter of importance to our Army National Guard Forces.
  Mr. STEVENS. I would be pleased to learn of my colleague's thoughts 
on this matter.
  Mr. BOND. Chairman Stevens, this year, as in the past, your 
subcommittee has demonstrated its continued commitment to insuring the 
Army National Guard remains adequately supplied with modern and 
effective combat equipment. Currently, the Army Guard is wrestling with 
how best to modernize its artillery inventory. A key component of this 
modernization plan is the upgrade of 51 battalions and 7 additional 
batteries with the M109A6 Paladin system. The initial cost estimates of 
this modernization effort are prohibitive.
  I suggest an affordable altnernative--one that is already endorsed by 
the Senate Armed Services Committee. I suggest that the Army develop an 
upgrade of the M109A5 currently in use by the Army National Guard, 
using components of the Paladin system. This upgrade would include 
digital and survivability enhancements which would significantly 
improve the combat performance of this weapon system. I would encourage 
the Department of the Army to evaluate this upgrade project and urge 
the committee to establish an M109A5 upgrade RDT&E program element with 
funds from the Paladin line to enable the Army to procure and evaluate 
a platoon of four M109A5 upgrade systems for use by the Army National 
Guard.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my colleague raises an excellent point. I 
understand that $3,000,000 would be required by the Army to acquire and 
evaluate an M109A5 upgrade system. I will work in conference to make 
funds available for this program.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2356, as modified

  Mr. STEVENS. I would call the attention of the clerk to amendment No. 
2356. On page 1 of that amendment, on line 3 there is a ``shall.'' I 
would like to strike ``shall'' and insert in lieu of that ``may.'' This 
is a technical correction to amendment 2356.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? 

[[Page S 12140]]

  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2356), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 8, line 13, strike out ``Act.'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``Act: Provided further, That of the funds provided 
     under this heading, $500,000 may be available for the Life 
     Sciences Equipment Laboratory, Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, 
     for work in support of the Joint Task Force--Full 
     Accounting.''.

  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. 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. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

                          ____________________