[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 134 (Thursday, August 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12166-S12200]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT 1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are going to proceed to the next 
Bingaman amendment. Senator Bingaman has asked for the right to have 2 
minutes before the second and third amendments. He would like to use 
four amendments now and have the two amendments run without any 
intervening debate. I so ask unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 4 minutes.


                      Amendment Nos. 2392 and 2394

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 of the 4 minutes. If I 
can be notified at the end of that time, then I will yield the last 
minute to the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. President, these two provisions, which are the subject of the 
next two amendments, are provisions which are hard to understand unless 
you understand the context.
  The first of these amendments strikes a provision that is in the bill 
that increases progress payments to defense contractors from 75 percent 
to 85 percent. It is for large defense contractors. There is clearly no 
need for us to do this. All of these contractors are profitable. There 
has been no complaint about the current procedure where we pay 75 
percent in progress payments. This provision is in the bill not to 
address a need. It is in the bill simply to soak up $488 million in 
outlays which the Defense Subcommittee did not want to leave unused.
  This provision would also deny all discretion to contracting officers 
on whether or not to make these payments, even if the contractor is not 
performing. They would have to make 85 percent progress payments if 
this provision remained in the bill, which it will not. This provision 
will be dropped in conference, and the funds that are protected here, 
as outlays, will be used for other purposes. That is the whole idea of 
having this provision in the bill.
  There are better uses for this $488 million in outlays. We could use 
it for deficit reduction, we could use it for some domestic accounts. 
Clearly, I urge my colleagues to vote to strike the provision. 

[[Page S 12167]]

  Let me also address the second of these. The second provision is also 
designed to soak up outlays in the bill--$750 million of outlays, to be 
specific. It requires the Pentagon to pay its bills in 24 days instead 
of in 30 days like everybody else in the commercial world and in 
Government. There is not a serious effort to speed up payment. When 
added to the previous provision, what it does is it protects in this 
defense appropriations bill $1.238 billion in outlays.
  Mr. President, what happened here, very simply, is that this bill was 
marked up, it was sent to CBO; CBO came back to the committee and said, 
``You have not spent all your money.'' And they said, ``OK, in order to 
spend the rest, we will put these provisions in and we will drop them 
in conference and spend it on something else.'' That is exactly what is 
going on here. I think we ought to strike these provisions and use this 
money--keep this money for future needs. It will certainly be needed 
after this famous train wreck we are all expecting to occur around here 
in October.
  I yield the remaining minute to the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico described this 
very well. I do not know of any other place where we have said in the 
past that we would make progress payments that would not be below a 
certain amount. They are putting this up. We usually go at 75 percent. 
We are putting this up and saying you cannot pay them below that no 
matter what the status is at that point. That does not make sense. The 
second part of this is requiring that we pay within 24 days. That is 
how we got in some trouble a couple years ago under the Prompt Payment 
Act, where we forced people in rapid payment and they made mistakes, 
and we wound up having to get back $1.4 billion from contractors that 
had been erroneously overpaid because of the short payment time.
  So I support the Senator from New Mexico, and I hope everybody 
supports his amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are dealing, first, with an amendment 
that says that the Department of Defense should make payments at the 
rate of at least 85 percent on progress payments that are due under a 
contract. Mind you, they are due. The current level, by law, is 75 
percent for major businesses, 80 percent for small businesses, and 85 
percent for disadvantaged small businesses. What we are saying is that 
they should make the payments required by these contracts not less than 
85 percent. They should be making them 100 percent, but the law says 
you only have to make 75 percent. We say they should do at least 85 
percent. By the way, if the Bingaman amendment is adopted, it will 
increase outlays for this year.
  The second one is the prompt payment amendment. The Department of 
Defense used to pay their bills with a maximum, by law, of not more 
than a 30-day delay on bills that are due and payable. Again, that is 
the prompt payment legislation. They were paying their bills within 23 
days. Now they moved it to 30 days. That means that in this period of 
time, small businesses, in particular, are forced to go out and borrow 
money. So they will have to increase the cost to the Government in the 
next contract if they are forced to borrow the money. This requires the 
Department of Defense to pay these businesses as soon as possible, and 
we assume they will pay them within 24 days rather than 30 days.
  Now, it is true that it affects outlays, and it means it is a good 
place to put money. By the way, if we do not use the outlays this year, 
we will have to make the payments next year. That pyramids the outlays 
and decreases the 5-year budget scheme. I made a motion to table each 
of these amendments. These will be two 10-minute votes back-to-back, 
with no intervening debate.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, do I have remaining time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 seconds.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I will yield it back.
  Mr. STEVENS. Have the yeas and nays been requested?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been requested on 
the motion to table the second amendment, No. 2394.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motions to table both 
Bingaman amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


               Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 2392

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Bingaman amendment No. 2392.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 386 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--37

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lugar
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bradley
       
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 2392) was agreed to.
               Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 2394

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the motion to table the Bingaman amendment numbered 2394. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 37, as follows:

                      {Rollcall Vote No. 387 Leg.

                                YEAS--62

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--37

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lugar
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bradley
       
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 2394) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is the last of the stacked votes. We 
intend now to go to a series of amendments. We encourage Senators to 
raise them. 
 
[[Page S 12168]]

  We will have another session where we will have votes that have been 
stacked sometime after 9 o'clock. Senator Bumpers is entitled to some 
time before this amendment.
  But let me state that I hope there will be no objection. We would 
like to ask unanimous consent that all remaining first-degree 
amendments be offered by 8:30 this evening. They will be subject to 
relevant second-degree amendments.
  I ask unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object, is there any way that we 
could have this debate tonight and come back in the morning?
  Mr. STEVENS. That is precisely what we are trying to set up for you. 
We hope to have some debate between now and 9. We want to look at those 
amendments in the interim between the time we will have the next series 
of votes. Then we will have debate on the remaining amendments and have 
the votes on them tomorrow morning, and that will be the last of this 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Summers matter will be taken up later.
  The Senator from Arkansas is entitled to 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object, did the Senator from 
Alaska say we will vote, debate, or both in the morning?
  Mr. STEVENS. It is our request that we ask that all amendments be 
filed by 8:30. We will look those over. We are going to have a series 
of amendments between now and, say, 9 o'clock. We will vote on 
amendments that have been debated before 9 o'clock, and then after 9 
o'clock, we will take up the remaining amendments. We will stay here as 
long as people want to explain their amendments.
  Tomorrow morning, at about 9 or 9:30, we will start voting on all the 
remaining amendments, and we will vote until they are done and go home.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Further reserving the right to object, does the Senator 
have any idea how many amendments are expected to be filed?
  Mr. STEVENS. I might say we had some, I think, 80 amendments when we 
started. We are now down to, I think, no more than 20. We have taken 
care of a lot of them. We expect to be able to take care of a lot of 
those filed by 8:30. The remaining amendments that are not voted on by 
9 o'clock will be voted on tomorrow morning.
  I believe that is the understanding that everyone has agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Alaska restate the 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that all first-degree amendments 
be offered by 8:30 this evening and that they be subject to relevant 
second-degree amendments.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is the 
unanimous-consent request that the amendments be offered or that the 
amendments be filed? It has been stated both ways.
  Mr. STEVENS. Offer them, and we will set them aside. You can offer 
them, as many as you want, whatever you want. They will be offered, and 
we will look at them and determine how we allocate them, whether we 
ought to take them up now. You can offer them now and debate them after 
9 o'clock.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. My own view would be it is reasonable to request they 
be filed or sent to the managers by 8:30, and it is probably not 
reasonable to ask us to actually call them up for debate here in the 
Senate.
  Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator wishes to do so, I will be happy to have 
a request that all amendments be brought to either the Senator from 
Hawaii or myself by 8:30. That is fine with me. Unless they are in our 
hands by 8:30, then I would like to set up a procedure where we get 
through.
  I yield to the leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just respond. I think this is a 
very appropriate way to handle this process. We have done it before. We 
want to expedite to the extent we can to accommodate all Senators. It 
is not too much to ask to have these amendments offered. I will be as 
supportive as anyone in setting aside whatever business we have to 
accommodate Senators who want to have these amendments offered.
  I would like to know what amendments are out there. If we do not have 
them offered, we are not going to know what amendments are there.
  So it is very important I think that we try to accommodate the 
schedule. Let us lay down the amendments. We can agree to time limits 
later on. But this will give us a good indication of what we have left 
to do as anything I know.
  So I hope we can work with the managers and get the job done and 
determine what the schedule is after that.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I could ask the manager, is there a 
particular reason why--the Senator from New Mexico was quite correct; 
we could have a vote. And I have an amendment which will take some 
time. I do not know if there would be enough time for them to offer 
them. But they can file them. Is there a particular reason why, at 9 
o'clock, you want to get more votes as opposed to stacking them and 
having the votes tomorrow? I am trying to figure out why.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the reason is that we think everyone 
should be on notice as to what is going to be called up while you are 
not here. We do have a provision for relevant second-degree amendments. 
Before you go home, you ought to know what they are. We will be happy 
to disclose them to you. If you have a reason to offer the second-
degree amendment, that means they have been filed. You may then tell us 
that you have a second-degree amendment, and we will protect you. But 
we cannot protect you if they are brought up and filed and we do not 
know what they are. We could have second-degree amendments coming off 
the wall.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. My second question was, having the vote after 9 
o'clock as opposed to debate and having the amendments offered and 
having the votes tomorrow morning, stacked votes, is there a particular 
reason?
  Mr. STEVENS. There has been a request that we have sort of a time 
here where people want to go to dinner. We have some votes that are 
ready to go right now. We have one more called for, but we have others 
that we could call up. For instance, we thought we would wait and let 
people go to dinner and have one more set of votes any time you want. 
But we picked 9 o'clock so we can look at the 8:30 filings and inform 
Senators at that time what kind of agenda we have for tomorrow morning.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. My only question is, is there a reason you have to 
vote after 9 o'clock? Could the amendments be offered, debated, and 
stack the votes tomorrow? That is the question, why votes after 9?
  Mr. STEVENS. The main reason is as a matter of fairness so people 
will understand what is here in case they want to offer second-degree 
amendments. You cannot come in tomorrow morning and offer second-degree 
amendments if we have already closed off debate and said that there is 
no longer any debate on that amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I do not want to be obstreperous and I 
will not object to this. But I would say to the Senator from Alaska 
that it seems to me that we are making eminent good sense to ask for a 
unanimous-consent agreement that all amendments be offered by 8:30, 
look and see how many you have and how many you think are serious, and 
then go to another unanimous-consent request by 9 o'clock on how you 
want to dispose of those. If you have 20 serious amendments--I have an 
amendment that I had anticipated asking an hour on. I assume others 
have that. I do not think there is any way to get all of this done 
tonight and start voting in the morning. If we have to come tomorrow 
morning for votes, why not do some debating?
  Mr. STEVENS. We will do all the debating tonight and vote tomorrow 
morning because people want to leave. Beyond that, my friend, you said 
precisely why we want to come back at 9. We will know by 8:30 what is 
there. You will have a chance to protect yourself for second-degree 
amendments if you wish to do so. And we will be proceeding through the 
night. Senator Inouye and I have agreed to stay here. Anyone 

[[Page S 12169]]
who wants to debate these can. We have not asked for the time yet 
specifically when we start voting tomorrow. But after that, there will 
be no more debate.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I would anticipate that under this agreement, we could 
plan to be having breakfast in the Senate dining room in the morning.
  Mr. GRAMM. If you want to debate, you will. If you do not want to 
debate, you will not.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is interesting. I did ask, as chairman of the Rules 
Committee, it be open tomorrow morning.
  I renew my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Alaska revise his 
request to say filed with the managers of the bill?
  Mr. STEVENS. The leader has asked me to stay with the original 
agreement that has been agreed to between the two leaders, and that is 
that we have first-degree amendments offered by 8:30; second-degree 
amendments can be offered to any of those that are offered by 8:30. No 
amendments may be called up after 8:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any objection?
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object. I wish to make sure that I 
am protected in my amendments. Let this Senator understand it 
correctly. If I have four amendments, they have to be submitted prior 
to 8:30?
  Mr. STEVENS. Offered. We did this several times before. All you have 
to do is just come in and say, ``I offer this amendment.'' We say, 
``Fine,'' and set it aside.
  Mr. HARKIN. And there is no time limit.
  Mr. STEVENS. We have no time limit on these amendments. There will be 
a time limit in the sense that we are going to listen to you all night 
if you want to talk, but tomorrow morning we are going to start voting 
and there will be no more debate.
  Mr. HARKIN. Well, at what time tomorrow morning?
  Mr. STEVENS. We have not agreed to that. That is why we are coming 
back at 9 o'clock.
  Mr. HARKIN. Maybe this Senator does not want to stay up all night.
  Mr. STEVENS. Then come back at 9 o'clock and object then.
  Mr. HARKIN. So there could be debate tomorrow?
  Mr. STEVENS. There could be depending what agreement we reach after 9 
o'clock. We cannot determine what kind of agreement to make until we 
see these amendments.
  Mr. HARKIN. Is the unanimous consent just to have all the amendments 
filed by 8:30?
  Mr. STEVENS. Offered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Offered.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is all it is, with the understanding in the 
agreement that they are subject to second-degree amendments. We have 
not waived second-degree amendments.
  I renew my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Arkansas is entitled to be recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. DOLE. Before we do that, if I could just say a word.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. There is a good chance we can complete our work here if 
everybody cooperates and does not take too much time.
  We have listened to two or three Senators all afternoon and they have 
more amendments. That is certainly their right. I wish they would 
understand there are Members on each side who have other ideas for 
tomorrow. One idea is not staying here all day. So if they would like 
to talk, as I said, go home and make the speech. A lot of people at 
home never hear the speeches. We hear them every day.


                    Amendment No. 2395, as modified

  Mr. STEVENS. May we have order so we may listen to the Senator from 
Arkansas for 2 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order.
  The Senator from Arkansas has the floor and is entitled to be heard.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, last week on the Defense authorization 
bill we voted to add a fifth method of financing arms sales to foreign 
countries. We have four programs right now. This bill appropriates for 
that fifth method--an Arms Export Loan Guarantee Program.
  This bill says the Department of Defense can accumulate liability up 
to $15 billion in this brand new loan guarantee program--shades of 
S&L's of the 1980's. I handed most of you the talking points and a list 
of 37 countries that are going to be eligible to buy these weapons with 
loans guaranteed by the U.S. Government--15 billion dollars worth.
  I lost the other night when I tried to kill the program. It is still 
intact. What this amendment does is to cut the taxpayers liability from 
$15 billion to $5 billion. This program has not even been set up yet. 
The committees in the Congress have not approved it. Why in the name of 
all that is good and holy would we put $15 billion in a program that is 
just a gleam in somebody's eye?
  We will be here next year. We will sell 10 billion dollars worth of 
weapons this year. Under this program, starting next year we can sell 
weapons with guaranteed loans to Slovenia, Slovakia, Albania, Bulgaria, 
the Philippines, just to name a few of the eligible countries. Many of 
them are very poor countries. So the bill allows the American that 
wants to sell weapons to pay the risk fee on behalf of the country that 
will buy them. Now, how do you like that?
  Do you think countries that cannot even give you a 2 or 3 percent fee 
are worthy of millions and billions of dollars' worth of credit 
guaranteed by the taxpayers of this country? I plead with you. All I am 
saying is let us not start off exposing the taxpayers of this country 
to $15 billion in liability. For Pete's sake, let us keep it at $5 
billion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. STEVENS. What this simply does is put a limit of $15 billion on 
loan guarantees that may be authorized by the armed services bill. It 
is not authorized yet. This sets a limit of $15 billion, period.
  I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Bumpers amendment No. 2395, as modified. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is absent because of illness in the family.
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 388 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Robb
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bradley
       
  The motion to table the amendment (No. 2395) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas. 

[[Page S 12170]]

  The Senator from Minnesota, under a previous order, was to be 
recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I talked with the 
Senator from Texas, the Senator from Arkansas, and the Senator from 
Iowa, and I am pleased to let them offer their amendments. I understand 
we will set them aside and go to my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 2396

 (Purpose: To provide for the management of defense nuclear stockpile 
                               resources)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2396.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my 
amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all 
amendments filed under this procedure be set aside until they are 
called up, so we do not have to have delay as we are going to be 
yielding time now, if that is agreeable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent when there 
is a time agreement, if a Senator yields for the purpose of presenting 
an amendment in order to comply with the unanimous-consent agreement, 
that that time not come out of the time of the person who is speaking.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object, will the Senator amend 
his unanimous-consent request to say unless the managers have agreed to 
the amendment and you can dispose of it instead of laying everything 
aside?
  Mr. STEVENS. I agree with what the Senator said. We are going to be 
proceeding under a unanimous-consent agreement. If the Senator has the 
floor and yields to someone to call up an amendment, I do not intend to 
try to handle that amendment at the time.
  The Senator from Minnesota has the floor, and I invite people to come 
in and comply with the unanimous-consent agreement by presenting their 
amendments. But I do not want to handle them--I agree with what the 
Senator says. I do ask unanimous consent, as he indicates, that the 
amendments will not be set aside if the managers are prepared to accept 
them at the time they are offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Minnesota if he 
will yield to me for the purpose of offering one amendment which has 
been agreed to and another one which I would like to file and lay down 
and set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator still yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield to the Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 2397

(Purpose: To prohibit the financing of risk fees as part of the Defense 
                     Export Loan Guarantee Program)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself and 
     Mr. Simon, proposes an amendment numbered 2397.

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

       On page 69, at the end of line 3 insert the following: 
     ``That the exposure fees charged and collected by the 
     Secretary for each guarantee, shall be paid by the country 
     involved and shall not be financed as part of a loan 
     guaranteed by the United States;''.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator's amendment, but 
it has not been cleared on this side yet. I am prepared to accept it 
when it is cleared.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am sorry?
  Mr. STEVENS. I agree with the Senator's amendment. It has not been 
cleared. There is one person who registered objection. We are visiting 
with him now. I will be able to deal with it later.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2398

  (Purpose: To reduce the amount of money provided for the Trident II 
                            missile program)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2398.

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

       On page 22, strike lines 1-2 and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following: ``tor-owned equipment layaway: $1,651,421,000, to 
     remain available for obligation until September 30, 1998: 
     Provided, That of the funds appropriated in this paragraph, 
     none shall be obligated for any D-5 missiles, D-5 missile 
     components, ship modifications and ship components that are 
     associated with backfitting any Trident I submarines to carry 
     D-5 Trident II missiles.''

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be laid aside temporarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is set 
aside.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
               Amendments Nos. 2399, 2400, 2401, and 2402

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Minnesota to yield 
to me for the purpose of offering four amendments, under the unanimous 
consent agreement of the manager of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send four amendments to the desk.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes amendments 
     numbered 2399, 2400, 2401, and 2402.

  Mr. HARKIN. 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. 2399

       (Purpose: To limit indirect costs regarding compensation)

     SEC.   . RESTRICTION ON REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS.

       (a) None of the funds authorized to be appropriated in this 
     Act for fiscal year 1996 may be obligated for payment on new 
     contracts on which allowable costs charged to the government 
     include payments for individual compensation (including 
     bonuses and other incentives) at a rate in excess of $250,000 
     per year.


                           amendment no. 2400

(Purpose: To strike $125,000,000 appropriated for Aircraft Procurement, 
      Army, for upgrade of Kiowa Warrior light scout helicopters.)

       On page 18, line 7, strike out ``$1,498,623,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$1,373,623,000''.


                           amendment no. 2401

(Purpose: To strike $70,000,000 appropriated for Research, Development, 
 Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, for support technologies/follow-on 
technologies advanced development, specifically provided for the Space-
                          Based Laser Program)

       On page 29, line 12, strike out ``$9,196,784,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$9,126,784,000''.


                           amendment no. 2402

(Purpose: To strike $30,000,000 appropriated for Research, Development, 
 Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, for the ASAT Anti-Satellite Weapon 
                                program)

       On page 29, line 12, strike out ``$9,196,784,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$9,166,784,000''.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendments be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I also ask if the Senator from Minnesota 


[[Page S 12171]]
will allow me to send an amendment to the desk for consideration, and 
then I will lay it aside so he can proceed with his own amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 2403

 (Purpose: To reduce funding for the TOW 2B (by $20,000,000), Hellfire 
 II (by $40,000,000), and CBU-87 (by $30,000,000), which are munitions 
that have been determined by the Inspector General of the Department of 
    Defense as being excess to the requirements of the Armed Forces)

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2403.

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

       On page 82, between lines 11 through 12, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 8087. (a) The total amount appropriated in title III 
     under the heading ``Missile Procurement, Army'' is hereby 
     reduced by $60,000,000.
       (b) The total amount appropriated in title III under the 
     heading ``Other Procurement, Air Force'' is hereby reduced by 
     $30,000,000.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be set aside until after completion of the presentation by 
the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield at this point?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I believe the Senator is prepared to 
enter into a time agreement. It is my understanding he will agree to 20 
minutes on a side on his amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I understand the Senator to say 40 minutes equally 
divided?
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that there be 40 minutes equally 
divided before a motion pertaining to his amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder whether I could ask the 
Senator from Alaska, included in this agreement would be that I could 
have 2 minutes to summarize before the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that all amendments treated in 
this period now have 2 minutes before the vote, or more if it is 
requested specifically.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2404

     (Purpose: To reduce by $3,200,000,000 the total amount to be 
                             appropriated)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself, 
     Mr. Feingold, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Bumpers and Mr. Simon, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2404.

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

       On page 34, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 8000. REDUCTION IN TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE APPROPRIATED.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the total 
     amount appropriated for fiscal year 1996 under the provisions 
     of this Act is hereby reduced by $3,200,000,000, with the 
     total amount of such reduction to be used exclusively for 
     reducing the amount of the Federal budget deficit.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my amendment is designed as a follow-up 
or a follow-on to a close vote we took in this body last week on an 
amendment to the DOD authorization bill from the Senator from 
Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, and the Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, 
which I cosponsored.
  That amendment would have reduced by $7 billion the total authorized 
defense spending provided for in this bill. The same amount of defense 
spending provided for in the Senate version of the budget resolution 
passed earlier this year.
  Mr. President, during consideration of the budget resolution in May, 
a bipartisan majority of 60 Senators voted against an amendment which 
would have increased defense spending above the level requested by the 
Clinton administration. To my surprise, some of those Senators switched 
last week and voted to support the bill even with this huge increase, 
which they had opposed just a few months earlier.
  My amendment seeks to find the middle ground by cutting a modest $3.2 
billion from the amount appropriated in the bill overall, without 
identifying specific programs to be reduced.
  Unlike the Kohl amendment, which I supported, and which would have 
reduced total spending in the bill by $7 billion, the amount requested 
by the administration for this year, this amendment would simply cut 
the overall total by $3.2 billion, leaving a total of about $240 
billion to be spent next year on defense.
  Mr. President, that is still about $3.2 billion more than the 
Pentagon itself requested for next year. As outrageous as this may seem 
to Americans who were listening, especially those who consider programs 
like job training and education and student loans and Medicare, 
programs that are being slashed in both the House and the Senate, this 
defense bill, in its current form, provides $6.4 billion more than the 
President, more than the Secretary of Defense and more than the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff have requested for this year--an amount, I believe, Mr. 
President, already vastly more than is necessary to defend our Nation.
  With the Kohl amendment, not only has the Senate gone on record as 
wanting to hold the defense budget completely harmless as we work to 
reduce the deficit, but it has even gone on record as opposing attempts 
to scale back defense spending to the administration's request. Sadly, 
the Kohl amendment to cut $7 billion was defeated by a close margin 
last week.
  This amendment will test how far Senators are willing to go back 
toward the principle that all sectors of our society, including defense 
contractors, ought to bear some modest share of the deficit reduction 
burden. From that earlier vote, I conclude that there are 48 Senators 
who believe that the Pentagon budget provided for in this bill is too 
high and should be lowered as we move forward in the budget debates 
this year.
  Mr. President, while the amendment does not designate specific 
programs to be cut, I will be discussing specific examples of programs 
that were not requested by the administration and that should be 
removed from it. Some have been focused on by Senator Bingaman, Senator 
McCain and others already. They are mostly weapons systems included in 
this bill to satisfy various Defense Committee members and military 
contractors but that were not judged to be needed by the 
administration. Some were ships or planes that were not scheduled to be 
bought by the Pentagon until after the turn of the century, but which 
were accelerated by 6 or 7 years, at a time when we are supposed to be 
doing deficit reduction. Others were rejected by the Pentagon, 
altogether as ineffective or too costly, but they are included in this 
appropriations bill.
  If we pass this bill without my amendment, my Minnesota constituents 
will continue to pay their taxes to bolster the treasuries of bloated 
defense contractors, who are building ships, planes, and weapons 
systems that we do not need and cannot use and that will not make our 
Nation any more secure.
  So that there is no mistake, Mr. President, let me repeat that for 
those who are listening, we are considering today a defense spending 
bill that spends a full $6.4 billion more than the President requested 
in his budget. We are doing this despite the fact that there is no 
sudden extraordinary threat to justify such an increase and many of 
those in this body who are pressing for such a huge increase are 
precisely the same people who are out on the floor day after day, week 
after week, month after month, howling about how we simply have to get 
this deficit under control. They are doing this while at the same time 
larding defense bills with billions in spending for the local shipyard 
or weapons contractor, or plane manufacturer. Have we no 

[[Page S 12172]]
shame, Mr. President? Is there no sense of limits in this body when it 
comes to wasteful and unnecessary weapons programs? Mind you, this $3.2 
billion is all for deficit reduction.
  Now, controlling the deficit is important, and I have supported 
responsible, fair-minded deficit reduction proposals totaling hundreds 
of billions of dollars. But I cannot allow this debate to move forward 
without observing a few of the blatant incongruities here. Mr. 
President, while virtually every other agency of the Federal Government 
is taking huge cuts in order to help reduce the deficit and programs 
that actually serve millions of people in our States are being scaled 
back or shut down altogether, the Pentagon budget is actually growing 
by leaps and bounds. As I said the other day, Mr. President, this is 
one of the craziest things I have seen during my time in the Senate. 
Even during the defense budget of the 1980's, Congress was not pressing 
more spending on the Pentagon than it had requested, as this bill would 
do. Make no mistake, Mr. President, the post-cold-war defense budget is 
becoming less and less focused on our real national security needs and 
more and more on the needs of particular Members of Congress to sustain 
jobs in their home States.
  American taxpayers are paying for costly, obsolete, fantastically 
expensive cold war era weapons systems that are no longer justifiable, 
basically to preserve the political health of certain Members of 
Congress.
  Mr. President, that is the sad, unvarnished truth. Many of the 
weapons systems we are still paying for were initiated during the 
1980's defense buildup and have little or no relation to the changed 
strategic situation we now face in the post-cold-war era. Yet, we 
continue to fund them, terrified that scaling the spending back 
modestly will cost precious jobs in our States. And it is particularly 
troubling that the Armed Services Committee has proposed these hefty 
increases at the same time that the Defense Department is being called 
to task for not being able to account for billions of dollars--over $13 
billion, Mr. President, at last count, in its own spending.
  In May of this year, the Pentagon's own spending watchdog, its 
Comptroller General, John Hamre, conceded that the DOD could not 
account for over $13 billion of spending. Their own report says that 
they could not account for $13 billion of spending. We now have here $6 
billion more than was in budget.
  Mr. President, it has just been lost in the ocean of paperwork at the 
Pentagon, and this $13 billion will never be sorted out. In fact, the 
Comptroller has all but given up trying to find out what happened to 
most of the money, arguing that it would be more expensive than it 
would be to track it down. So here we have a report, $13 billion of 
wasteful money, expenditure of money that we cannot even account for. 
Now we have $6 billion more in this appropriations bill than requested, 
and this amendment says just cut that in half and, for God's sake, can 
we not use that for deficit reduction?
  I see my colleague here on the floor. He will be part of the 
discussion on this amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank my colleague for his courtesy. Actually, I not 
only wanted to be part of the discussion, I wanted to ask my colleague 
for the forbearance to put an amendment in so that I could be covered 
by the 8:30 curfew.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield to my colleague 
to make sure that none of his time would be taken.
                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk and ask for its 
appropriate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] moves to 
     recommit S. 1087 to the Committee on Appropriations with 
     instructions to report back to the Senate legislation that 
     does not appropriate funds to the Department of Defense in 
     excess of the President's request for fiscal year 1996.

  Mr. KERRY. I will quickly explain this motion because it complements 
the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota. The Senator is seeking a 
$3 billion reduction. This amendment seeks to recommit the bill on the 
basis that we should not be requesting more money than the President of 
the United States has requested.
  I think the Senator from Minnesota has most appropriately focused on 
a series of problems within the accounting process, in spending 
procurement process, of the Defense Department.
  In addition to that, Mr. President, I know the Senator feels this 
very strongly. We ought to be making decisions around here based on the 
real needs of the country, not on wish lists.
  It is very, very difficult when we look a the level of teenage 
pregnancy, when we look at the fact that last year 36 percent of the 
high school graduates in America graduated with a below basic reading 
level capacity. Fifty percent of minorities in this country graduated 
with a below basic reading level capacity.
  This means last year we put 750,000 people in the work force in 
America with a skill level for jobs that disappeared 50 years ago.
  That, Mr. President, is something we really ought to be focusing on. 
I can go through a list of items in this bill, including $564 million 
increase on fighter planes or $125 million increase on the request for 
the Kiowa Warrior Scout Helicopter and other things.
  I am all for upgrading and keeping up with a defense that is second 
to nobody in this planet. I believe, Mr. President, $236 billion will 
do that. There is not a compelling need to spend $242 billion-plus.
  Now, I think when we measure all of the things we have done, the 
Goals 2000 in education, we will cut substance abuse prevention money, 
we will cut safety schools and drug money, we are making it harder for 
kids to go to college, yet we are going to come along with a series of 
expenditures here ranging from the post 1996 D-5 missile production.
  If we have good enough START II implementation, and we get the Duma 
in Russia to ratify it and we continue downwards, there is no reason to 
build D-5's after 1996. We have money for that in here.
  We could increase burden sharing by the Republic of Korea. We can 
procure the most cost-effective airlifter, C-17's or commercial. There 
are many things we could do, Mr. President.
  I have $37 billion worth of reductions I think we could find. All we 
are looking for is $6 billion. I do not think at this time in the 
United States choice-making here in Washington, where we are seeking to 
find the things we need to do for the country that we ought to be 
filling some extraordinary wish list, when this golden moment in 
international affairs is staring us in the face. We could really make, 
I think, a tougher set of choices.
  I yield the floor back to the Senator.
  I simply think we ought to have a vote here before we put this bill 
away as to whether or not the President was not well advised to suggest 
to the U.S. Senate that $236 billion will do the job, and why it is 
that we must spend this additional $6 billion this year and a lot more 
over the next 5 years and beyond.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KERRY. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator. I would have outlined some of the 
same weapon systems the Senator enumerated.
  Is the Senator aware of the fact that in May during consideration of 
the budget resolution, a bipartisan majority of 60 Senators voted 
against an amendment which would have increased defense spending above 
the level requested by the Clinton administration?
  Mr. KERRY. That is correct.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. So, not that many months ago, a short period of time 
ago, Senators went on record saying certainly in this time of tight 
budgets, when we are talking about deficit reduction and lots of people 
are being asked to tighten their belt, and we are making cuts in 
education, and as the Senator said, in substance abuse programs, 
treatment programs and in job training and low-income energy 
assistance, the Senate went on record.
  Now all of a sudden we see contrary to the advice of the 
administration, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Pentagon itself--I 
cannot remember a time where we are now talking about an appropriations 
bill that is $6 billion above the request.

[[Page S 12173]]

  Mr. KERRY. Let me answer that by saying to my friend I think there 
are three great issues that most Americans are concerned about.
  The first is their decline in income. It is the increasing anxiety of 
the workplace, the fear that people will lose a job, or that if they 
get a job, they cannot raise their standard of living, they cannot, 
even by working harder, make ends meet. That is the first and foremost 
priority of people in this country.
  I cannot point to very much--maybe some of my colleagues can do a 
better job than I can--but I cannot find anything that the Senate has 
worked on yet this year that will address that issue in a profound way.
  The second great issue that faces Americans is the question of 
whether or not they can walk out of their house and go out at night to 
a restaurant without fear of not finding their car when they come out 
of the restaurant, or maybe being hit over the head, or whether their 
kids can go out and play in a neighborhood.
  There is nothing that we have done, yet, that fundamentally addresses 
that need, except reduce the expenditures for substance abuse--the 
greatest problem in America being drugs--and target for attack the idea 
of putting more cops on our streets, which was the great issue of last 
year.
  The third great issue that I think Americans are concerned about is 
education. I just spoke about it. Our school systems are falling apart. 
In city after city, community after community, teachers are 
demoralized, people are not paid enough, the curriculum stinks.
  We have a whole host of problems, and here we are with Russia, at 
odds about whether or not to ratify the START treaty with a moment 
where we could be greater leaders in the world with respect to 
proliferation, with respect to our capacity to have intrusive 
inspection, and what are we doing?
  We are cutting Head Start. We are cutting substance abuse. We are 
targeting the program that puts police on the streets. We have not 
addressed one of those three profound needs, but we are going to spend 
more than the Joint Chiefs of Staff think we ought to, and that the 
Commander in Chief has asked us to, does not make sense, Mr. President.
  I thank my colleague for allowing me to put my amendment in at the 
appropriate time. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts 
for his amendment and also for his words here on the floor of the 
Senate.


                           Amendment No. 2404

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to summarize, and I will 
get a chance to summarize for my colleagues again.
  Here we have a situation--and I want to be clear about what this 
amendment does--here we have a situation where we have in this 
appropriations bill $6.4 billion more than requested by the 
administration, by the Pentagon, by the Joint Chiefs of Staff--over 
budget.
  This amendment says, can we not at least cut half of that, $3.2 
billion, and all of that goes for deficit reduction? Mr. President, I 
do not designate what weapon system to be cut, though I raised 
questions about many of those weapon systems and the value of them, as 
has the Senator from Massachusetts.
  What I do know, Mr. President, is that it seems to me in a time when 
we say we are for deficit reduction and we are calling for sacrifice 
among people in the country and we are putting into effect some really 
serious cuts--not just in programs but in programs that have a critical 
impact on the quality or lack of quality of the lives of people--
educational opportunities for children, food, nutrition programs, Head 
Start, early childhood development programs, Women, Infants, and 
Children, low-income energy assistance program, job training program, 
making sure that young people can afford higher education--I just say 
to my colleagues, why in God's name when we are making cuts in all of 
those programs, and now what we are doing is we have $6 billion more 
over budget, $6 billion more than requested by the administration--I do 
not think there is any standard of fairness to this. Surely we can make 
some cuts here as well, Mr. President.
 That is what this amendment calls for.

  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote aye on this amendment to 
reduce, by $3.2 billion, the total spending in this bill. That will 
still leave about $240 billion in this bill to be spent on defense next 
year and over $260 billion in total, when you add in Energy Department 
weapons programs and military construction projects provided for in the 
DOD authorization bill.
  Vote to at least bring the defense budget more closely in line with 
what the President and the Secretary of Defense have requested, I say 
to my colleagues, a figure that is already too high, in my view. And 
especially to those Senators, 60 in all, who voted for lower defense 
spending numbers on the budget resolution, I appeal to you, vote to 
restore some sanity to defense budgets that have gone dangerously awry. 
Vote aye on this amendment.
  Mr. President, I, for the moment, yield the floor and I retain the 
remainder of my time.
  Might I ask how much time I have remaining, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 6 minutes 10 
seconds.
  Mr. AKAKA addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Who yields time? The Senator from 
Hawaii.


                           Amendment No. 2405

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the 
 Army to reconsider the decision not to include the infantry military 
occupational specialty among the specialties for which special pays are 
         provided under the Selected Reserve Incentive Program)

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, to meet the requirements of the chairman of 
the committee, I have an amendment to offer. I send an amendment to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2405.

  Mr. AKAKA. 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 83, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8087. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
     the Army shall reconsider the decision not to include the 
     infantry military occupational specialty among the military 
     skills and specialties for which special pays are provided 
     under the Selected Reserve Incentive Program.

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask it be laid aside for further 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, it may be laid 
aside.


                           Amendment No. 2406

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding underground 
                            nuclear testing)

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

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2406.

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 1062. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR 
                   TESTING.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The President of France stated on June 13, 1995, that 
     the Republic of France plans to conduct eight nuclear test 
     explosions over the next several months.
       (2) The People's Republic of China continues to conduct 
     underground nuclear weapons tests.
       (3) The United States, France, Russia, and Great Britain 
     have observed a moratorium on nuclear testing since 1992.
       (4) A resumption of testing by the Republic of France could 
     result in the disintegration of the current testing 
     moratorium and a renewal of underground testing by other 
     nuclear weapon states.
       (5) A resumption of nuclear testing by the Republic of 
     France raises serious environmental and health concerns.

[[Page S 12174]]

       (6) The United Nations Conference on Disarmament presently 
     is meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, for the purpose of 
     negotiating a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), 
     which would halt permanently the practice of conducting 
     nuclear test explosions.
       (7) Continued underground weapons testing by the Republic 
     of France and the People's Republic of China undermines the 
     efforts of the international community to conclude a CTBT by 
     1996, a goal endorsed by 175 nations at the recently 
     completed NPT Extension and Review Conference (the conference 
     for the extension and review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation 
     Treaty).
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Republic of France and the People's Republic of 
     China should abide by the current international moratorium on 
     nuclear test explosions and refrain from conducting 
     underground nuclear tests in advance of a Comprehensive Test 
     Ban Treaty.

  Mr. AKAKA. I ask it be set aside for further consideration, and I 
yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, article I, section 8, of the Constitution 
of the United States states the following:

       Congress shall have the Power To *** raise and support 
     Armies * * * To provide and maintain a Navy; To make rules 
     for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval 
     Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute 
     the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel 
     Invasions.

  Mr. President, I cite the Constitution because in the debate today we 
have heard on several occasions that the President did not approve this 
or the President did not ask for appropriations, that the President did 
not have this in his budget request.
  Mr. President, the Constitution of the United States does not say 
that the President shall have the power to raise and support armies or 
that the President has the power to provide and maintain a navy. It is 
the Congress that has the power. And what we are doing today, and this 
evening, is to exercise that power and authority that has been granted 
to the people of the United States and to their representatives in the 
House and the Senate.
  If we abide with some of the suggestions made by my colleagues, I 
would say the Constitution should read that the Congress of the United 
States will be the rubberstamp of the President. I do not believe that 
was ever the intention of our Founding Fathers.
  Second, throughout the debate today, the sum of $7 billion has been 
heard on several occasions. It represents sums of moneys that this 
committee has recommended for the purchase of certain equipment. It is 
true that what I am about to list were not specifically requested by 
the President. But in the exercise of our authority as set forth in 
article I, section 8, of the Constitution, we felt that the best 
interests of this Nation would be served if we did exercise this 
authority. So, if I may, I would like to go down the list so my 
colleagues will know what is involved.
  The so-called master plan of the Department of Defense states that, 
by the year 2000, we will purchase 15 DDG-51 destroyers. These are the 
latest destroyers, the most powerful on the seven seas. The President 
requested two. We decided for the sake of economies, we should have 
four.
  In the scheme of contracting and building, I think it is common 
knowledge that if one purchases in larger quantities the purchase price 
would be less--$1.4 billion. Before we made this decision we conferred 
with the Chief of Naval Operations, we conferred with the Secretary of 
the Navy. They considered this to be of high priority.
  Just a few moments ago this Congress, this Senate, by a vote of 72 to 
27, approved the appropriation of $1.3 billion for the purchase of an 
LHD-7 amphibious assault ship. That ship was not requested by the 
President of the United States, but it is part of the master plan of 
the Department of Defense. It is scheduled to be purchased in about 3 
years. But, in checking with the shipyards of this Nation, we found 
that this year would be the year to make that contract. This is one of 
the highest priorities for the U.S. Marines.
  We call upon the Marines almost every year, unfortunately, to send 
their men in harm's way. They are the first on the beach. They are the 
first to shed blood. And they want to make certain, if they are going 
to be first, they do so with the best of equipment, best of survival 
facilities--and this ship will provide that survivability.
  Mr. President, $770 million for the National Guard. The President of 
the United States did not request $770 million for the National Guard 
equipment, but every adjutant general of the 50 States begged the 
Congress for assistance in this area. It is common knowledge among us 
that, up until now, the National Guard gets all the leftovers.
 When the regular services get new equipment, they get the old 
equipment. When the M1A2 tank comes out, they will get the M1A1 tanks. 
They put up the sand bags for floods. They are involved in Bosnia. They 
were in Desert Storm. They were in Somalia. And they will be going to 
the next place wherever it is. And if we are calling upon the National 
Guard, the citizen soldiers, to stand in harm's way, I think it is only 
reasonable for the Congress to provide them with the necessary 
equipment.

  That was $777 million.
  This bill has 12 FNA-18 aircraft, $484 million. The master plan calls 
for the purchase of 24. The administration had requested 12. We added 
12. Here again, it was a matter of economies, and by economies I am 
talking about big economies. By doing this, we would have saved over 
$250 million.
  A high priority for the military are the F-15's and F-16's; $370 
million for 12 of them.
  A few hours ago this Senate, by an overwhelming vote, approved the 
funding of $300 million for the national missile defense research and 
development. That was not requested by the President. We added the $300 
million.
  We also added $300 million for the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard, as 
you know, Mr. President, is funded through the Department of the 
Treasury. They are not part of the Defense Department. For all intents 
and purposes, the Coast Guard is now part of the U.S. Armed Forces. 
They were deeply involved in Desert Storm. They suffered casualties 
like all the other services. They are presently involved in the 
blockade in Bosnia. They are also involved very deeply working with the 
Navy in drug interdiction.
  So the Treasury Subcommittee came to us, and they did so about 3 
years ago, to provide a helping hand with the Coast Guard. And we have 
been doing this. The Senate knows that, the House knows that, and the 
President knows that.
  The sum of $174 million for the Comanche helicopter; if one should 
look over the whole appropriations measure--and I say so as a former 
Army person--the Army was the one that was shortchanged. The Navy got 
their ships, and the Air Force got their aircraft. This is the one 
thing that the Army wanted, the Comanche helicopter, $174 million.
  This bill also has $250 million for five hurricane aircraft. Mr. 
President, they were not requested by the President of the United 
States. But I hope my colleagues will be able to confer with the 
Governors of the coastal States and the gulf States and ask their 
opinion--all of those. Every moment at this time of the year there is 
some hurricane popping around in the Caribbean or in the Atlantic. And 
we have heroic men and women 24 hours a day up in the air checking 
these things out. The least we can do is to give them adequate 
equipment and the best of aircraft. This will provide it, Mr. 
President.
  There is no pork in here. Listening to the debate, one gets the 
impression that this is all waste, this is all pork. And as I said 
earlier this day, I do not wish to sound personal and parochial. But 
there is not a single item in here that is made in Alaska or Hawaii. 
There is no pork in here for our two States. But we feel as chairman 
and ranking member of the subcommittee that these are absolutely 
essential.
  We know that this is a very painful period, Mr. President. I, too, 
would like to see more money being spent for the homeless, for the 
poor, and the hungry, and for those who are not receiving appropriate 
education. But we have not arrived at the millennium that we pray for. 
There are still people outside our borders and inside our borders that 
would relish the thought of destroying us. This is not paranoia, Mr. 
President. This is the real world.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will look over the list 
that I have just set forth for you, sir. And if they can tell us that 
they do not need the destroyer, they do not need the hurricane 
aircraft, they do not wish to have the National Guard fully equipped, 
they do not wish to have the 

[[Page S 12175]]
Coast Guard better equipped, then we might think otherwise. But no one 
has come forth telling us to cross out the F-22, cross out the F-15, 
cross out the F-15 and the F-16. No. Mr. President, it has been $7 
billion.
  I do not often speak on the floor. But I just want my colleagues to 
know that making decisions such as this is not an easy chore. I can 
assure you that this is a lean and mean defense bill. If there is fat, 
it is almost negligible. And it is not in this list, sir.
  Thank you.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Arizona wants to 
file an amendment. I yield to him for that purpose.


                           Amendment No. 2407

 (Purpose: To place a limitation on the use of funds for Former Soviet 
                        Union Threat Reduction)

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2407.

  Mr. KYL. 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. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR COOPERATIVE THREAT 
                   REDUCTION.

       (a) Limitation.--Of the funds available under title II 
     under the heading ``Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction'' 
     for dismantlement and destruction of chemical weapons, not 
     more than $52,000,000 may be obligated or expended for that 
     purpose until the President certifies to Congress the 
     following:
       (1) That the United States and Russia have completed a 
     joint laboratory study evaluating the proposal of Russia to 
     neutralize its chemical weapons and the United States agrees 
     with the proposal.
       (2) That Russia has, with the assistance of the United 
     States (if necessary), prepared a comprehensive plan to 
     manage the dismantlement and destruction of the Russia 
     chemical weapons stockpile.
       (3) That the United States and Russia are committed to 
     resolving outstanding issues under the 1989 Wyoming 
     Memorandum of Understanding and the 1990 Bilateral 
     Destruction Agreement.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``1989 Wyoming Memorandum of Understanding'' 
     means the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government 
     of the United States of America and the Government of the 
     Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Regarding a Bilateral 
     Verification Experiment and Data Exchange Related to 
     Prohibition on Chemical Weapons, signed at Jackson Hole, 
     Wyoming, on September 23, 1989.
       (2) The term ``1990 Bilateral Destruction Agreement'' means 
     the Agreement between the United States of America and the 
     Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on destruction and non-
     production of chemical weapons and on measures to facilitate 
     the multilateral convention on banning chemical weapons 
     signed on June 1, 1990.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment will 
be set aside.


                           Amendment No. 2404

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time remains now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 5 minutes 12 
seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator from Minnesota have any time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 6 minutes 4 
seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will make one comment for the 
consideration of my friend from Minnesota, and that is to tell him that 
of the three other bills pertaining to the Department of Defense for 
1996, compared to the three other bills this is the lowest level of 
spending in any of the DOD authorization or appropriations bills. We 
are below the authorization in the House, we are below the 
authorization in the Senate, and we are below the appropriations in the 
House. How can we be so far off the mat as I have been hearing?
  I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, for my colleagues I would like to read 
from a letter from the administration.

       The administration does not support the committee 202(b) 
     allocation, or the level of funding provided by the committee 
     bill, which is nearly $6.5 billion above the President's 
     request. By providing an increases for defense programs that 
     are neither wanted nor justified, the bill would seriously 
     undermine the President's goal of achieving a balanced budget 
     while increasing investment programs essential to a higher 
     standard of living for all Americans.
       As reflected in his budget, the President firmly believes 
     that it is possible to maintain a strong defense without 
     sacrificing critical investments. The committee's allocation 
     raises serious concerns about the overall priorities 
     reflected in the appropriation process.
       For this reason and other concerns discussed below, the 
     President's senior advisers would recommend the President 
     veto the bill if it were presented to him in the current 
     form.

  I have a tremendous respect for my colleague from Hawaii, and he is 
not on the floor now, but just in response, I do not think the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a millenniest. I do not think that the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff does not make very rigorous 
decisions about national security.
  Again, one more time, we are talking about deficit reduction. We are 
talking about cuts in education, child nutrition, low-income housing, 
low-income energy assistance programs, health care programs, you name 
it. And at the same time we are going $6.4 billion above budget, and 
this amendment just says can we not cut $3.2 billion in budget 
authority and use that for deficit reduction?
  Mr. President, it just seems to me that people in Minnesota and 
people around the country are saying, sort out your priorities. We are 
spending billions of dollars renewing cold war relics like star wars, 
the antimissile defense system, the B-2 bomber, new generations now of 
attack helicopters and airplanes, more destroyers, more carriers, more 
expensive weaponry.
  It is like the sky is the limit. All of my colleagues who talk so 
much about deficit reduction over and over and over again, they seem to 
be great when it comes to reducing an investment in children and in 
health care and in job training and in reducing violence in our 
communities, but when it comes to the military contractors, it goes on 
and on and on and on.
  In all due respect, I do not think the Pentagon, I do not think the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I do not think these are the 
kinds of people who do not make rigorous analysis about what is in our 
national defense.
  But enough is enough. Enough is enough. It seems to me we can 
communicate a message to people in this country that there is going to 
be some little deficit reduction here in this Pentagon budget. Forty-
nine Senators voted for this proposition. That was $7 billion. I cut 
this in half. I am hoping to have the support of my colleagues.
  Finally, I would say to my colleagues on the other side--not all of 
my colleagues on the other side--I think there comes a point in time we 
are going to have to redefine national security. And part of national 
security is surely the security of our local communities--that is what 
the Senator from Massachusetts was trying to say, I say to my colleague 
from New Mexico--the security of local communities, where there is less 
violence, where there are opportunities for children, where there is 
affordable child care, where there is decent housing, when people are 
trained for jobs, when there are jobs available. This is all part of 
national security, too.
  This amendment just says cut $3.2 billion--that is it--of the $6.4 
billion over budget and use that for deficit reduction.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, how much time did I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 1 minute 28 
seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. In the interest of time, I again will not comment very 
long on this.
  Again, I point out that we have a real problem in the sense we do not 
have the allocation that the other bills have, and yet we are being 
criticized for having the level which is the lowest spending level that 
has been presented to the Congress during this session by any of the 
four bills.
  I say this to my friend from Minnesota. If you look at the 5-year to 
7-

[[Page S 12176]]
year trend, the President's budget comes down and then goes back up. We 
have a budget level which is almost a straight line going through the 
7-year period. The difference between the President's bill and ours is 
that we use the money such as on the LHD-7 or on the extra two DDG-51's 
to spend it wisely so we get a savings.
  There is nothing in this bill that is not in the President's program 
ultimately in the same 7-year period. But we are getting it at a 
different pace, and we are using our head about when to continue a line 
and when to shut it down. The LHD-7 for instance funded in this bill 
now will save us $700 million over this period of the 7 years. We save 
a similar amount of money by starting the funding on the DDG-51's.
  I cannot understand why we are criticized for getting more for less 
money. Again, I want to state that. We spent less money than any of the 
other three bills, and we get more for defense, meet more of the 
objectives, and I believe that you will see the Department of Defense 
recognizing that.
  I yield to my friend from Arkansas. And I see the Senator from South 
Dakota here, too, to qualify amendments.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield for a 
moment----
  Mr. PRYOR. The curtain is about to fall.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am sorry. I was going to say we will be done in 1\1/
2\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Wellstone 
amendment be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2408

    (Purpose: To provide for the testing of theater missile defense 
                             interceptors)

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I send to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2408.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . TESTING OF THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE INTERCEPTORS.

       (a) Approval Beyond Low-Rate Initial Production.--The 
     Secretary of Defense may not approve a theater missile 
     defense interceptor program beyond the low-rate initial 
     production acquisition stage until the Secretary certifies to 
     the congressional defense committees that the program--
       (1) has successfully completed initial operational test and 
     evaluation; and
       (2) involves a suitable and effective system.
       (b) Certification Requirements.--(1) In order to be 
     certified under subsection (a), the initial operational test 
     and evaluation conducted with respect to a program shall 
     include flight tests--
       (A) that were conducted with multiple interceptors and 
     multiple targets in the presence of realistic 
     countermeasures; and
       (B) the results of which demonstrate the achievement of 
     baseline performance thresholds by such interceptors.
       (2) The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation shall 
     specify the number of flight tests required with respect to a 
     program under paragraph (1) in order to make a certification 
     referred to in subsection (a).
       (3) The Secretary may utilize modeling and simulation 
     validated by ground and flight testing in order to augment 
     flight testing to demonstrate weapons system performance for 
     purposes of a certification under subsection (a).
       (c) Reports.--(1) The Director of Operational Test and 
     Evaluation and the head of the Ballistic Missile Defense 
     Organization shall include in the annual reports to Congress 
     of such officials plans to test adequately theater missile 
     defense interceptor programs throughout the acquisition 
     process.
       (2) As each theater missile defense system progresses 
     through the acquisition process, the officials referred to in 
     paragraph (1) shall include in the annual reports to Congress 
     of such officials an assessment of the extent to which such 
     programs satisfy the planned test objectives for such 
     programs.
       (d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the baseline 
     performance thresholds for a program are the weapon system 
     performance thresholds specified in the baseline description 
     for the weapon system established pursuant to section 
     2435(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, before the 
     program centered into the engineering and manufacturing 
     development stage.
                           Amendment No. 2409
 (Purpose: Relating to interim leases of property approved for closure 
                            or realignment)

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have an additional amendment I send to 
the desk at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The previous amendment will be set aside. The 
clerk will report this amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2409.

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

       At the appropriate place add the following:

     SEC.   . INTERIM LEASES OF PROPERTY APPROVED FOR CLOSURE OR 
                   REALIGNMENT.

       Section 2667(f) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4)(A) Notwithstanding the National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the scope of any 
     environmental impact analysis necessary to support an interim 
     lease of property under this subsection shall be limited to 
     the environmental consequences of activities authorized under 
     the proposed lease and the cumulative impacts of other past, 
     present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions during the 
     period of the proposed lease.
       ``(B) Interim leases entered into under this subsection 
     shall be deemed not to prejudice the final property disposal 
     decision, even if final property disposal may be delayed 
     until completion of the interim lease term. An interim lease 
     under this subsection shall not be entered into without prior 
     consultation with the redevelopment authority concerned.
       ``(C) The provisions of subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not 
     apply to an interim lease under this subsection if authorized 
     activities under the lease would--
       ``(i) significantly effect the quality of the human 
     environment; or
       ``(ii) irreversibly alter the environment in a way that 
     would preclude any reasonable disposal alternative of the 
     property concerned.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. This amendment will be set aside.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.


                   Amendments Nos. 2410 through 2424

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I make a similar offer on behalf of the 
managers. I file a series of amendments to be considered later under 
the agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. STEVENS] proposes amendments 
     numbered 2410 through 2424.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:
                           amendment no. 2410

       (Purpose: To limit indirect costs regarding compensation)

       Sec.   . Restriction on reimbursement of costs.
       ``(a) None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     obligated for payment on new contracts on which allowable 
     costs charged to the government include payments for 
     individual compensation at a rate in excess of $250,000 per 
     year.''


                           amendment no. 2411

       At the appropriate place, insert:
       Sec.   . The Secretary of Defense shall develop and provide 
     to the congressional defense committees an Electronic Combat 
     Master Plan to establish an optimum infrastructure for 
     electronic combat assets no later than March 31, 1996.


                           amendment no. 2412

    (Purpose: To prohibit the expenditure of funds for the pay and 
     allowances of military personnel convicted of serious crimes)

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec.   . Prohibition of pay and allowances for military 
     personnel convicted of serious crimes.
       ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of 
     the funds appropriated by this Act shall be obligated for the 
     pay or allowances of any member of the Armed Forces who has 
     been sentenced by a court-martial to any sentence that 
     includes confinement for one year or more, death, 
     dishonorable discharge, bad-conduct discharge, or dismissal 
     during any period of confinement or parole.
       ``(b) In a case involving an accused who has dependents, 
     the convening authority or other person acting under title 
     10, section 860, may waive any or all of the forfeitures of 
     pay and allowances required by subsection (a) for a period 
     not to exceed six months. Any amount of pay or allowances 
     that, except for a waiver under this subsection, 
 
[[Page S 12177]]

     would be forfeited shall be paid, as the convening authority 
     or other person taking action directs, to the dependents of 
     the accused.
       ``(c) if the sentence of a member who forfeits pay and 
     allowances under subsection (a) is set aside or disapproved 
     or, as finally approved, does not provide for a punishment 
     referred to in subsection (a), the member shall be paid the 
     pay and allowances which the member would have been paid, 
     except for the forfeiture, for the period during which the 
     forfeiture was in effect.''
                           amendment no. 2413

    (Purpose: To provide for termination of Project ELF of the Navy)

       On page 9, line 4, after ``30, 1997'' insert the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That, of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading, not more than $12,200,000 shall be available 
     only for paying the costs of terminating Project ELF''.


                           amendment no. 2414

       On page 29, before the period on line 13, insert: ``: 
     Provided further, That of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, 
     $10,000,000 shall only be available to continue program 
     activities and launch preparation efforts under the Strategic 
     Target System (STARS) program''.


                           amendment no. 2415

       On page 17, increase the amount on line 3 by $40,000,000.
       On page 10, reduce the amount on line 19 by $40,000,000.


                           amendment no. 2416

     (Purpose: To place limitations on the obligation of funds for 
               procurement of certain attack submarines)

       On page 82, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8087. (a) If, on February 18, 1996, the Secretary of 
     the Navy has not certified in writing to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     that--
       (1) the Secretary has restructured the new attack submarine 
     program to provide for--
       (A) procurement of the lead vessel under the program from 
     General Dynamics Corporation
      Electric Boat Division (hereafter in this section referred 
     to as ``Electric Boat Division'') beginning in fiscal year 
     1998 (subject to the price offered by Electric Boat 
     Division being determined fair and reasonable by the 
     Secretary),
       (B) procurement of the second vessel under the program from 
     Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company beginning in 
     fiscal year 1999 (subject to the price offered by Newport 
     News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company being determined fair 
     and reasonable by the Secretary), and
       (C) procurement of other vessels under the program under 
     one or more contracts that are entered into after competition 
     between Electric Boat Division and Newport News Shipbuilding 
     and Drydock Company for which the Secretary shall solicit 
     competitive proposals and award the contract or contracts, on 
     the basis of price, and
       (2) the Secretary has directed, as set forth in detail in 
     such certification that--
       (A) no action is to be taken to terminate or to fail to 
     extend either the existing Planning Yard contract for the 
     Trident class submarines or the existing Planning Yard 
     contract for the SSN-688 Los Angeles class submarines except 
     by reason of a breach of contract by the contractor or an 
     insufficiency of appropriations.
       (B) no action is to be taken to terminate any existing Lead 
     Design Yard contract for the SSN-21 Seawolf class submarines 
     or for the SSN-688 Los Angeles class submarines, except by 
     reason of a breach of contract by the contractor or an 
     insufficiency of appropriations.
       (C) both Electric Boat Division and Newport News 
     Shipbuilding and Drydock Company are to have access to 
     sufficient information concerning the design of the new 
     attack submarine to ensure that each is capable of 
     constructing the new attack submarine, and
       (D) no action is to be taken to impair the design, 
     engineering, construction, and maintenance competencies of 
     either Electric Boat Division or Newport News Shipbuilding 
     and Drydock Company to construct the new attack submarine,

     then, funds appropriated in title III under the heading 
     ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'' may not be obligated 
     for the SSN-21 attack submarine program or for the new attack 
     submarine program (NSSN-1 and NSSN-2).
       (b) Funds referred to in subsection (a) for procurement of 
     the lead and second vessels under the new attack submarine 
     program may not be expended during fiscal year 1996 for the 
     lead vessel under that program (other than for class design) 
     unless funds are obligated or expended during such fiscal 
     year for a contract in support of procurement of the second 
     vessel under the program.
                           amendment no. 2417

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec.  . None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense during fiscal year 1996 may be obligated or expended 
     to support or finance the activities of the Defense Policy 
     Advisory Committee on Trade.


                           Amendment no. 2418

       On page 28 line 19, insert the following before the period:
       ``: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading, $45,458,000 shall be made available for the 
     Intercooled Recuperative Turbine Engine Project.''


                           amendment no. 2419

       At the appropriate place in the bill add the following:
       Sec.  . Six months after the date of enactment of this Act 
     the General Accounting Office shall report to the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives on any changes in Department of Defense 
     commissary access policy, including providing reservists 
     additional or new privileges, and addressing the financial 
     impact on the commissaries as a result of any policy changes.


                           amendment no. 2420

       At the appropriate place in the bill add the following:
       Sec.  . None of the funds made available in this Act under 
     the heading ``Procurement of Ammunition, Army'' may be 
     obligated or expended for the procurement of munitions unless 
     such acquisition fully complies with the Competition in 
     Contracting Act.


                           amendment no. 2421

       Strike on page 49 between lines 3-12, Sec. 8024, and insert 
     in lieu therof:
       ``Sec. 8024. During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to 
     procure or acquire (1) defensive handguns unless such 
     handguns are the M9 or M11 9mm Department of Defense standard 
     handguns, or (2) offensive handguns except for the Special 
     Operations Forces: Provided, That the foregoing shall not 
     apply to handguns and ammunition for marksmanship 
     competitions.''


                           amendment no. 2422

                (Purpose: Rescission of Berthing Barges)

       On page 71, line 12 insert:
       ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 1993/1997'', 
     $32,804,000.


                           amendment no. 2423

                (Purpose: Rescission of Berthing Barges)

       On page 71, line 12 insert:
       ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 1993/1997'', 
     $32,804,000.
       ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 1994/1998'', 
     $19,911,000.


                           amendment no. 2424
                (Purpose: Rescission of Berthing Barges)

       On page 71, line 12 insert:
       ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 1994/1998'', 
     $19,911,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?


                           Amendment No. 2404

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 1 minute and 31 
seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
Senator from North Dakota and ask unanimous consent that he be included 
as an original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment that is 
offered by my colleague from Minnesota. It is important that we all 
understand what he has offered.
  What the Senator from Minnesota is saying is that we should not buy 
things for which the Pentagon has not asked. We should not spend money 
that the Department of Defense has not requested. We should not decide 
to be wild-eyed big spenders when it comes to this bill for things that 
no one has said we need.
  This bill spends $7 billion more than the Department of Defense asked 
for on trucks, planes, ships, helicopters, submarines--all for things 
for which the Pentagon has not asked.
  It is strange to me that after all of these months agonizing about 
the debt and the deficit, and saying we must tighten our belts when it 
comes to health care for seniors, education for kids from middle-income 
families, nutrition for poor kids, all of a sudden, when this bill 
comes to the floor of the Senate, not a word, not one word about the 
Federal deficit. In fact, just the opposite. We are told that we should 
spend money we do not have on things we do not need. We should spend $7 
billion more than the Secretary of Defense has asked this Congress for.
  Now, why not a word about the Federal budget deficit? What is the 
biggest threat to this country? In my judgment, debt and deficit. That 
is why I support the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota to 
cut $3.2 billion back to the President's request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired of the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  The Senator from Alaska now has 2 minutes and 54 seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I told the Senator from Minnesota if he 
needed additional time I would be happy to 

[[Page S 12178]]
yield to him. I will be happy to let him use the remainder of my time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for his 
graciousness. I think that we have had the debate and I do not need any 
more time.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to table the amendment under the same 
arrangement--we have 2 minutes on each side before the vote.
  I ask unanimous consent on that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays now, too.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I now ask the amendment be set aside until we vote on 
amendments sometime around 9.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 2403

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I earlier sent an amendment to the desk. 
I ask that it be called up at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment No. 2403.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2403.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just state for my colleagues the 
purpose for this amendment, and it is stated here on the amendment that 
I submitted. The purpose is----
  Let me first clarify, Mr. President. Is there any time agreement on 
this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time agreement at this time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. There is no time agreement. I advise the Senator from 
Alaska it will take 10 to 15 minutes on my part and whatever time the 
Senator would ask. I do not need a time agreement.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is perfectly understandable. I would be pleased to 
put one down so people would know they should come in a period of time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. We can indicate it will take no more than 30 minutes 
equally divided.
  Is that reasonable? That would get us to 9.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator will have 15 minutes and we have 5 on this 
side; and a 20-minute time limit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the purpose, as it is stated here in the 
amendment, is to reduce funding for the TOW 2B by $20 million; the 
Hellfire II by $40 million; and the CBU-87 by $30 million, which are 
munitions that have been determined by the inspector general of the 
Department of Defense as being excess to the requirements of the Armed 
Forces.
  Mr. President, this issue first came to our attention because Ed 
McGaffigan, who works on defense issues for me, was reading Defense 
Week, the July 17 edition of Defense Week. There is an article on the 
front page of that publication. By way of compliment to them, I think 
they do good work in keeping us apprised of defense issues.
  This headline says, ``IG''--or inspector general--says ``Services 
Miscount Future Munitions Needs by $15 Billion.'' The first sentence of 
the article says:

       The Army, Navy and Air Force have overstated by $15.5 
     billion their respective requirements for anti-armor 
     munitions planned for purchase between fiscal years 1996 and 
     beyond 2001, the Pentagon's Inspector General has concluded 
     in a new classified report.

  Mr. President, obviously that report, since it is classified, I am 
not in a position to go into the detail of that report, except to 
recount what the press has reported.
  But the simple fact is, we have got three types of munitions, two 
types of missiles, and then in addition to the two types of missiles, 
we have got the bombs.
  So let me just say very briefly the TOW 2B is a ground-to-ground 
missile which is intended to target tanks. The Hellfire is an air-to-
ground missile that is shot from helicopters, again targeting tanks. 
And then the CBU-87, of course, is a bomb. It is a combined-effect 
munitions bomb.
  The simple fact is, Mr. President, that none of these items were 
requested by the Department of Defense in the budget they sent to us. 
None of these items are in the so-called future-year defense plan. 
Always before in the earlier amendments that I have heard offered here 
on this bill, people say, well, maybe it is not requested for next year 
but it is requested for a future year. None of these are requested for 
any future year, even 6 years out. None of these are needed, according 
to the inspector general of the Department of Defense.
  So, let me just briefly say that the inspector general has done a 
study of this in depth. Congress received that study on June 29. And 
the report summarizes a whole series of ongoing work that the inspector 
general has done. The report essentially says that each of the 
Services, especially the Army, but each of them, has or is planning to 
have more munitions than it needs to carry out its responsibilities 
under the two-major-regional-contingency scenario which is presently 
what we are planning for in the Bottom-Up Review.
  The reason is that the Army was planning to fight the war by itself 
and planning to kill every piece of armor in both theaters in these two 
regional contingencies.
  Other Services were also planning to fight the war essentially by 
themselves. When the capabilities of the other Services are taken into 
account, we are planning to buy much more in munitions than we need. 
But even the Department of Defense is not planning to buy these. They 
did not request them. Once we saw this article, we wrote a letter to 
the inspector general, on July 27, to ask whether the add-ons in the 
bill, which, as I said before several times, were not requested, 
whether those add-ons were consistent with the inspector general's 
findings.
  I received an answer on the 2d of August. Let me read the second 
paragraph of that letter to you, Mr. President. This is the inspector 
general of the Department of Defense saying--this is a quotation:

       Based on use of the fiscal year 1996 requirements data, the 
     Army and Air Force inventories of TOW 2B missiles and CBU-87 
     bombs significantly exceed the amounts of those two munitions 
     that the Services project they would use in two major 
     regional contingencies. The Army inventory of Hellfire II 
     missiles will equal the amount of munitions that would be 
     expended in the contingencies after the Army received the 
     missiles currently on contract. Further, the Services have 
     significant quantities of previous configurations of the TOW 
     and Hellfire missile systems, as well as significant 
     quantities of cluster bombs that were replaced by CBU-87 
     bombs. We are not aware of any compelling need to procure 
     more of those weapons than the Department requested for 
     fiscal year 1996.

  Mr. President, the inspector general says they are not aware of any 
compelling need to procure what is in this bill and what my amendment 
would propose to delete.
  Mr. President, I cannot think of a clearer example for this Senate to 
deal with than the one that is presented by this amendment. It is a 
question of whether the Senate is willing to save $90 million of 
taxpayer money by refusing to spend it on excess munitions that the 
Pentagon says they do not need, that the inspector general of the 
Pentagon says they do not need, that nobody has requested, and that 
have been added into this bill by the subcommittee as they marked up 
the bill.
  I think the only responsible course is to adopt the amendment which I 
am offering here and to cancel the planned expenditure of this $90 
million, Mr. President. The defense bill cannot be seen by the American 
people as a jobs bill. We cannot just look to which Senator has some 
defense contractor that they want to do a favor for. We do not need 
these munitions. There is no justification for buying them. We should 
not use hard-earned taxpayer dollars to purchase these munitions. And I 
know of no argument to the contrary.
  Mr. President, I ask how much of my time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 7 minutes 35 
seconds.

[[Page S 12179]]

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me reserve the remainder of my time 
and allow the Senator from Alaska, or anybody else, to respond, if they 
would like.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska controls 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in our meetings, and as the Senator from 
Hawaii indicated, we met with each one of the Service chiefs. They 
highlighted their priorities. Munitions was the top priority in terms 
of readiness. This has been proven to be a very effective munition. It 
was vital in the gulf war. The systems were fully included in the 
authorization bill from the Armed Services Committee, and we have 
followed precisely the authorization contained in that bill. The 
Pentagon has not conveyed to us any objection to these items. To the 
contrary, we understood that they were sought by the Service chiefs.
  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely correct. We have been 
contacted by the acquisition people in the Army, and they are fully 
supportive--for one reason; they support $5 million of this request 
because of the need for what they call a cold weather fix.
  Some of these weapons had been damaged as a result of storage and 
cold weather, and there is a retrofit required for that.
  The other $15 million they believe is essential for the replenishment 
of those that eventually have to be retired. It is also important to 
note that the Army will be providing TOW 2B's to the U.S. Marine Corps. 
While the focus is on the Army, we have to remember some of these 
missiles will be going to the U.S. Marine Corps.
  As the Senator from Alaska said, this is the premier tank killer in 
the inventory. There is not anything like it. It is the best in the 
world. Clearly, since it is the desire to use the $20 million as 
indicated, I believe the committee's position ought to be supported.
  I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 3 minutes and 5 
seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I say to my friend, I am prepared to 
yield back the remainder of my time, but I leave it to the Senator to 
finish his time if he wishes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just take another few minutes to 
conclude my argument in favor of this amendment, which I do think is a 
very straightforward amendment.
  The Senator from Arizona says he has been contacted by acquisition 
people in the Army who favor procurement of more of these weapons. I am 
not familiar with who might have contacted him. All I know is the 
Department of Defense did not request them; the Inspector General of 
the Department of Defense says they are not needed. There is no 
indication that we received in the Armed Services Committee that they 
are in any way needed. I grant you they are authorized in the 
authorization bill, and that is just as egregious a mistake as 
appropriating the money for them is in this bill.
  I think there is really no argument that I know of that any of the 
Services feel they have an insufficient quantity of the TOW 2B or the 
Hellfire or this bomb. So I think, clearly, the need is not there.
  Let me also say, I do not disagree with anything that the Senator 
from Alaska or the Senator from Arizona said about the value of these 
weapons. There is no dispute about that. They are excellent missiles. 
They are excellent bombs. The only question is, when are we going to 
quit buying them? How many do we have to have in excess? How big does 
the inventory have to be before we finally say, ``Fine, we have plenty, 
we have enough to fight two regional conflicts at the same time,'' 
which is a fairly major statement in and of itself.
  Mr. President, at some point, we have to be honest with the American 
people and say, ``As stewards of your tax money, we are going to only 
spend that money on things that are needed.'' These are not needed. 
That is the simple fact of it. They are not requested. They are not 
needed. They are not anywhere in this 6-year defense plan that the 
Department of Defense has sent to us. As I say, I cannot go into much 
more detail about what is in the classified report that we have on this 
issue from the Inspector General. Quite frankly, I think it is 
classified because the facts contained in it would probably be an 
embarrassment to the Department. For whatever reason, it is classified.
  We do have one page which is unclassified from the report. Let me 
just make reference to that. It says in here:

       The Services' processes for determining quantitative 
     requirements for munitions to defeat armored targets needed 
     improvement.

  There is a euphemism if you ever heard a euphemism, Mr. President. 
Defense Week says that the IG report says that they have overestimated 
their need by $15 billion. This unclassified page from the report says 
that their ways of determining quantitative requirements needed 
improvement.
  I agree, they do need improvement.
  They say here that the Services' processes needed improvement because

       * * * the Services used incorrect quantities of threat 
     systems that were in the hands of potential enemies.

  That is, they have misassessed potential threats. They say that their 
processes need improvement because of their uncoordinated shares of 
threat systems that each Service would be responsible for defeating.
  To put that in plain English, Mr. President, we had each of the 
Services preparing to fight the war by themselves. When the Department 
of Defense finally stepped in and said, ``Let's audit this situation, 
let's look at what the whole inventory is,'' they said, ``We do not 
need the Army to have enough to fight the next war, and the Air Force 
enough to fight the next war, and the Navy enough to fight the next 
war. We just need enough to fight the next war.'' So that is basically 
the conclusion.
  I will cite one other statement in this unclassified page from the 
classified report. It says:

       As reported in our separate audit reports to the Army, the 
     Navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps, the above 
     conditions resulted in the Services overstating their 
     quantitative requirements for antiarmor munitions by more 
     than $15.5 billion.

  Mr. President, it is unconscionable for us to sit here and add more 
money for munitions that are not requested, that are not needed, that 
we have excess inventories of already. And that is precisely what this 
bill calls for today.
  My amendment will correct that. It will save the taxpayers of the 
country $90 million. I know $90 million does not sound like a lot of 
money in Washington, but it is a reasonable amount of money for most 
Americans. And most Americans would say, ``If you don't need to spend 
that $90 million for additional missiles and bombs of this type, then 
why should you spend it?'' And that is basically the point of my 
amendment. I hope very much my colleagues will support the amendment.
  If the Senator from Alaska is ready to yield back his time, then I 
will yield back mine.
  Mr. President, I address a question, if I can, to the Senator from 
Alaska and ask if we can have the same agreement with regard to the 2 
minutes of explanation on both sides, once we do have a few Senators, 
if he is to stack the votes.
  Mr. STEVENS. That will be my request, and I am prepared to yield back 
the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. STEVENS. I make the motion to table the amendment on the same 
basis as before, 2 minutes on each side. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that 
amendment be set aside so we can proceed to Senator Harkin's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2410

  Mr. HARKIN. I call up amendment No. 2410 and ask for its 
consideration. 

[[Page S 12180]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself and Mrs. 
     Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 2410.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I say to the manager of the bill, this is 
the one that was agreed upon.
  Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator wishes to make a brief explanation, we 
are pleased to accept this amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN Mr. President, this amendment maintains for another year 
the existing provision placed into law last year as a part of the 
fiscal year 1995 Defense appropriations bill. It provides that the 
Federal Government share of the cost of a company's operation should 
not include its share of anyone's pay in excess of $250,000. It does 
not stop a company from paying an executive more than $250,000. There 
are many costs that are not allowable: hunting lodges, alcoholic 
beverages, et-cetera, perhaps 50 disallowable items.
  This amendment says that in these difficult budget times, one of the 
limits should be on employee compensation over $250,000.
  In an analysis done by DOD several years ago, it showed that DOD 
alone very often paid more than a million dollars for just DOD's share 
of one executive's work.
  Now, we see that the Pentagon may be picking up $31 million in 
bonuses and other benefits to top executives of Lockheed and Martin-
Marietta because of the deals made regarding their merger. Why should 
the Federal Government be paying $31 million of this $90 million cost. 
If the stockholders are willing to make those payments, that is one 
thing. For the taxpayers to make them when we are cutting so many 
needed programs would be outrageous.
  Let me say it again. Children are not getting the basics and the 
Defense Department may pay millions in gold-laden gifts to the 
executives. That should not be a taxpayer's expenses
  Our budget are getting tighter. I have often fought for fairly small 
sums for what I view as very necessary Government expenditures as we 
all have. And, our ability to fund programs needed to provide for needy 
children, the disabled and elderly is being cut to the bone.
  I urge that the amendment be agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this amendment will cap taxpayer 
reimbursement for the salaries of defense contractor executives at 
$250,000 per year for contracts consummated in fiscal year 1996. It 
will extend a similar provision contained in the fiscal year 1995 
Defense Appropriation Act.
  I began investigating this issue after hearing reports of 
multimillion-dollar bonuses awarded as a result of the Lockheed-Martin 
Marietta merger. As a result of that merger, $92 million in bonuses 
will be awarded--$31 million of which will be paid by the taxpayers.
  I think it is wrong that corporate executives make so much money at a 
time when their employees are struggling just to make ends meet. What 
makes it even worse in this case is that these multimillion-dollar 
bonuses were given as a reward for a business deal resulting in 12,000 
layoffs nationwide.
  So the taxpayers buy rich executives $31 million worth of champagne 
and caviar, while laid-off defense workers struggle just to feed their 
families. I think the defense industry employees--in California and 
across their Nation--are the ones who deserve a bonus. The CEO's and 
multimillionaire executives are doing just fine.
  As I investigated this issue further, I discovered that the problem 
was not limited to mergers or bonuses. Top defense industry executives 
routinely earn more than $1 million per year--sometimes even more than 
$5 million. And the taxpayers pick up most of the tab.
  This amendment sets a $250,000 maximum for compensation that is 
reimbursable by the taxpayers. It applies to all forms of compensation 
including bonuses and salary.
  It is important to understand that my bill sets no limit on the 
compensation that an executive can receive. That is an issue best left 
to the stockholders and directors of each company. If the stockholders 
believe that the Lockheed-Martin merger was such a fine business 
decision that they want to award their CEO a $9 million bonus--or for 
that matter a $90 million bonus--that is fine with me. All my 
legislation would do is stop them from passing the check to the 
taxpayers.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this was the subject of the bill last 
year. We had several comments at the time. I am not sure the House is 
willing to accept it. We will take it to conference. I ask for a vote 
on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2410) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2401

(Purpose: To strike $70,000,000 appropriated for Research, Development, 
 Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, for support technologies/follow-on 
technologies advanced development, specifically provided for the Space-
                          Based Laser Program)

  Mr. HARKIN. 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 Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2401.
       On page 29, line 12, strike out ``$9,196,784,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$9,126,784,000''.

  Mr. STEVENS. Would the Senator consider a 20-minute time agreement, 
equally divided?
  Mr. HARKIN. Make it 30. If I do not use it all, I will yield my time.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that there be 15 minutes on the 
Senator's side and 5 minutes on our side on this amendment before we 
have action on or in relation to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator will yield, that means we should be 
voting sometime around 5 minutes after 9. It will be my intention at 
that time to proceed in order to call up the amendments that have been 
stacked.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, I have one other amendment 
after this. We can do it quickly. It will be shorter than this one.
  Mr. STEVENS. I will withdraw the request at this time, and we will 
see what happens. We should vote around 9:15.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, well, it is back again, and I am not 
talking about ``Freddy from Elm Street,'' I am talking about star wars. 
Let me point out that we had a $7 billion add-on on this, as you know, 
more than what the Pentagon wanted. The amendment offered by Senator 
Kohl, as you know, last week failed on a 51 to 48 vote to take out all 
of that $7 billion add-on. But it is my opinion that we should at least 
cut some of the most egregious add-ons, and perhaps the most egregious 
add-on is the one that puts money in for a star wars weapons system 
called the space-based laser.
  I am talking about star wars, Mr. President, a system of at least 12 
space stations upon each of which is mounted a huge laser weapon. This 
laser is powered by combustion of hydrogen and fluorine. It is a 
chemical laser. It is not an x-ray laser, not a neutral particle-beam 
laser, and it is not a space-based kinetic kill vehicle. It is a 
concentrated beam of light.
  This laser beam of concentrated light is designed to produce 2.2 
million watts of energy. It is this Nation's most powerful and, by far, 
most expensive military laser on the design mode. Yet, it is obviously 
not completely developed, experts say. The needed power level for this 
weapon to work is somewhere between 5 and 10 million watts, or by a 
factor of 5 over what the design is of this one.
  The light produced by this laser is not visible to the human eye but 
is in the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
  This infrared light is effective only in space. It can be used only 
in space because the infrared light can penetrate the Earth's 
atmosphere in space only to a height of 5 or 6 miles above the ground.
  You can think of it as a giant, deadly flashlight, able to zap up to 
100 missiles with the amount of fuel on board, or zap a maximum of 5 to 
10 theater-range 

[[Page S 12181]]
missiles launched simultaneously, or maybe zap 15 to 20 ICBM's launched 
simultaneously. To collect the light from each laser, there is a 
reflective mirror of more than 35 feet in diameter. To give an idea of 
the size of that, it would be just about the size perhaps to fit in 
this Senate Chamber.
  This mirror, which collects the laser beam and focuses, is flexible. 
So you have to think of this laser as a flashlight held in one position 
steadily, pointing into a large mirror. The mirror can pivot to reflect 
the light from the laser toward the target. So the mirror collects the 
light, focuses the light into a beam, and points the beam to a target 
hundreds or thousands of miles away and, of course, that target is 
moving.
  Originally, this mirror had very heavy systems of cooling water to 
prevent the extreme heat of the laser from shattering the reflective 
material. But one item developed in the last few years was coatings 
that make the mirrors so reflective that they need no cooling.
  In fact, these reflective coatings for the mirror were actually 
tested almost exactly a year ago.
  Daniel R. Wildt, an advanced systems manager at TRW, who works on the 
space-based laser, was quoted in the New York Times as saying about the 
new reflective coating, ``What this means is immense weight savings. It 
is a breakthrough.'' The Times article goes on to say that it would 
take one or two large rockets to loft each laser battle station into 
orbit. And a dozen or so of these would be needed. Experts say such a 
complex of 12 orbiting battle stations might cost about $30 billion to 
$48 billion.
  Mr. President, if this all sounds kind of familiar, yes, we have 
talked about it before, back during the time when President Reagan was 
in office. We talked about putting all of these battle stations up and 
all of these lasers and they are going to zap all these missiles. We 
finally got off of that. But it is still alive. That snake has not been 
killed yet, and it is coming back again. That is what this amendment 
seeks to do, to take out that $70 million.
  Think about it as just the first step toward a $30 billion 
expenditure of money--$30 billion that we do not have, to add to the 
national debt.
  Are we serious about committing this kind of money to a weapons 
system that may or may not work?
  The Armed Services Committee in its report notes that of the Pentagon 
ballistic missile requests, only 6 percent is allocated to advanced 
follow-on technology development.
  The committee then proceeds to recommend that every bit of this $70 
million that goes to support technology should go into the space-based 
laser program. I find it a little hard to believe that of all of the 
support technologies, all of it is shuffled into space-based laser. 
Nothing for any other kind of program is given an increase--just this. 
Concerning the space-based laser, the committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to ``reinvigorate this program and to ensure that sufficient 
funds are provided in the outyears to continue a robust effort.''
  To those who think this may be a little bit, this $70 million, for a 
little experiment, read the language. This is the first step, and next 
year even more and more toward the very thing that this Congress said 
no to over 10 years ago, even during the height of the cold war. But 
now that the Soviet Union is no threat, well, we are still going to go 
ahead with it.
  Well, my amendment would delete this $70 million. Again, I do not 
think it is just $70 million we are talking about. If we proceed, we 
are talking about starting down that road of spending $30 billion for 
space-based lasers.
  Well, I have five reasons why I think this is a bad idea.
  First, the $30 billion cost is way too much for us to afford. We 
simply cannot afford it, given the kinds of threats that our country 
faces today.
  Second, space-based lasers are not cost effective. They are not cost 
effective, No. 1, because the threat from the Soviet Union has all but 
disappeared. Long-range Chinese missiles are few in number and not 
considered threatening. Only rogue nations can constitute the present 
threat. They may or may not have the capability of launching long-range 
weapons, but there are other ways to get nuclear warheads into the 
United States, such as smuggling them in, or by a cruise missile, or on 
a submarine. That would be much more likely for a rogue nation than 
launching a long-range ballistic missile.
  The intelligence community cannot identify threats of long-range 
ballistic missiles to the continental United States within the next 10 
to 15 years. A lot can be done in those years to provide other 
safeguards.
  The third reason this is a bad spending of money is that space-based 
laser systems violate article V of the 1972 ABM Treaty. This article V 
specifically bans any antiballistic weapon from being based in space, 
period. That is what doomed it before. And yet, I cannot imagine that 
right now we are going down that road one more time.
  The fourth reason this is a bad expenditure of money is the space-
based laser just may not work. There are a lot of problems of great 
technological difficulty.
  The tests of the chemical laser to date have consisted of only tests 
on the ground, with the laser held in position and not free to move as 
in space. The laser has only been fired in very short bursts. 
Components act differently in space. An enormous ground-based complex 
that is used to fire the laser is yet to be packaged into a much 
smaller space-based system.
  The Large Aperture Mirror Program and the Large Obstacle Segment have 
been claimed to be easily built and assembled in space, but this is not 
true because the Hubble telescope has shown that large mirrors can have 
flaws and are not totally testable before operation in space.
  After only a few seconds of firing of this chemical laser, the entire 
space-based laser battle station will be so violently shaken by the 
chemical reaction used to make the laser beam that it would no longer 
be aligned for multiple firings.
  Again, this has been the dream of some Star Wars' enthusiasts for a 
long time. I think they saw too many of the Star Wars movies. I like 
Star Wars movies. I happen to be a science fiction buff myself. I read 
science fiction. I like those movies.
  Somebody down there thinks we can build those things now that send 
out the beam of light and zaps things. Theoretically, it is possible 
and maybe sometime 200 or 300 years from now, God forbid, maybe the 
weapons will be used. Now it is a ridiculous waste of money to try to 
build this space-based laser system.
  Using a much smaller system, the Pentagon has shown that missile 
targets can be acquired and tracked from space, and that a small laser 
can be fired accurately. The problem is complicated enormously by the 
size and the multiplicity of targets in using this big mirror in space. 
Millions of lines of computer code must be written. One little mistake 
and that would spell the end.
  The Star LITE option test has shown that the key components can fit 
together, but it does not compare with constructing and assembling, in 
space, this huge system.
  Mr. President, it is not worthy, not worth $70 million, to continue 
down the road of building and trying to test a space-based laser 
system. It is too costly, violates the ABM Treaty, and it is not cost 
effective, considering the threats that face us in the next 10-15 
years.
  Mr. President, there really is one final argument why this 
expenditure is so ridiculous. In the beginning of my remarks I 
mentioned that there had been designed a reflective coating material 
that they will put on this big mirror so you do not have to use all the 
cooling system, so when the laser beam hits the mirror and is 
reflected, this reflective mirror will not heat up as much.
  They have designed that and tested it. They say now we have solved 
the problems of all the weight that goes on in this big mirror in 
space. Well, Mr. President, it is only a matter of time before anyone 
who wishes to launch an ICBM will just coat that ICBM with the same 
reflective material so the laser hits the mirror--assuming they have it 
fixed up--that mirror, thousands of miles away, sends the beam down to 
the missile with the same reflective material, and the beam just 
bounces. 

[[Page S 12182]]

  It is the same old story. It has been true since time immemorial. 
Build an offensive weapon system, costs a lot of money, and someone can 
usually build a deterrent or something to stop that at much less money. 
That is true here.
  So I think we ought to save the $70 million this year and save us 
from once again going down that road of spending $30 to $48 billion for 
this space-based laser system.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. There are points to be made in a program that the United 
States has invested over $1 billion over the last decade. It is one of 
the most successful programs that has ever been run by the Defense 
Department in terms of meeting schedule and cost rules.
  In fact, the GAO has indicated that it has met every one of the 
technical milestones. I really do not think anybody has criticized this 
program on technical grounds. In fact, the Senator from Iowa has 
discussed some of the really unique and highly technical aspects of the 
program.
  I am sure he would agree that there have been great strides made in 
the development of this kind of a program, although he has other 
objections to the expenditure of this money.
  In my view, Mr. President, it is important to have a very highly 
leveraged, highly technical kind of program like this. We will not 
deploy this kind of a program, perhaps ever, but at least not in the 
foreseeable future.
  It is important to have this kind of a program, the only one of its 
kind, the only directed energy program, that still exists in our 
arsenal, as one of those hedges. That is frankly what this program is 
at this time.
  The 70 million in funding here does not provide any kind of 
deployment decision or anything of that sort. We are just in the 
research stage. It keeps that research alive. So it would be a tragedy 
to kill this program after the amount of money that has been spent and 
the technology that has been developed.
  Quickly, to respond to the arguments made by the Senator from Iowa. 
The notion that it will cost $30 billion to deploy--of course, nobody 
is talking about deployment. We are not close to a deployment decision. 
This is simply ongoing technology. I do not think that is an argument 
against the expenditure of this research money.
  Second, it is not cost effective. It is too premature to evaluate 
that. We all know that a boost phase intercept is the way to go. We 
would like to have that. This is the only boost phase intercept program 
we are talking about now, and it is not something that ought to be 
eliminated. We would be left with nothing, in that event.
  To the third argument that it is an ABM Treaty violation, I know the 
Senator from Iowa knows there is nothing in the ABM Treaty that 
precludes us from developing or from researching, weapons of this sort. 
Obviously, we would face that question if and when we got ready to 
demonstrate or deploy it. We are not at that stage for many, many 
years.
  The fourth argument, it may not work. Again, Mr. President, no one 
has ever criticized this program on technical grounds. The GAO, as I 
said, has said it is one of the best run programs, and we are a long 
way from having exactly what we need to actually deploy this kind of a 
program.
  Finally, to the idea of the Senator from Iowa that the Russians or 
somebody else could make the same kind of reflective material on their 
missiles, their ICBM's, and defeat the laser, he indicated he was a 
reader of science fiction, and that is pretty good science fiction, but 
nobody figured how to do that.
  You have weight considerations, heat considerations. The Russians 
have not even discovered the same kind of material yet, so that is 
something, obviously, for the scientists to think about, but not a 
reason for us not to expend the money.
  As a matter of fact, it is probably a reason to do continued 
research, to ensure that we could defeat any kind of similar research.
  This is a very good program. We are only talking about research 
money. We are a long way from any decision to deploy. It is the kind of 
program we need as a hedge against the kind of presence that may exist 
now or in the future. I hope the committee's position is supported.
  Mr. INOUYE. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. President, I realize I cannot say much in a minute, but just to 
remind ourselves, about 30 years ago as a result of the debate of this 
nature the Congress appropriated a few dollars, a few million dollars, 
and as a result came up with this business called laser.
  Up until then, lasers were just theory. Since then, the laser has 
been helpful in medicine, in mathematics--it has been a boon for 
mankind.
  I just hope that we will not have to use this in warfare. As I have 
indicated, as others have, we have not arrived at the millennium, so 
sadly we must prepare ourselves that if such a time should come, we are 
prepared.
  This is for research; it is not to build the systems. I hope that my 
colleagues will oppose this amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is there time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 47 seconds and the 
Senator from Iowa has 2 minutes and 27 seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. I will use my 47 seconds by saying I hope everyone keeps 
in mind we are talking about a question of pursuing a promising 
technology.
  This is strictly research. There is no money procurement. This is 
strictly the use of a facility that costs us $1 billion, and this is 
$70 million to see if we can demonstrate some of the technology--
nothing in space. It is all on the ground as far as this phase is 
concerned.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will not take all my time. I will just 
ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point an article from the 
New York Times stating that, ``From fantasy to facts, space-based laser 
nearly ready to fly.'' It says:

       ``Like it or hate it, this is reality,'' a weapons expert 
     says. ``This is not theoretical.''

  I am telling you, they are going down the road. We are going to build 
this. I have nothing bad to say about lasers. They are used in medicine 
and everything else. That is not what this is about. This is about 
building a space-based laser. It is going to cost billions of dollars, 
putting battle stations in space. We have been through this debate in 
the past and I do not think any more needs to be said about it. We 
should put our money someplace else.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time, and I ask unanimous 
consent to have the entire article printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      From Fantasy to Fact: Space-Based Laser Nearly Ready to Fly

                         (By William J. Broad)

       It's back. Adored by military contractors and lambasted by 
     civilian skeptics, fired into the political stratosphere by 
     President Ronald Reagan and dragged back to earth by the 
     Clinton Administration, ``Star Wars'' is prominent again as 
     the newly empowered Republicans began to push for deployment 
     of a national system of antimissile defense and gird for 
     ideological warfare with Democrats on the topic of placing 
     arms in the heavens.
       Surprisingly, this turn in the nation's 35-year, love-hate 
     relationship with antimissile research finds the technology 
     less speculative than before. For the first time, it is 
     mature enough that one class of advanced weapons could be put 
     into space relatively quickly, a fact that is likely to 
     electrify this round of the antimissile debate.
       The weapon is the chemical laser, which gets its energy 
     from the combustion of fuels similar to those in rocket 
     engines. Though much of its energy is lost as heat, 
     significant amounts can be extracted by mirrors and resonant 
     chambers, emerging as a concentrated beam of light that in 
     theory can flash across space to zap speeding missiles 
     thousands of miles away.
       In particular, the new maturity centers on a chemical laser 
     known as Alpha, which the Federal Government has quietly been 
     developing for more than 15 years at a cost of about $1 
     billion. In a scheduled valley near San Juan Capistrano, 
     Calif., the sprawling test site for Alpha includes a 50-foot 
     high chamber that mimics the vacuum of space.
       Angelo M. Codevilla, a senior research fellow at the Hoover 
     Institution at Stanford University in California and a former 
     staffer on the Senate Intelligence Committee who helped get 
     Alpha started in 1978, said the device was all but ready for 
     deployment in orbit to defend the United States.
       ``Like it or hate it, this is real,'' said Mr. Codevilla, 
     who would like to see a dozen or so laser battle stations 
     circling the earth. ``It's not theoretical. It's not some 
     scientist fantasizing about X-ray lasers.''
       But critics deride the whole idea, saying a fleet
        of Alpha type weapons in orbit would violate the 
     Antiballistic Missile Treaty 

[[Page S 12183]]
     which was signed in 1972 by the United States and the Soviet Union and 
     bars the deployment of antimissile arms in space. The 
     treaty allows the orbital testing of research lasers as 
     long as they are too weak to shoot down long-range 
     missiles. But critics say Alpha, even as a research tool, 
     is so powerful it would fail this legal test and violate 
     the treaty, thus probably touching off a political storm 
     if testing were to advance into space.
       And full-blown battle stations, critics assert, are dubious 
     since they would fail to protect the United States 
     completely.
       ``It's either too much or not enough,'' said John E. Pike 
     who is in charge of space policy for the Federation of 
     American Scientists a private group based in Washington. 
     Ground-based interceptors are better for knocking out short-
     range missiles, he said, and space lasers, at best would be 
     leaky shields against a concerted attack at long-range 
     missiles.
       ``Imperfect defenses are worthless,'' Mr. Pike added, 
     because the destructiveness of a single nuclear blast is so 
     great.
       Right or wrong, good or bad, Alpha is unique in the 
     antimissile world by virtue of its staying power and steady 
     evolution. It get started before the 1983 ``Star Wars'' 
     speech in which President Reagan called for work on a way of 
     rendering enemy missiles ``impotent and obsolete,'' and it 
     survived the program's subsequent ups and downs.
       In 1993, the Clinton Administration declared Star Wars 
     dead, in a move that was largely symbolic. Some programs were 
     cut back, but the antimissile research is still being funded 
     at about $3 billion a year, bringing its total cost for the 
     decade to about $35 billion.
       Alpha and allied programs, their budgets now tight, got 
     enough money to keep evolving and growing through the rise 
     and fall of a host of futuristic alternatives for space 
     armaments like X-ray lasers, neutral particle beams and 
     space-based kinetic kill vehicles. In short, Alpha is the 
     death ray that refused to die.
       ``This program has survived lots and lots of turmoil 
     because it has a very high potential payoff,'' said Daniel R. 
     Wildt, an advanced systems manager at TRW Inc., Alpha's main 
     contractor, in an interview.
       The principal allure of chemical lasers is that they 
     require no electricity drawing their power instead from 
     simple chemical reactions. Alpha's lasing action is produced 
     by the combustion of hydrogen and fluorine,
      a toxic, corrosive, yellowish gas that is the most reactive 
     of the elements. To avoid handling problems, the fluorine 
     is made instants before combustion in a precursor reaction 
     of nitrogen triflouride, deuterium and helium.
       Alpha got a slow start as Congress fought over its fate and 
     allowed only limited funding for design studies. Mr. Reagan's 
     1983 speech opened the budgetary floodgates, and contractors 
     broke ground for the Alpha test site in 1984.
       The first full-scale ground tests of the lightweight laser 
     began under tight security in December 1987, when gas was 
     released into the combustion chamber but not ignited. An 
     accident delayed the first firing until April 1989. The 
     explosive zap came after a tense two-day countdown that 
     required synchronization among a maze of fuel tanks, pipes, 
     pumps, valves and switches, similar in some respects to a 
     space-shuttle countdown.
       The laser's beam of concentrated light is designed to 
     produce 2.2 million watts of energy, making it the nation's 
     most powerful military laser, experts outside the Government 
     say. Officially, the power of the beam is secret, with 
     contractors saying only that it is not enough to melt metal 
     and that the energy intensity at the core of the laser is 
     several times that of the surface of the sun.
       To date, Alpha has been fired 11 times, most recently in 
     August.
       The main challenge with Alpha was to turn chemical-laser 
     technology that had been proven on the ground into a device 
     light enough to be launched into space. Thus, the laser is 
     largely aluminum.
       Among the laser's heavier components were its mirrors, 
     which had ponderous systems of cooling water to prevent 
     extreme heat from shattering them. One item developed over 
     the past few years and tested during the August firing were 
     coatings that make mirrors so reflective they need no 
     cooling.
       ``What that means is immense weight savings,'' said Mr. 
     Wildt. ``It's a breakthrough.'' Lots of uncooled mirrors are 
     now planned for Alpha and its affiliated systems.
       Currently, the laser is being linked
        to a system of mirrors known as LAMP, for Large Advanced 
     Mirror Program, its biggest circular mirror is 13-feet in 
     diameter and the LAMP apparatus is housed in a separate 
     vacuum chamber at the San Juan Capistrano site. LAMP is to 
     take the raw Alpha beam and simulate how it could be 
     focused and directed across space to hit enemy missiles.
       Dr. Grant A. Hosack, who is in charge of laser programs at 
     TRW, said budget cuts would delay the first firing of the 
     integrated system until 1997. And retrenchments forced the 
     cancellation of plans to keep firing and testing Alpha in the 
     interim.
       ``We've had to cut back on manpower, too,'' Dr. Hosack 
     said, ``We've a lot of blood and guts in this. When we see 
     the cuts so deep, it really hurts.
       TRW officials said that if money were no impediment about 
     five years would be needed to prepare a laser weapon for 
     deployment in space. Power levels would have to rise to about 
     5 million to 10 million watts from the current 2 million 
     watts, private experts say. In theory, given the optic 
     breakthroughs and weight reductions, it would take one or two 
     large rockets to loft a laser battle station into orbit.
       Operating at a wavelength of 2.7 microns, which is in the 
     infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum and invisible 
     to the human eye, an Alpha-type weapon would be effective 
     only in space and would be able to penetrate into the earth's 
     atmosphere no deeper than five or six miles above the ground.
       ``We can't start fires,'' said Dr. Hosack, ``We kill the 
     missiles as soon as they penetrate the cloud tops.''
       Promising to speed this kind of work is the resurgence of 
     the Republicans, who have vigorously backed Star Wars from 
     the start. Moreover, the Republican ``Contract With 
     America,'' a manifesto developed by Representative Newt 
     Gingrich of Georgia and signed by more than 300 Republican 
     House candidates before the election landslide in November, 
     explicitly calls for the rapid deployment of antimissile 
     arms.
       The National Security Restoration Act, one of the 
     contract's ten proposals, says the Defense Department should 
     ``develop for deployment at the earliest possible date a 
     cost-effective, operational anti-ballistic missile defense 
     system to protect the U.S. against ballistic missile 
     threats.'' Republicans have pledged to bring the bills up for 
     a vote in the first 100 days of the new Congress, which 
     starts in January.
       The contract does not specify
        whether the defense should be based on the ground or in 
     space, but analysts note that the Republicans have always 
     tended to back space-based systems. And Star Wars 
     advocates argue that only a space-based system would be 
     ``cost effective,'' as called for in the contract.
       ``There's not enough money in the budget for anything 
     else,'' said Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., a Pentagon official in 
     the Reagan Administration who now directs the Center for 
     Security Policy, a private Washington group.
       Experts say a dozen or so space-based laser battle stations 
     might cost $50 billion or more.
       Critics contend such huge expenditures are foolish since 
     antimissile systems are all but useless against many of the 
     kinds of attacks that might threaten the United States now 
     that the cold war has ended. For instance, terrorists armed 
     with nuclear weapons would never entrust a warhead to a 
     rocket but would most likely smuggle it into a major city, 
     following in the footsteps of the World Trade Center bombers.
       ``Missiles and nuclear weapons are proliferating,'' Mr. 
     Codevilla said. ``It's best to defend ourselves as the 
     technology allows. As de Gaulle used to say, `The future 
     lasts a long time.' ''
       Both foes and friends of space lasers agree that such 
     weapons run afoul of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty. 
     Boosters of the treaty say it is a bulwark against a renewal 
     of the nuclear arms race and should be preserved at all 
     costs, while its detractors say it has outlived its 
     usefulness.
       ``If I'm right,'' said Mr. Gaffney, the former Pentagon 
     official, ``we've got a problem that's not going to be 
     resolved by arms-control agreements. We need to defend 
     ourselves.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on the basis of the previous agreement, I 
ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes on each side prior to the vote on 
the motion to table the Harkin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to table the Harkin amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that be set aside so we might hear 
from the Senator from Iowa.
  Does the Senator have another amendment?
  Mr. HARKIN. I have another amendment. This one will not be as long.
  Mr. DOLE. How long?
  Mr. HARKIN. Can I have 10 minutes on my side?
  Mr. STEVENS. Which one is it?
  Mr. HARKIN. This is the ASAT.
  Mr. STEVENS. May we have an agreement, Mr. President, that the 
Senator can have 10 minutes on his side, 5 minutes on this side, prior 
to a motion to table?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2402

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment 2402.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2402.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, my amendment will eliminate the $30 
million added to the Pentagon request to fund the tactical 
antisatellite weapons program.

[[Page S 12184]]

  This is one of the most unnecessary programs that this committee has 
ever pulled from its pork barrel.
  Mr. President, my amendment eliminates funding for the Army's kinetic 
energy antisatellite [ASAT] weapon program.
  The Army itself tried to cancel this cold war weapon for several 
years.
  The Bush administration continued the program, even though the 
Pentagon did not want it.
  The Clinton administration has zeroed the program. But the Senate 
Armed Services Committee has included $30 million to keep this cold war 
weapon alive.
  My amendment would eliminate this wasteful spending on an unnecessary 
weapon, and save the taxpayer's money.
  Proponents of ASAT weapons argue that if we build weapons to shoot 
down airplanes, why not build a weapon to shoot down space satellites?
  Mr. President, there is a big difference between battles in the air 
and battles in outer space.
  The debris of the battle will fall to the ground immediately after an 
air battle, and commercial air liners can still fly after hostilities 
end.
  Not so in outer space.
  The collision of one ASAT kinetic kill vehicle with one enemy 
satellite would create thousands of pieces of space junk.
  The space battle debris continues to orbit the earth at speeds of 
17,000 miles per hour.
  At lower altitudes, from 100 to 200 miles up, air molecules will 
gradually slow the debris until it falls and burns up on reentry to the 
atmosphere.
  Above 300 miles up, space debris will remain in orbit for many years.
  At higher altitudes, debris can continue to orbit the Earth for 
decades or centuries.
  Every piece of space debris is a lethal weapon, traveling at speeds 
of 17,000 miles an hour.
  This debris could damage any rocket or satellite crossing its path.
  It would be uncharted, and give no warning.
  If space debris were to hit an astronaut, it would probably be fatal.
  If an ASAT weapon were to be used successfully, vast orbital bands of 
space would be rendered unusable for years, decades, or even centuries.
  This is not a theoretical conjecture.
  We have examples of such debris creation from old Soviet ASAT space 
tests.
  Several Soviet ASAT tests did create thousands of detectable pieces 
of junk that are still in orbit after 25 years.
  The Soviet Union launched Cosmos 249 and detonated it as an ASAT 
weapons tests on October 29, 1968.
  This explosion in space created 109 identifiable objects at the 
intercept altitude of 525 kilometers.
  Because the Cosmos 249 ASAT was in a highly elliptical orbit, this 
lethal debris spends most of its time at higher altitudes.
  As a result, this debris has survived longer than expected.
  Today, 55 pieces of detectable junk are still orbiting the earth, 27 
years after the ASAT explosion in space.
  In total, 371 detectable pieces of orbiting junk still survive today 
from various Soviet ASAT weapons tests.
  Similarly, U.S. Air Force direct ascent ASAT tests in 1985 created 
285 pieces of orbiting space junk at an altitude of 350 miles.
  Today, nine detectable pieces of this experiment are still in orbit, 
threatening peaceful TV and telephone satellites of many commercial 
ventures.
  Near Earth space is too commercially valuable to even permit tests of 
ASAT weapons.
  However, I agree that the military has a need to deny a rogue nation 
the use of a reconnaissance satellite.
  Spy satellites in space can be effectively jammed, or, better yet, 
false information can be fed to the receiving stations.
  We presently have the technology to jam and to feed false information 
to enemy satellite ground stations.
  There is no need to shoot down a satellite in space, because it can 
easily be rendered ineffective or even turned to our advantage.
  Jamming and spoofing an enemy satellite is certainly more cost 
effective than wasting money developing a cold war ASAT weapon.
  Electronic counter-measures will not create the space junk that 
shooting down a satellite will create.
  It is true that satellite reconnaissance is a vital capability in 
war.
  But Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and any other potential enemy do not 
have, and will not have for many years, any satellite, much less a 
military reconnaissance satellite.
  If any potential enemy were to start making a reconnaissance 
satellite, then perhaps there could be a need for an antisatellite 
weapon.
  But the time needed for a rogue nation to make a satellite would give 
us the time to develop effective countermeasures.
  We do not need to make this weapon now.
  There is no threat, and no perceived threat.
  There is a real question of just whose satellite we would be willing 
to destroy.
  Only friendly countries have satellites in orbit now.
  If time on a military reconnaissance satellite were leased to a rogue 
nation by a friendly country, would we really want to shoot that 
satellite down?
  We cannot afford to waste $30 million on such a remote possibility as 
Iraq, Iran, or North Korea getting access to a military reconnaissance 
satellite at some indefinite point in the future.
  Only when the threat is apparent do we need to develop an 
antisatellite weapon.
  So let us not waste our taxpayers' dollars on this unnecessary 
antisatellite weapons system. Let us save the taxpayers $30 million.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  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. 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 now ask unanimous consent that all 
amendments qualified by the 8:30 p.m. timeframe, as a result of the 
previous agreement be debated tonight, and that any votes ordered or in 
relation to the amendments or motions to occur beginning at 9:30 a.m. 
tomorrow, with 4 minutes equally divided for an explanation on each 
amendment prior to the vote, and after the third consecutive vote, the 
time for explanation be extended to 10 minutes equally divided on one 
amendment that Senator Harkin will have--he will have 15 minutes and we 
will have 5 minutes--and that all votes in the voting sequence after 
the first vote be limited to 10 minutes in length.
  That will wrap up this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I now yield to the Senator from Arizona for the reply to 
the Harkin amendment.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. President, the first primary argument of the Senator from Iowa on 
this is that we have an effective antisatellite weapon, and if we have 
to use this, it will create space junk.
  Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator will yield, I do not want to take up 
time. But this agreement will mean, however, that there will be four 
votes as soon as we finish the debate on this. Following those four 
votes, all other votes will occur tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, again, this is an amendment to eliminate some 
of the funding for research on an antisatellite program in the event 
the United States should ever need that. It is a contingency program. 
We are not talking about deploying anything.
  But the primary argument of the Senator from Iowa was that if this 
was ever utilized, obviously, these satellites might be blown apart and 
that would create space junk. I suppose that might be true, but I find 
that not to be a very persuasive argument that we should be denied a 
weapon that we would need in time of war. It is a little like lamenting 
the rubble that may exist after the necessary bombing of downtown 
Baghdad. It may be too bad that there is some rubble there, but the 
fact of matter is, that is a consequence of war. If we needed an 
antisatellite weapon, obviously that would be the last of our concerns. 


[[Page S 12185]]

  As the Armed Services Committee stated in its report, the United 
States military has spent billions of dollars on the spectrum of multi-
service and joint war-fighting space requirements. We spent billions, 
too, on a broad mix of space and ground-based capabilities that will 
serve us both in time of peace and war. In the event of a conflict, the 
United States would be faced by a wide array of capabilities by our 
potential adversaries in space and with the access to space-derived 
data that comes from that.
  As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I am very concerned about 
the ability of the United States to counter these technological gains 
by potential adversaries as a result of the massive decontrol of the 
technologies of satellite weaponry and satellite reconnaissance and 
sensing.
  These products are being sold now commercially and are being 
purchased around the world. The sensing and reconnaissance space-based 
technologies will have proliferated by the time we may be faced by an 
adversary, which will require that we have some capability to counter 
it.
  If we do not continue to do the research on this kind of a program, 
we will be denied that capability when the time comes.
  China, France, Italy, Spain, and Israel have satellite reconnaissance 
capability, in addition, of course, to Russia and China. India, Japan, 
North Korea, and other countries are moving toward developing such a 
capability.
  As the reconnaissance and space-based technology spreads with the 
sale or lease to Third World countries of satellites over time, the 
satellites will obviously spread as well.
  The funds recommended by the committee for the tactical antisatellite 
program would provide the United States with a contingency capability. 
That is all we are talking about. That would enable the United States, 
if necessary, to influence the use of these technologies in a conflict 
and to prevent the misuse or denial of space systems and access to 
space by the United States.
  During the Persian Gulf war, the U.S. and its coalition allies had 
almost total domination of space and used unprecedented space-dependent 
military capabilities to achieve victory. Preventing the misuse or 
denial of space systems and access to space is vital to United States 
national security.
  The history of the space advantage enjoyed by the United States and 
its coalition allies I hope will not be forgotten. Future adversaries 
such as a rogue nation with access to a nuclear weapon or, for that 
matter, a ballistic missile with a conventional payload could use space 
to generate a theater atmospheric disturbance, electromagnetic pulse, 
disrupt signal propagation and, frankly, destroy much of our military 
communications system.
  We have to have a hedge against potential adversaries from misusing 
space and causing great harm to our satellites and our critical 
intelligence sensors. This $30 million in the defense bill for the 
tactical antisatellite contingency capability is that hedge.
  So it is critical that we support the Armed Services Committee and 
the committee's position on this by tabling the Harkin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes and 32 seconds, and 
the Senator from Alaska has 32 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will respond to my friend from Arizona 
again by saying first of all that the Army tried to handle this weapon 
several years ago. The Pentagon did not even want it during the Bush 
administration. The Clinton administration zeroed it out. Nobody thinks 
there is any necessity for this.
  My friend from Arizona cannot name one rogue nation that even has a 
satellite, let alone the means to get it up there and keep it in orbit. 
No one has even the remotest possibility of doing this right now, No. 
1.
  Second, it is much cheaper to jam them electronically than it is to 
build an antisatellite weapons system and go up there and blast it out 
of space. We have technology right now to jam any satellite and 
electronically blind any of those satellites that are there. So it is 
much cheaper. We already have that technology.
  Third, yes, I respond to my friend from Arizona by saying we have to 
do whatever we can to keep antisatellite weapons from outer space. I do 
not care who uses it. Even if we were to use them in the future, it 
would deny us accessibility to space.
  The Senator from Arizona said to use that argument is like saying we 
should not bomb Baghdad, an enemy stronghold, because there would be 
rubble there. But that would not deny us access to a city or to an area 
because it all falls to the ground. But in outer space, with this junk 
orbiting for hundreds of years, it denies us that access to space. So 
while it might blast that satellite out, it also keeps us from using 
that availability in space either for military purposes or for domestic 
purposes.
  So I just think this is $30 million that we ought to save for the 
taxpayers.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that this amendment be set aside 
and that we proceed to vote on the first amendment, the Wellstone 
amendment, to reduce the proliferation level by $3.2 million.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. The motion to table has already been made, and the yeas 
and nays have been ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I might ask the Senator from Alaska, I 
thought we would have 2 minutes. Is that correct?
  Mr. STEVENS. That is correct. The Senator is entitled to his 2 
minutes, if he asks for it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I say to my colleagues that back in May we had a vote 
that was an amendment to raise the DOD appropriations above the 
administration's request. That amendment was voted down 60 to 40, a 
bipartisan vote. Then, a week ago we had a Kohl-Grassley amendment on 
the authorization bill which essentially eliminated the $7 billion, 
which was over the administration's request. That was the amendment. 
That amendment was defeated. So there were effectively 48 votes for the 
Kohl-Grassley amendment.
  What I have done is pegged the $6.4 billion in this appropriations 
bill over the administration's request, over the Chairman of Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, over the Pentagon's request, and I have just simply 
cut this in half.
  So this amendment just says the Senators who have voted for this 
before, really a reduction, $3.2 billion from the $6.4 billion over 
what the administration requested, and this $3.2 billion would be used 
solely for deficit reduction.
  Mr. President, as my colleague from North Dakota said, we do not need 
to spend money we do not have for things we do not need.
 And if we are going to be serious about deficit reduction, $3.2 
billion of the $6.4 billion over budget request is not too much to ask.

  This is on behalf of myself, Senators Feingold, Harkin, Simon, 
Bumpers, and Dorgan.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, regardless of what has been said, of the 
four bills pertaining to defense, this has the least spending, I regret 
to say.
  I have moved to table.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the motion to table the Wellstone amendment 2404. The yeas 
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] is 
necessarily absent.

[[Page S 12186]]

  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 389 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bradley
     Mack
       
  The motion to table the amendment (No. 2404) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2403

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the next amendment is a Bingaman 
amendment. Once again, the Senator from New Mexico has 2 minutes to 
explain this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is a very straightforward amendment 
to cut $90 million from the bill. This was added to fund three 
antiarmor munitions. There is $20 million for the TOW 2B antiarmor 
missile, $40 million for the Hellfire II, and $30 million for the CBU-
87 combined-effect munitions bomb.
  These three munitions have one thing in common, Mr. President. That 
is: There was no money requested for them in this 1996 defense budget; 
there was no money requested for them in any of the next 6 years or any 
time, to our knowledge. The inspector general has issued a report and 
sent us a letter indicating that they are not needed; and they are 
excess.
  Let me read one short paragraph from the report. It says:

       Based on . . . the requirements data, the Army and Air 
     Force inventories of TOW 2B's missiles and CBU-87 bombs 
     significantly exceed the amounts of those two munitions that 
     the services project they would use in two major regional 
     contingencies.

  The same thing is said down here about the Hellfire II.
  Mr. President, this is a very clear choice. People are choosing 
between the taxpayers of the country and a few defense contractors. 
There is no need for these weapons.
  In some of the earlier amendments we have dealt with, the argument 
has been made that maybe they are not asked for next year, but 
sometime, 5, 6 years from now, the Department would like to have them. 
These are not requested at any time. They are excess. We do not need 
them. We have enough. If there has ever been an amendment where people 
have a clear choice between the taxpayer and a few defense contractors, 
this is the amendment. I hope the Senate will not table this amendment 
and will vote to save this $90 million.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, these are the three most effective 
munitions. The Chiefs of Staff, when they met with us, put these 
munitions as their top priority. This is funding a specific 
authorization in the authorization bill which we will approve in 
September.
  I already moved to table and have asked for the yeas and nays.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the amendment 
No. 2403. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 390 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--39

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bradley
     Mack
      
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2403) was agreed 
to.
  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. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are going to the Harkin amendment. The 
Senator has 2 minutes to explain his amendment. It is an amendment to 
strike the theater missile defense money.
  The Senator has his 2 minutes on this amendment.


                           amendment no. 2401

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment 2401 offered 
by the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand I have 2 minutes, is that 
right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, this is a $70 million add-on by the committee for the 
space-based laser. This is the old star wars program. It goes back 10 
years or more.
  We thought we had kind of killed this snake some time ago. Now it is 
back again. Basically, this is to build this big mirror in space with a 
laser, a chemical laser.
  Quite frankly, it violates the ABM Treaty. Article 5 of the ABM 
Treaty states specifically that we will not build space-based weapons 
systems, and that is exactly what this is.
  Second, it is not cost-effective. There are other ways of thwarting 
any other kind of missiles or nuclear warheads coming into this 
country. Most of the rogue nations we know about now would not build a 
ballistic missile. They would smuggle it in.
 They bring it in on a submarine or something else like that rather 
than building a big intercontinental ballistic missile.

  Third, this laser can be countered by the very coating they are now 
putting on the mirror which they can put on the missiles themselves.
  It is basically to save $70 million for the taxpayers of this country 
and to make us still compliant with the ABM Treaty.
  Mr. STEVENS. I believe Senator Kyl will respond for 1 minute.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this is an important program. According to 
the GAO, the space-based laser program has met every technical 
milestone. No one has criticized it on technical grounds.

[[Page S 12187]]

  The Senator from Iowa has asserted it is a violation of the ABM 
Treaty. That is not accurate. The ABM Treaty does not prohibit 
research. That is what this is. This is a research program, nowhere 
near deployment. In fact, it may never be deployed.
  It is important for our country to have a very highly leveraged, 
highly technical program such as this. This is the last of the directed 
energy programs, and it is the kind of program that we need to continue 
to do the research as a hedge against the kind of future threat that we 
may have to face. It is not a threat anywhere near deployment--only 
research money. I hope the motion to table is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment numbered 2401.
  Yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 391 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

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

                                NAYS--41

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bradley
     Mack
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2401) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senate be in order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please be in order. The 
Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are about ready to have the last vote 
of the evening. The Harkin amendment is next. We will have our first 
vote tomorrow morning at 9:30. We anticipate four to five votes at the 
most tomorrow morning. We have a series of amendments we are going to 
take this evening, and we believe the amendments that will be left for 
short debate and vote will be four to five amendments at most.
  The Senator from Iowa has 2 minutes on his amendment, if he wishes to 
use it at this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 2 
minutes.


                           amendment no. 2402

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is an amendment to, again, strike the 
$30 million. We could not get the $70 million out. There were 41 votes 
on this. This is $30 million out of the space-based laser. This is $30 
million the Pentagon did not want. No one wanted it. It was added on in 
committee for an antisatellite weapons testing.
  Again, this is something this body has voted against in the past. It 
was not requested by the Pentagon. Three things:
  First, we know what will happen if we use antisatellite weapons to 
shoot down satellites. It will put a lot of space junk into orbit.
  Second, there is a cheaper and more effective way and that is by 
jamming electronically any satellites that are put up there to spy. We 
can do that and do it a lot cheaper than building an antisatellite 
weapons system to shoot them down.
  Third, there is not any nation out there today that has a satellite--
whose satellite are we going to shoot down? No country, whether it is 
North Korea, Iraq, Iran, or any other country has a satellite, let 
alone the delivery systems to get them in orbit. Our intelligence 
community recognizes no threat of any nation like that having that 
capability in the foreseeable future.
  It is $30 million. It is not needed. We voted this down in the past. 
Let us save our taxpayers at least $30 million and save this money from 
research on the antisatellite weapons.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator will yield to the Senator from New Hampshire 
for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  This is the final 2 minutes before the vote. The Senate will please 
come to order. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for 
yielding me this time.
  Numerous potentially hostile nations now do have indigenous satellite 
capabilities, contrary to what has been said. Adversaries can use space 
assets for intelligence, communication, navigation, weather and, yes, 
targeting.
  U.S. military commanders, including General Horner, the man who ran 
the air campaign in Desert Storm, have stated unequivocally ASAT 
capability is essential to protect our forces in the field. It is a 
contingency capability. And to say on the floor of the U.S. Senate we 
should not use ASAT technology because it is going to create space 
debris is simply incorrect. It does not create space debris. It 
disables the satellite. It does not blow it up. That is simply wrong, I 
say to the Senator from Iowa. It is totally wrong to make that kind of 
representation on the floor of the Senate.
  Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we have demonstrated in Desert Storm that 
space will forever be an asset that is essential in military warfare. 
We have to preserve it. This program is essential to preserving the 
security of our forces and to say we would expose our forces, for the 
sake of not creating space debris--which it does not create in the 
first place--is really remarkable, that such a statement would be made.
  That is exactly why the kinetic energy ASAT program is so important. 
It is the capability to enable us to literally blind our adversaries, 
protect our troops, and ensure we can decisively prevail in future 
conflicts.
  I urge my colleagues to please pay very careful attention to what 
they are doing and please table this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion to table 
amendment No. 2402.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 392 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

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

                                NAYS--41

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd 

[[Page S 12188]]

     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bradley
     Mack
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2402) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion 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. 2391, withdrawn

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the amendment that I had offered in the 
Chamber earlier, the NATO Participation Act, sent a strong signal of 
this Nation of the determination to make sure that the countries of 
Central Europe that want to be free, that want to stand beside us, and 
that want to revitalize their economy along a free and democratic line 
have an extended helping hand in the United States and of comradeship 
in terms of mutual defense. Those countries bring to NATO an enormous 
potential in terms of additional protection from the North Atlantic.
  We have incorporated a number of amendments which I believe have 
strengthened the measure. There have been other thoughtful suggestions 
made by other Members in this Chamber and requests from the very 
distinguished senior Senator from Georgia. He has some excellent ideas 
that he wants to add to it, and has some thoughts that are appropriate 
to enter into the debate.
  So to accommodate his request, and I think the potential of improving 
the measure even further, it is my intention to have that measure 
considered by other appropriations subcommittees so that it may come 
before the Chamber at a later time allowing the Senator from Georgia 
and others who wish to make an issue to put into it to do that, and 
have time to prepare for that measure.
  So, Mr. President, I am heartened by the very strong bipartisan 
support that the NATO Participation Act has. I believe it will have 
even stronger support when it comes to the floor on a future bill.
  At this point, to accommodate those who wish to add that additional 
consideration, I will withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to withdraw his 
amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 2391) was withdrawn.


                           amendment no. 2421

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is our intention now to move to the 
amendments that were in the managers' package, to explain them and to 
make a record of why we are prepared to proceed with these amendments.
  I call up amendment 2421.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment 2421.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment proposes to change section 
8024 based on consultations with the Department of Defense regarding 
the procurement of M-11 9 millimeter handguns for naval aviators. In 
addition, this amendment proposes that the Armed Services be allowed to 
procure .38 and .45 caliber ammunition until such time as the services 
have converted to the 9 millimeter handgun.
  I believe Senator Inouye is in agreement with me that this is an 
amendment that we should accept. I ask for its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The amendment (No. 2421) was agreed to.
  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.


                           amendment no. 2417

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2417 for Senator 
Abraham.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 2417.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in further demonstration of our resolve 
to downsize the government and eliminate needless departments, 
agencies, commissions, boards, and councils, this amendment which I 
offer along with Senators Inhofe and Grams, will prohibit funding for 
the Defense Policy Committee on Trade. This is the third such amendment 
offered by myself and the other GOP freshman Senators to the 
appropriations bills to eliminate unnecessary and wasteful functions of 
government.
  The Defense Policy Advisory Committee on Trade was established under 
the Trade Act of 1974 to serve both the Department of Defense and the 
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative by providing the Secretary and 
Trade Representative with policy advice and information regarding 
defense trade policy issues and domestic industrial base uses, 
specifically with regards to prohibitions on the transfer of dual-use 
technologies to the Soviet Union and its former client states. The 
thirty-five member committee meets twice each year. The committee 
received an estimated $4,405 in 1994.
  The Office of Management and Budget has proposed repealing Section 
3151(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1991, P.L. 101-
510, which authorized the technical committee. The committee's report 
was provided to Congress on October 7, 1991, thereby terminating the 
responsibilities of the committee. This committee is a Cold War 
anachronism and is no longer applicable to our national security needs. 
Furthermore, the issues of arms control, disarmament, and dual-use 
technology have changed markedly since the establishment of this 
committee, and the thrust of verification techniques no longer is 
directed toward mutually verifiable procedures.
  This amendment promotes the type of reform which is supported by the 
GAO, the CBO, and in some cases the President. It terminates funding 
for a committee, the job of which is complete. While it may not achieve 
savings in the millions of dollars, it is an important step in 
complying with the demands of the American people who told us on 
November 8, 1994, to balance the budget and cut the size of the 
Government. It is important that we demonstrate that resolve by 
reviewing even the most insignificant or inexpensive programs as well 
as the more prominent ones. Let us show the public we are serious and 
eliminate this useless panel.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. This is an amendment that is offered to eliminate 
needless departments, agencies, reports and commissions. It deals with 
the Defense Policy Committee on Trade. This amendment would eliminate 
that advisory committee.
  I am prepared to recommend adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. INOUYE. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2417) was agreed to.
  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.
                          antitank ammunition

  Mr. GRAMS. Will the Chairman yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield to my friend, the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. I congratulate the Chairman on the efforts of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee which the Senator chairs, and those of the 
Armed Services Committee, in addressing the problems caused by 
inadequate funding of ammunition programs. Correcting the current 
shortages in modern, preferred munitions is key to ensuring military 
readiness.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator, and I agree that these shortages 
must be corrected.
  Mr. GRAMS. There is one shortage in a modern, preferred munition used 
by our M1 tanks--the M830A1 high-explosive anti-tank round--which is 
not addressed in your bill. Although the budgets of the Army and the 
Marine Corps contained no requests for this round because of overall 
funding constraints, the Armed Services Committee has authorized M830A1 
for both Services.

[[Page S 12189]]

  Reports indicate that the total number of M830A1 rounds the Army has 
on hand and on order is approximately one-half of its actual inventory 
objective, and that absent continued funding our industrial capability 
to produce this kind of modern tank ammunition will rapidly disappear. 
If that happens, filling the other half of the inventory at some point 
in the future will take much longer, be much more difficult, and cost 
much more than continuing production now at a modest level. Given this, 
I have strongly urged the Senate to consider funding for the M830A1, 
and I continue to do so.
  I am sure that these issues are know to the Chairman, and I also 
recognize the difficult task he faced in prioritizing many vital but 
unbudgeted programs. It would appear that a conference with the House 
of Representatives on the defense appropriations bill ies well in the 
future. In the interim, new information or changed circumstances may 
develop which may warrant assigning a higher priority to funding for 
the M830A1.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is a possibility.
  Mr. GRAMS. I ask that the Chairman remain open to that possibility, 
and that reconsideration in conference of funding for the M830A1 remain 
an option.
  Mr. STEVENS. Should circumstances at the time warrant, such 
reconsideration will be an option.
  Mr. GRAMS. I thank the chairman.
                     maritime patrol aircraft force

  Mr. COHEN. I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense regarding our Maritime Patrol 
Aircraft [MPA] force. As my colleague knows, the P-3 squadrons which 
comprise our Maritime Patrol force make an invaluable contribution to 
anti-submarine warfare missions.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am fully aware of the role our P-3 aircraft play in 
our national security and I would be happy to engage the senior Senator 
from Maine in a colloquy regarding this issue.
  Mr. COHEN. I am very concerned about the loss in operational 
capability of our Maritime Patrol Aircraft force. The services of P-3 
squadrons are historically in very high demand by the unified 
commanders. In recent years, that demand has increased dramatically as 
the ability of the P-3 aircraft to carry out littoral warfare missions 
has become more apparent. Simultaneously, however, budget pressures 
have forced the Navy to cut P-3 force structure in its budget request. 
The current maritime patrol aircraft force structure consists of 22 
squadrons, 13 active and 9 reserve squadrons. The Navy has reduced the 
number of active and reserve P-3 squadrons from 24 active squadrons in 
1990 to 13 active and 9 reserve in 1994. The fiscal year 1996 budget 
request would support Navy plans to reduce MPA force structure to 20 
squadrons, 12 active and 8 reserve squadrons.
  There is strong justification for maintaining no less than 13 active 
and 9 reserve squadrons. The Unified Commanders need to maintain at 
least 22 squadrons. In a letter dated February 4, 1995, Navy Secretary 
Dalton informed the Senate Armed Services Committee that, ``at the 
proposed fiscal year 1996 MPA aircraft force levels, it is not possible 
to meet the unified commanders' minimum maritime patrol forward 
presence requirement of 40 aircraft with only active Maritime Patrol 
Aircraft assets.'' It is expected that the Unified Commanders' minimum 
MPA requirements will be met in 1999.
  Mr. STEVENS. I understand that the Senate Armed Services Committee 
recognized the contribution the P-3's make in meeting our maritime 
patrol mission.
  Mr. COHEN. That is correct. The Armed Services Committee also 
recognized that Maritime Patrol Aircraft are ideally suited to meet a 
variety of mission requirements for littoral operations very 
effectively and efficiently and authorized an additional $35 million to 
sustain the MPA force structure at 13 active and 9 reserve squadrons in 
fiscal year 1996. The Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval 
Operations, and the Unified Commanders have all expressed their support 
for the action taken by the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. STEVENS. I assure that I share his concerns and intend to raise 
this issue in the Joint House/Senate Appropriations Conference.
  Mr. COHEN. I thank the chairman of the Appropriation's Subcommittee 
on Defense.
                           amendment no. 2412

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now call up amendment 2412. I ask the 
Senator from Hawaii if he wishes to present this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 2412.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment denies pay and allowances 
for military prisoners and provides authority for the Department of 
Defense to provide for their dependents.
  We have discussed this matter. There are no objections.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2412) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 2420

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call up amendment 2420 for Mr. Lugar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 2420.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of the committee, we recommend 
that funds in relation to the procurement of ammunition for the Army be 
withheld unless the acquisition fully complies with the Competition and 
Contracting Act.
  This is the effect of this amendment. I ask for adoption of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
no, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2420) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 2413

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we now call up amendment 2413. I ask the 
Senator from Hawaii if he would like to explain this for Mr. Feingold.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this is an amendment to eliminate the 
Project ELF.
  Mr. STEVENS. This is an amendment which was accepted on the 
authorization bill, and we accept it on this bill.
                              project elf

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, This amendment, for myself and Senator 
Kohl, will terminate a military program in our own state. I understand 
the amendment will be accepted by the managers and I appreciate their 
cooperation on this matter. The amendment involves Project ELF, the 
Navy's Extremely Low Frequency communications project located in Clam 
Lake, Wisconsin, and Republic, Michigan. This is a program that is 
ineffective, out of date, and unwanted by most residents in my state, 
even though it does employ Wisconsinites.
  The members of the Wisconsin delegation have fought hard for years to 
close down Project ELF; I have introduced legislation three times to 
terminate it; and I have recommended it for closure to the Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Commission.
  This time, I am offering an amendment which would limit funds 
appropriated in this bill to termination costs to mothball Project ELF. 
The Navy has estimated that it will cost $12.2 million to shut down and 
deactivate the ELF system.
  For a Congress supposedly in hot pursuit of spending cuts, one would 
think Project ELF could be eliminated. Instead, as if it were some kind 
of pet project of a home state Senator, it lingers like a blot in our 
budget.

                           Description of ELF

  Project ELF is a one-way, primitive messenger system designed to 
signal to--not communicate with--deeply submerged Trident submarines. 
It is a ``bell ringer,'' a pricey ``beeper'' system, used to tell the 
submarine when to rise to the surface to get a more detailed message 
through real communications systems. It was designed at a 

[[Page S 12190]]
time when the threat of detection to our submarines was real. But ELF 
was never developed to an effective capacity, and the demise of the 
Soviet threat has certainly rendered it unnecessary.
  The concept of extremely low frequency was first introduced when 
submarines started going so far beneath the surface ordinary radios 
could not reach them. In its first incarnation, in the mid-1960's, 
Project ELF was Project Sanguine: an elaborate--and vulnerable--network 
of 6200 miles of cable and over 100 ELF transmitter towers spread over 
40 percent of northern Wisconsin. It was abandoned when it proved too 
expensive, too susceptible, and too controversial in the community. 
Years later, after much debate, false starts, budget constrictions, and 
resident antagonism, Project ELF was whittled down to a total of 84 
miles of cable and two transmitters over two states. It was hoped that 
once it was started, it could grow: a typical bureaucratic ``let's-get-
our-foot-in-the-door'' program.

                           Strategic argument

  But the project has had a hard time gaining momentum exactly because 
it is impractical. Even in its optimum construction, it has no nuclear 
survivability or dependability, and therefore little wartime efficacy.
  In 1979, the General Accounting Office had recommended ``that the 
Secretary of Defense terminate any plans to construct an
 extremely low frequency transmitter system * * * since it is not 
needed * * * [the system] enhances communications capability only 
marginally at best.''

  In 1980, the Navy agreed, stating that there was no threat that 
required the development of ELF. It was only in 1981, when Secretary of 
Defense Casper Weinberger overruled the Navy and declared that Project 
ELF should proceed.
  It was a bad plan then, and an obsolete one today.
  The Navy's recent brief on ELF also acknowledges that there is no 
current threat precipitating ELF's continuation: it says, ``Even though 
our submarines are currently, to the best of our knowledge, virtually 
invulnerable to the present anti-submarine threat, the ELF system is a 
hedge against future developments by our potential enemies.'' That is, 
Mr. President, ELF is only operating in case of a future development, 
but not for current protection.
  That is why my amendment provides for the mothballing of project ELF. 
For example, in the unlikely event that a threat emerges in 5 years, we 
could restart ELF, but have saved the $60 million plus in the interim 
in which it was unnecessary.

                           ELF is inefficient

  In actuality, if ELF served a strategic purpose, this would not be a 
burdensome investment. But Project ELF does not serve such a strategic 
purpose. Even at its best, ELF has been a weapon in search of a mission 
at the right time--but that time has yet to come.

                         Health and environment

  Finally, Mr. President, let me add a word about the health and 
environmental effects of ELF as well, because if you are a resident of 
northern Wisconsin, this is something which has been of concern. The 
Navy continues to insist that there are no environmental effect or 
health hazards associated with the electromagnetic fields ELF emits: 
it's just that after $25 million
 of study, there has been no conclusive evidence one way or the other. 
I certainly understand any fears the Wisconsin residents must have.

  In fact, in 1984 a U.S. District Court, ruling on State of Wisconsin 
vs. Weinberger ordered Project ELF closed because the Navy paid 
inadequate attention to ELF's possible health effects and violated the 
National Environmental Policy Act. Interestingly, an appeals court 
threw out the ruling arguing that the national security threat from the 
Soviets at the time was more important. The premise of that ruling 
today is obviously outdated. It should be reconsidered in light of 
realities in 1995.

                               Conclusion

  ELF is not worth any money because it doesn't have a mission.
  If it is a first-strike weapon, then it is de-stabilizing and 
threatening, which hardly increases our security. If it is merely a 
communications system, it is inadequate. A weapon or a communications 
device designed to keep deeply submerged submarines submerged is no 
longer necessary. It is not protecting us against any capable enemy, 
but it is using money that could be.
  As columnist Jack Anderson noted earlier this year, this is an 
exemple of a cut that the delegation wants the Congress to make. We are 
asking the Congress to take our program.
  We came very close to it earlier this year with the rescissions bill. 
The Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended it for a cut, and 
the full Senate had agreed.
  During conference, there seemed to be a concern that the Navy had 
come up with a newly invented ``highly classified'' justification for 
ELF. There appears to have been some confusion about this project and I 
have been told there is no new justification for ELF.
  So, I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and fund 
ELF's termination this year, not its continuation.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of this amendment to try 
yet again to cut a cold war relic located in Wisconsin: the Extremely 
Low Frequency or ELF system.
  I thank my colleague from Alaska for his willingness to offer this 
amendment.
  It is astonishing to me that we must continue to come forward to 
offer up this program for the chopping block. We are well aware that 
this may have a negative impact in our state, but we are willing to 
make the tough decision to eliminate a program we no longer need and 
can no longer afford.
  If we truly want to reduce the deficit, we must start somewhere and 
make the necessary cuts.
  As Senator Feingold has detailed, ELF contributes little to our 
national security. All it can do is signal submarines to come to the 
surface, thus, it is not a particularly useful or effective 
communications system.
  Even if one could make the case that it might have some strategic 
value down the road--something I sincerely doubt--it is such a 
cumbersome obvious system that it would be an easy target. I cannot 
support putting citizens of the region at risk for no good reason.
  Earlier this year, the Senate passed a Defense supplemental bill 
which eliminated the ELF program. However, during the conference on the 
Defense supplemental, the Senate position to eliminate ELF was 
defeated. During the conference, the House brandished new and 
classified information from an eleventh hour Navy briefing that 
supposedly revealed that ELF is essential to our national security.
  When the defense supplemental came back from conference, Senator 
Feingold and I decided not to go forward with a planned amendment to 
cut the program and he sought this highly classified briefing by the 
Navy. To our surprise, the Navy said that it had no highly classified 
briefing on ELF. Perhaps there was some confusion, they said, and 
opponents of cutting ELF were confusing it with EHF?
  Mr. President, the Navy has to do better than this. Last minute 
secret justifications for creaky low technology projects are just not 
enough to justify millions of dollars in spending. I am certain that my 
colleagues in the Senate will agree.
  Our amendment mothballs the ELF system so that it could be started up 
again if necessary. We don't think it ever will be necessary, but this 
amendment should address the concerns of our colleagues who take a more 
cautious approach to these matters.
  Mr. President, I urge the Senate to cut this program in our state of 
Wisconsin. It is not often that Senators try to kill a $12 million 
program in their own state, and I want to commend my colleague from 
Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, for his work on this issue. The Senate has 
cut ELF before. I urge my colleagues to do so again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2413.
  The amendment (No. 2413) was agreed to.
  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.
  
[[Page S 12191]]



                           amendment no. 2419

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2419 for Mr. 
McConnell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 2419.
  Mr. STEVENS. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the 
General Accounting Office reports to the Congress on any proposed 
changes to the Department of Defense commissary access policy and 
address the financial impact of the commissaries as a result of any 
proposed policy changes.
  We agree to accept the amendment. I ask for its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2419) was agreed to.
  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.


                           amendment no. 2411

  Mr. STEVENS. I now call up amendment No. 2411.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment 2411.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, has the amendment been adopted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not.
  Mr. STEVENS. We ask for adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2411) was agreed to.
  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.
                ELECTRONIC COMBAT MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, my good friend and fellow Senator from 
Florida [Mr. Mack] and I would like to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished chairman regarding a matter of fiscal and military 
importance. In 1994, the House Armed Services Committee directed the 
Department of Defense to develop a master plan for future 
consolidations of DOD-wide electronic combat [EC] test and evaluation 
assets in the interest of reducing infrastructure costs. Unfortunately, 
to date, such a report has not been developed nor forwarded to 
Congress. The BRAC Commission, recognizing the delay by DOD to issue 
this report, recommended acceptance of the Air Force proposal to 
realign some of its electronic combat assets, and recommended that the 
master plan be used to establish the infrastructure for optimum asset 
utilization.
  In fact, during the June deliberations of the BRAC Commission, this 
issue was carefully considered by the Commission. The Commission's 
analysis demonstrated that the move would ``never net a return on 
investment,'' nor was it a part of a master plan to consolidate EC 
assets in a cost-effective manner. The Commission, in desiring to see a 
master plan developed, felt that by endorsing the Air Force proposal, 
they would prompt DOD to finally move ahead with the master plan.
  Mr. President, during any discussion of downsizing and consolidation 
there is no disagreement regarding the fact that all such decisions 
must be made in an intelligent and cost-efficient fashion. It is my, 
and my fellow Florida colleague's hope that the early completion of the 
master plan will allow DOD and the Congress to proceed according to 
these considerations.
  In that light, we would like to direct a few questions to the 
chairman to ensure that the committee's intent is clear with regards to 
the master plan and EC asset consolidation.
  Mr. STEVENS. I would be happy to respond to the questions that my 
friends from Florida wish to ask.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Is it the committee's desire to see that the master plan 
is completed so that the services can go forward with optimum and cost-
efficient asset utilization?
  Mr. STEVENS. The senior Senator from Florida is correct. The 
committee has long supported such planning which saves taxpayers' 
dollars. This is even more important in our current fiscal climate in 
which we struggle to meet our military requirements.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, it is my understanding that no funds have 
been requested nor provided in fiscal year 1996 for the realignment of 
EC equipment. I ask, is this the chairman's understanding?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, this is, in fact, the case. If a formal 
reprogramming request would be necessary, I would be pleased to work 
with the Senators from Florida at that time.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Given the chairman's response, I ask that he send to the 
desk an amendment on my behalf, cosponsored by my colleague from 
Florida, which requires DOD to complete and submit to the congressional 
defense committees an EC master plan no later than March 31, 1996.
  We thank the chairman for his cooperation, and look forward to 
working with him in the future on this matter.
           radio communications systems for the LPD-17 class

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to call to the attention of 
my distinguished colleague, the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, an issue that I know is of mutual 
interest.
  I note that our colleagues in the other body have included in the 
House Defense Appropriations Bill, funding for a new class of 
Amphibious Transport Dock ships, the so called LPD-17 class of 
Amphibious ships. In our own deliberations, while recognizing the need 
for replacing the aging Austin class of such ships, other priorities, 
and allocation constraints did not allow us to fund this vessel.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my colleague is correct. While we 
recognize the need to modernize our amphibious capabilities by 
replacing the older LPD's now in service, funding constraints did not 
allow us to do that this year.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have a related concern that I want to 
bring to my colleague's attention, should the conferees or any future 
deliberations determine that funding for the LPD-17 can be made 
available. As my colleagues may remember, the FY 93 Base Realignment 
and Closure Commission recommended, and the Congress approved, the 
consolidation of all Department of Navy in service engineering support 
for Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance systems at the Navy 
facility in Charleston, South Carolina. In reorganizing to carry out 
this action, the Navy has developed a mission statement for this 
facility in Charleston, called NISE-EAST, identifying it as the lead 
facility for all engineering, analysis, design, testing, installing, 
upgrading, and training support for all shore based, mobile, and afloat 
Navy communications systems. I want to insure that should the 
conferees, or any future deliberations result in funding being made 
available for the LPD-17, that the NISE-East facility in Charleston be 
designated as the appropriate facility to perform in service 
engineering support for the radio communications systems associated 
with that class of vessels. Any attempt to divert that workloading 
elsewhere would be an unwarranted intrusion into internal workloading 
processes in the Navy, and would seriously undermine the Base Closure 
and Realignment process.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I believe my colleague from South 
Carolina has expressed an appropriate concern. All of us have a shared 
interest in insuring that our actions do not either directly or 
indirectly undermine the Base Closure process. While I cannot determine 
at this time if funding might be made available for the LPD-17, I will 
request that the Conferees endorse the Senator from South Carolina's 
proposal, if the Conference funds the LPD-17.
                           amendment no. 2418

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2418.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 2418.
  Mr. STEVENS. The committee provided $45,458,000 for the intercooled 
recouperative turbine, the ICR project, of the Advanced Surface 
Machinery Program. The funds were provided for development and testing 
of the ICR. This is an amendment for Senator Specter and Senator 
Santorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? Without objection, 
the amendment is agreed to.

[[Page S 12192]]

  So the amendment (No. 2418) was agreed to.
  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.


                           amendment no. 2405

  Mr. STEVENS. I call up amendment No. 2405.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 2405.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the 
Fiscal Year 1996 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill. My 
amendment requires the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the 
Army to review the need for the Selected Reserve Incentive Program 
(SRIP) for infantry reservists.
  Due to the Army's agreement which placed all CONUS-based infantry 
units in the National Guard system, the famed 100th Battalion in Hawaii 
is the only remaining infantry unit in the Army Reserves. The 100th 
Battalion has been designated as a round-out unit--one of the units 
that constitutes the 29th Infantry Enhanced Brigade. As part of the 
enhanced brigade, the 100th Battalion is required to recruit and retain 
125 percent of the required personnel end-strength. Currently, the 
100th Battalion is 157 enlisted soldiers short of their required 
strength. The lack of the SRIP for reservists in the Career Management 
Field (CMF) 11 has contributed to this shortfall. As a result, the 
100th Battalion has been placed at a disadvantage in competing for 
qualified personnel.
  Mr. President, my amendment directs the Secretary of Defense and the 
Secretary of the Army to review this situation to ensure that the only 
infantry reserve unit left in the Army Reserves is treated fairly. I 
appreciate the support of the managers of this bill, Senator Stevens 
and Senator Inouye, and their staffs, particularly Mr. Charlie Houy and 
Ms. Sid Ashworth, for their assistance.
  Mr. INOUYE. I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  I not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2405) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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.


                           amendment no. 2414

  Mr. STEVENS. I call up amendment 2414.
  This is an amendment for Senator Inouye and Senator Domenici dealing 
with the strategic targeting system.
  Doe the Senator wish to explain?
  Mr. INOUYE. I have an explanation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. This has been approved.
  Mr. STEVENS. It provides $10 million, the budget request amount, for 
the strategic target system program, known as Stars. The amendment 
directs that these funds are available only to continue the Stars 
program. The Stars program can provide critical test support to theater 
and national missile defense programs. The committee endorses 
continuation of this important program.
  I ask for the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the amendment is agreed to.
  So this amendment (No. 2414) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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.


                           amendment no. 2409

  Mr. STEVENS. I call up amendment No. 2409 for Mr. Pryor.
  Mr. INOUYE. I this is an amendment to eliminate an obstacle to the 
quick redevelopment of closing military bases.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to help 
eliminate a current obstacle to the quick redevelopment of closing 
military bases.
  My amendment will give the military services greater flexibility to 
negotiate longer interim leases for the reuse of base property where 
the military is preparing for its departure. It will do so in a 
responsible way that does not eliminate vital environmental safeguards.
  This amendment will hopefully solve many interim leasing problems 
that are occurring at closing bases nationwide.
  At Eaker Air Force Base in Blytheville, Arkansas, Cotton Growers Inc. 
approached the local redevelopment authority about storing cotton in an 
old B-52 hanger until cotton prices improved. Upon learning from the 
Air Force that they could receive only a one year lease with a 30 day 
cancellation clause, Cotton Growers Inc. decided not to locate at 
Eaker.
  At Alameda Naval base in Alameda, California, AEG Transportation is 
seeking a ten year lease to obtain use of base property to refurbish 
rail cars for the San Francisco-based BART public transit company. The 
BART contract is for ten years, and AEG desires a ten year commitment 
before spending millions of dollars on capital improvements to Alameda 
property. Unfortunately, the Department of the Navy is thus far 
unwilling to enter into a lease agreement longer than five years. This 
stalemate could result in the loss of an attractive tenant for Alameda.
  The military services have informed my office that the inability to 
offer longer interim leases is due primarily to their fear of a lawsuit 
over requirements from the National Environmental Protection Act of 
1969, the so-called NEPA. This amendment attempts to address this 
problem without degrading the environment or fully exempting interim 
leases from NEPA.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this amendment be placed in 
the Record immediately following my remarks.
  In recent years, Congress and the Clinton Administration have made 
substantial progress in removing the obstacles that have blocked past 
efforts to redevelop bases. This amendment will help remove yet another 
barrier.
  It will give the military services greater flexibility to negotiate 
with interested tenants. It also ensures that our effort to create jobs 
and economic activity on base does not come at the expense of the 
environment.
  I thank the distinguished chairman and the ranking member for 
accepting this amendment.
  I also thank the Department of Defense, the Departments of Army, Navy 
and Air Force, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, Senators Chafee, Baucus, Lautenberg, and Boxer from 
the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and Senators Nunn and 
Thurmond from the Senate Armed Services Committee who contributed 
greatly to the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2409) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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.


                           amendment no. 2416

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2416.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 2416.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this was offered by Senator Warner, for 
himself, Senator Lieberman, Senator Dodd, and Senator Robb, to ensure 
essential elements of a nuclear attack submarine agreement, which was 
included in the defense authorization bill, are included in this 
appropriations bill.
  They have offered this amendment to ensure fair, equitable treatment 
and maintenance of both nuclear-capable shipyards.
  I ask for the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2416) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.

[[Page S 12193]]

  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 2415

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for consideration now of amendment 
No. 2415.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 2415.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment appeared in the 
authorization bill. There is no opposition.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is a zero sum transfer of $40 
million from O&M, defensewide, to the humanitarian assistance program. 
This amendment would provide a total of $60 million for humanitarian 
assistance in the bill and subject to conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2415) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 2397

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2397.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 2397.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is the amendment that was offered by 
Senator Simon, for himself and Mr. Bumpers, to modify the loan 
guarantee provision which was previously subject to debate.
  This amendment requires that the exposure fees charged and collected 
by the Secretary of Defense for each defense export loan guarantee be 
paid by the country involved and not be financed as part of the 
guaranteed loan on the part of the United States.
  We are prepared to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2397) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 2407

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2407 for Senator 
Kyl.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 2407.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment fences all but $52 million 
of the funds provided for the former Soviet Union threat reduction, 
which was $365 million, until three conditions are certified by the 
President as having been met:
  First, United States-Russia completed joint LAB study regarding 
Russian proposal to neutralize CW and United States agrees with 
proposal;
  Second, Russia has prepared plan to manage dismantlement-destructions 
of Russia CW stockpile;
  Third, United States-Russia committed to resolving outstanding issues 
regarding 1989 Wyoming MOU and 1990 bilateral destruction agreement.
                    amendment no. 2407, as modified

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify the 
amendment.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 82, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 8087. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR COOPERATIVE THREAT 
                   REDUCTION.

       (a) Limitations.--Of the funds available under title II 
     under the heading ``Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction'' 
     for dismantlement and destruction of chemical weapons, not 
     more than $52,000,000 may be obligated or expended for that 
     purpose until the President certifies to Congress the 
     following:
       (1) That the United States and Russia have completed a 
     joint laboratory study evaluating the proposal of Russia to 
     neutralize its chemical weapons and the United States agrees 
     with the proposal.
       (2) That Russia is in the process of preparing, with the 
     assistance of the United States as necessary, a comprehensive 
     plan to manage the dismantlement and destruction of the 
     Russia chemical weapons stockpile.
       (3) That the United States and Russia are committed to 
     resolving outstanding issues under the 1989 Wyoming 
     Memorandum of Understanding and the 1990 Bilateral 
     Destruction Agreement.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``1989 Wyoming Memorandum of Understanding'' 
     means the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government 
     of the United States of America and the Government of the 
     Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Regarding a Bilateral 
     Verification Experiment and Data Exchange Related to 
     Prohibition on Chemical Weapons, signed at Jackson Hole, 
     Wyoming, on September 23, 1989.
       (2) The term ``1990 Bilateral Destruction Agreement'' means 
     the Agreement between the United States of America and the 
     Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on destruction and non-
     production of chemical weapons and on measures to facilitate 
     the multilateral convention on banning chemical weapons 
     signed on June 1, 1990.

  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. INOUYE. No objection.
  Mr. STEVENS. This was cleared personally by me with Senator Nunn and 
Senator Kyl.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, without objection, the amendment, as modified, is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2407), as modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to reconsider the vote?
  Mr. INOUYE. 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. 2406

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2406.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 2406.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, my amendment to the Defense appropriations 
bill is similar to a sense of the Senate resolution I introduced last 
month regarding France's decision to conduct a series of eight 
underground nuclear explosions in the South Pacific. This action by 
France is in contravention of the current international moratorium on 
nuclear testing. The amendment I offer today expresses the sense of the 
Senate that the Republic of France should abide by the current 
international moratorium on underground nuclear testing.
  I am offering this amendment to S. 1087 because I believe it is 
imperative that the Senate go on record on this issue before the August 
recess. News reports over the past few days indicate that France has 
readied four of the eight nuclear devices to be exploded in the 
Pacific, and it is likely that the first device will be detonated later 
this month.
  My original resolution, Senate Resolution 149, is cosponsored by 
Senators Inouye, Kerry, Jeffords, Feinstein, Levin, Simon, Harkin, 
Leahy, Lautenberg, Moseley-Braun, Kassebaum, Bumpers, Exon, Bingaman, 
Daschle, Thomas, Murray, Wellstone, Stevens, Hatfield, and Graham. I am 
grateful for the positive response I have received in a short period of 
time from so many of my colleagues.
  I would like to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member 
of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for their courtesy in 
entertaining this amendment. I would note that they are both cosponsors 
of Senate Resolution 149, and I appreciate their support on this issue. 
I would also like to acknowledge the Members of the other body who have 
taken the lead on this issue, including Congressmen Eni Faleomavaega, 
Ben Gilman, chairman of the International Relations Committee, 
Congressman Ed Markey, and Congressman Jim Leach.
  To briefly review events, on June 13, 1995, French President Jacques 
Chirac announced that the Republic of France planned to resume nuclear 
testing in the South Pacific. A series of eight underground tests are 
planned, ending in May, 1996, at Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia.
  Following the French announcement, I contacted the White House to 
urge President Clinton to convey the concerns of the United States and 
the Pacific island nations to France over its 

[[Page S 12194]]
resumption of nuclear testing. We in the Pacific, more than any other 
region in the world, know the ramifications of nuclear testing. We only 
have to look at what happened to Bikini, Enewetak, or Rongelap Atolls 
in the Marshall Islands to understand the long-term damage to humans 
and the environment that can occur as a result of nuclear testing.
  Earlier last week, the 19-nation ASEAN Regional Forum, which includes 
the United States as a dialogue partner, called for an immediate end to 
nuclear testing during its security conference in Brunei. The 
governments of Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and other Asian and 
Pacific rim nations have strongly condemned the resumption of nuclear 
testing. International protests by government, business, civic and 
community groups continue to accelerate and proliferate as the first 
testing date approaches. France is reaping the whirlwind of 
international indignation, extending far beyond the nations and people 
of the Pacific and Asia, for it decision. Governments and world opinion 
recognize how the continuation or resumption of nuclear testing 
jeopardizes international efforts to curb the proliferation of nuclear 
weapons.
  Mr. President, this past May, the world's five declared nuclear 
powers--the United States, France, Russia, China, and Britain--
persuaded all NPT-member nations to extend indefinitely the Treaty of 
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, NPT. To win that consensus, the 
five countries promised to sign a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by the 
end of next year. Yet, less than 2 months after pledging to exercise 
utmost restraint, the French Government reneged on its commitment to 
the NPT.
  The French decision to resume testing seriously undermines the 
credibility of the NPT and complicates international efforts to 
negotiate a comprehensive test ban treaty. The United States, 
recognizing that the benefit of nuclear testing is outweighed by the 
harm it would cause our leadership on nonproliferation issues, has 
extended or ban on testing through September of 1996.
  We cannot ignore the resumption of nuclear testing by France. By 
adopting this resolution, the Senate will strongly encourage France to 
abide by the current international moratorium on nuclear testing and 
refrain from proceeding with its announced intention of conducting a 
series of nuclear tests in advance of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this has been cleared on both sides. There 
are no objections to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2406) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Are there any amendments we have dealt with that we have 
failed to reconsider?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. STEVENS. Are there any amendments adopted today that were not 
reconsidered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. STEVENS. Are there any amendments voted on today that were not 
reconsidered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
                      life sciences equipment lab

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank my friend the chairman, Senator 
Stevens for offering an amendment on my behalf. The amendment sets 
aside $500,000 for the Air Force's Life Sciences Equipment Lab.
  The Lab is a unique facility within the Department of Defense, and is 
probably the only facility of its kind anywhere. Established in 1983, 
it meets three primary functions: (1) provide scientific support to 
aircraft mishap investigation boards; (2) train personnel in life 
sciences equipment investigation; and (3) process the everyday 
technical problems on such equipment, while also conducting related 
design work and test programs.
  Additionally, the Lab has assisted Joint Task Force--Full Accounting 
(JTF-FA) as it endeavors to determine the status of air crew personnel 
in South East Asia, providing JTF-FA with technical support--involving 
research into the formal identification of suspected life sciences 
equipment; artifact analysis to indicated the survival outcome of 
individuals involved with the equipment; and technical training of 
personnel being assigned to JTF-FA, to familiarize them with South East 
Asia era equipment and how to conduct scientific investigations.
  In short, Mr. President, this funding will help ensure the fullest 
possible accounting of those lost in South East Asia, while also 
ensuring the lab's continued attention to investigating military 
aircraft mishaps and ensuring the effectiveness of the equipment 
designed to help ensure the safety of our military's air crews.
  I believe the amendment has been cleared by both sides, and I thank 
both Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for their assistance in this 
matter.
                                  b-52

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am very concerned about the national 
security implications of the Administration's decisions with regard to 
strategic bombers under the Nuclear Posture Review. The Nuclear Posture 
Review recommends retiring 28 B-52H bombers during the coming fiscal 
year. I believe it would be a serious mistake to unilaterally send a 
large number of dual capable bombers to the boneyard. B-52s provide 
combat-proven conventional capability and a credible nuclear 
deterrent--something no other weapon system can now match.
  I understand that the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee was working 
under very tight budgetary constraints this year. Nonetheless, I am 
very concerned that the bill before us does not contain additional 
funding above the Administration's request to ensure that we maintain 
four combat squadrons of B-52s. At a time when bombers have become 
increasingly important to our conventional warfighting strategy, we 
need every bomber we have. A strong B-52 force helps us retain a ready 
defense that can quickly project power around an increasingly uncertain 
world, and has been vigorously supported by senior military officers.
  It is my understanding that the House bill contains an additional 
$180 million to meet B-52 mission requirements. Consequently, I expect 
that this issue will be addressed in conference. I know my friend from 
Hawaii, the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, shares my 
view that a strong bomber force is essential to our national security. 
I was wondering whether he would be willing to discuss his view of how 
funding for B-52s should be resolved in the conference?
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his remarks on 
this important issue. I want to assure him that I continue to support a 
strong bomber force. A strong bomber force is vital in today's world, 
and we should not unnecessarily give up the highly cost-effective 
combat capability of our B-52 force. As the Senator for North Dakota 
noted, the subcommittee this year was working under tight budgetary 
restrictions and was unable to provide funding in the Senate bill for 
additional B-52s. I am pleased that the House was able to do so, and I 
can assure the Senator from North Dakota that I will work hard in 
conference to make sure that the final bill that goes to the President 
has sufficient funding to maintain a highly capable B-52 bomber force 
which can accomplish its assigned missions.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the distinguished ranking member for that 
assurance.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 1087, the 
1996 Department of Defense appropriations bill.
  I commend the distinguished chairman and ranking member for bringing 
the Senate a bill that meets the most critical needs of the U.S. 
military for the defense of our Nation.
  The committee has achieved this significant accomplishment even 
though the Defense Subcommittee contributed additional defense spending 
authority to both the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Subcommittee, which I chair, and the Military Construction 
Subcommittee. These subcommittees also fund vital programs related to 
our national defense.

[[Page S 12195]]

  Mr. President, the Senate version of the Defense appropriations bill 
provides a total of $242.7 billion in budget authority and $163.6 
billion in new outlays for the programs of the Department of Defense in 
fiscal year 1996.
  When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other completed 
actions are taken into account, the Senate-reported Defense 
appropriations bill totals $242.7 billion in budget authority and 
$243.3 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1996.
  The Senate bill is within its section 602(b) allocation for both 
budget authority and outlays. Any significant funding amendments would 
necessarily have to be offset with savings from within the bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table showing the 
relationship of the pending bill to the subcommittee's 602(b) 
allocation pursuant to the 1996 budget resolution be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       DEFENSE SUBCOMMITTEE SPENDING TOTALS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL       
                     [Fiscal year 1996, in millions]                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Budget              
                                                   Authority    Outlays 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense discretionary:                                                  
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed..................................        -$50     $79,678
    S. 1087, as reported to the Senate..........     242,534     163,350
    Scorekeeping adjustment.....................          --          --
                                                 -----------------------
      Subtotal defense discretionary............     242,484     243,029
Nondefense discretionary:                                               
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed..................................          --          40
    S. 1087, as reported to the Senate..........          --          --
    Scorekeeping adjustment.....................          --          --
                                                 -----------------------
      Subtotal nondefense discretionary.........          --          40
Mandatory:                                                              
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed..................................          --          --
    S. 1087, as reported to the Senate..........         214         214
    Adjustment to conform mandatory programs                            
     with budget resolution assumptions.........           0           0
                                                 -----------------------
      Subtotal mandatory........................         214         214
                                                 =======================
        Adjusted bill total.....................     242,698     243,282
Senate Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                  
    Defense discretionary.......................     242,486     243,029
    Nondefense discretionary....................          --          40
    Violent crime reduction trust fund..........          --          --
    Mandatory...................................         214         214
                                                 -----------------------
        Total allocation........................     242,700     243,283
                                                 =======================
Adjusted bill total compared to Senate                                  
 Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                        
    Defense discretionary.......................          -2          -0
    Nondefense discretionary....................          --          -0
    Violent crime reduction trust fund..........          NA          NA
    Mandatory...................................          --          --
        Total allocation........................          -2          -1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.                    

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman and 
ranking member for their consideration of several important items that 
I brought to the subcommittee's attention.
  I urge my colleagues to expedite action on this bill. I urge the 
Senate to adopt the bill.
                                  fasa

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, last Congress we passed and the 
President signed into law the Federal Acquisition Standards Act, or 
FASA. That Act generally seeks to promote efficiencies and cost savings 
through competition in contracting services. It provides, among other 
things, that contracts for Advisory or Assistance Services above 
certain thresholds must have multiple awards. The theory was that a 
series of smaller contract awards would generally be more cost 
effective that one large contract.
  At the same time, we recognized that not all contracts would benefit 
by multiple awards. This could result either because of the specialized 
subject matter of the contract itself, or because the nature of the 
contract indicates that a single award would be more efficient. For 
that reason, we put in place a specific provision for a waiver from the 
multiple contract award provision.
  Mr. President, just last week, the Department of the Army issued its 
first solicitation for Contractor Advisory and Assistance Services 
since FASA was passed. This particular solicitation was for a series of 
support and integration services for the Chemical Weapons 
Demilitarization program. It would take the current integration and 
support contract and divide it into five component parts in an effort 
to comply with FASA.
  The Chemical Weapons Demilitarization program has been slow to show 
progress since we first directed Disposal of those weapons in 1986. 
Nevertheless, progress is beginning to make itself apparent. Facility 
testing has begun at Tooele, UT, and the next facility at Anniston, AL 
is scheduled to begin construction in 1996.
  Mr. President, disposing of our chemical weapons stockpile is a high-
priority mission, and one which is very highly specialized. I question 
whether this particular mission lends itself to multiple integration 
contract awards. I am concerned that because this is the first contract 
to be let for Contractor Advisory and Assistance Services since FASA 
was passed, the Army might have felt compelled to call for multiple 
contract awards rather than seeking the exemption.
  I would like to ask the distinguished bill managers whether they 
share my opinion that Chemical Weapons Demilitarization is precisely 
the kind of specialized contract which led to our including the 
exemption provisions in FASA.
  Mr. STEVENS. I absolutely share the opinion of the Senator from 
Louisiana. As the Senator knows, the subcommittee indicated strong 
support for the Army's decision to transfer oversight responsibilities 
for this program to the Assistant Secretary for Research Development 
and Acquisition. Our specific interest in this transfer was the cost 
accounting and control which would be put in place by treating this 
program more as an acquisition program than as a construction program. 
However, Chemical Weapons Demilitarization is not an acquisition 
program in the traditional sense. Rather, it is a very highly 
specialized program which places a premium on integration and 
communication. By indicating our support for additional cost accounting 
and controls we by no mans meant to indicate that the FASA exemption 
from multiple contract awards was not available to the Army in this 
instance.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I share the opinion of the Senator from 
Alaska in response to the question from the Senator from Louisiana. The 
Chemical Weapons Demilitarization Program is a sequential construction 
program which depends very heavily on transmitting what is learned at 
one facility to the rest of those facilities in the complex. Program 
integration, environmental permitting, facility oversight and public 
outreach are all integral parts of that mission. Given that fact, the 
Army has every right to avail itself of the waiver provisions of FASA.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I take it that both of the distinguished managers of 
this bill agree with me that the Army should consider the waiver 
provisions of FASA as being completely available in the case of this 
particular contract award. Is it the intention of the managers to make 
that clear in the Statement of Managers which would accompany the 
Conference report on this legislation?
  Mr. STEVENS. That would certainly be my intention.
  Mr. INOUYE. It would be mine as well.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the distinguished managers and yield the floor.
                   marine corps reserve end strength

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Hutchison and I had intended to 
offer an amendment to add $12.8 million to the Marine Corps Reserve 
personnel end strength account. The Senate Defense Authorization bill 
includes authorization for this purpose. It is our understanding that a 
significant number of the 274 additional authorized personnel would be 
used to stand up two F/A18 squadrons in Texas and Georgia.
  Last year, the Chairman assisted me by including report language that 
directed that the deactivation of the Marine Reserve jet squadrons be 
delayed until a formal review and report is received by the Committees 
on Appropriations. That report has not been received. Am I correct?
  Mr. STEVENS. I assisted the Senator from New Mexico with this 
language and he is correct that we have not received a copy of the 
report.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I understand that when the report is released it may 
say that rather than having two F/A18 squadrons, the Marine Corps 
Reserve is considering a squad with a different mix of Harriers, Cobras 
and Hueys. The problem is, Mr. President, there remains a question of 
funding the nearly $280 million necessary to implement this new mix.
  Furthermore, I understand that even if they were able to find $280 
million to pay for these aircraft, they still have not addressed the 
increased training costs that would be caused by basing 

[[Page S 12196]]
these aircraft in North Carolina, as some have suggested.
  When the F/A18 squadrons are activated they will be based in major 
metropolitan areas where the demographic pool for potential reservists 
is larger. Standing up two F/A18 squadrons in the Marine Corps Reserves 
achieves two objectives. First, it assures that Marine Expeditionary 
Forces have enough dedicated airborne firepower. Second, it achieves 
this necessary goal at the least cost possible.
  Mr. DOMENICI. And for myself and Mrs. Hutchison, let me ask the 
Chairman--this is a very important issue to the Marine Corps Reserves 
and to us--would he join us in the conference on this bill in fully 
addressing this issue?
  Mr. STEVENS. I appreciate the Senators' concerns and I will join them 
in the conference on this bill in addressing this issue.
        strategic environmental research and development program

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
manager of the bill in a brief colloquy regarding the Strategic 
Environmental Research and Development Program [SERDP]. As he knows, 
these funds have been and continue to be used for investigating and 
demonstrating innovative environmental clean-up technologies. He may 
also know that the U.S. Army Corps on Engineers Research Laboratory 
[USACERL] has been a very active component of DOD's efforts in this 
area. Through USACERL's work, many of these private/public sector 
technologies are now available for commercialization, stimulating small 
company creation, economic development and environmental protection.
  I would urge that the committee support continuation of USACERL's 
excellent work, particularly remediation activities at the army 
production plants.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am aware of the application of innovative remediation 
technologies at numerous DOD sites throughout the country. I appreciate 
the Senator from Michigan's thoughtful comments on the Army Corps' work 
and bringing it to my attention.
  Mr. LEVIN. Very briefly, I would like to provide the Senator from 
Alaska with two specific examples that demonstrate just how effective 
USACERL has been.
  The first example is an innovative air control technology being 
implemented at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant in Independence, MO. 
A full-scale demonstration biofilter is being installed that will 
reduce air emissions my more than 80 percent. This will allow the plant 
to double production and continue to emit less than its current air 
quality control requirements.
  The second example is a manufactured wastewater treatment project at 
the Radford Army Ammunitions Plant in Radford, VA. This is a full-scale 
demonstration of granular activated carbon-fluidized scale 
demonstration of granular activated carbon-fluidized bed technology for 
treating DNT by-products in wastewater. This type of wastewater has 
proven resistant to any other type of treatment technology available 
today.
  I hope the committee will continue to support the development of 
cost-effective technologies, such as these, for treating DOD wastes.
  Mr. STEVENS. The technologies the Senator has mentioned sound 
promising. I commend DOD and USACERL for their work in this area and 
encourage the Department to continue such innovative work.
                     hispanic serving institutions

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to commend the Chairman for the 
leadership he has displayed in bringing the fiscal year 1996 Department 
of Defense Appropriations bill to the floor. I particularly want to 
bring attention to the historically black colleges and universities and 
minority institutions program element.
  Mr. STEVENS. I would say to my friend from New Mexico that I am 
familiar with the HBCU/MI program and the important contribution that 
these schools make to the research efforts and capabilities of the 
Department of Defense. The bill before us includes $14,800,000 to 
continue these activities in fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chairman. I addition to the language 
already included by the Committee, I would like to ask that your 
committee, during conference, include report language recognizing 
hispanic serving institutions ability to make relevant contributions to 
Department of Defense missions. There are several hispanic academic 
centers for research and education that have developed exemplary 
programs related to science and technology.
  With the hispanic population being the fastest growing minority 
population in the country, persons from this community undoubtedly will 
be called upon to provide the leadership and expertise needed for the 
next century. More importantly, hispanic serving institutions that are 
leading our nation's efforts to educate and train persons from this 
population can provide invaluable assistance and opportunities for 
advanced collaborations to meet these challenges. With this in mind, we 
need to send a strong signal to the Department to take advantage of the 
human and academic resources available at these institutions, and to 
provide resources needed for enhanced collaborations related to 
national security interests.
  Mr. STEVENS. I know of the efforts underway at many of the hispanic 
serving institutions and agree with you in acknowledging the critical 
role they can play in helping the Department of Defense address 
emerging national security interests. I would ask that you share the 
recommended report language with me or my committee staff, and I will 
work to address this matter during the conference on this bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
                 the casting emission reduction program

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to engage the Senator from 
Alaska in a colloquy.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am happy to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. As the Senator knows, the Casting Emission Reduction 
Program is a vital part of the dual-use-reuse process at McClellan Air 
Force Base. The CERP Program uses a new casting process developed to 
meet Clean Air Act requirements; $12 million is needed to fund the 3d 
year of this 5-year program. Would the Senator agree that the Defense 
Department should consider the importance of this program when making 
funding decisions regarding this program?
  Mr. STEVENS. I would agree with the Senator and note that she makes a 
very strong case for funding of the CERP Program. I do understand the 
importance of funding the program and am happy to recognize the 
Senator's interest in CERP.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska.
         funding impact aid in the defense appropriations bill

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Jeffords amendment No. 2393 would 
fund $400 million of the Impact Aid Program from the Defense 
appropriations bill. It would breach the firewalls between defense and 
nondefense.
  I do not rise in opposition to the Impact Aid Program. It is an 
important program and Congress should provide sufficient funding to 
meet the Federal Government's responsibilities in this area.
  Since impact aid is classified as nondefense discretionary spending, 
this amendment would be scored as affecting nondefense discretionary 
budget authority and outlays and would be subject to a budget point of 
order because it would cause this subcommittee to exceed its budget 
allocation for nondefense spending.
  The Impact Aid Program has been classified as a nondefense 
expenditure since 1990. The conference report on the 1990 Budget 
Enforcement Act clearly lists this program in the nondefense category 
in the jurisdiction of the Labor, HHS Subcommittee.
  The 1996 budget resolution's caps on defense and nondefense spending 
were based on the 1990 classification. The budget resolution assumed 
funding for the Impact Aid Program as a nondefense program.
  If scored as defense funding, the effect of this amendment will be to 
penalize the Defense subcommittee for $400 million and to free up $400 
million in spending for the Labor, HHS Subcommittee.
  I fear that scoring this amendment as defense spending would make the 
firewalls between defense and nondefense spending meaningless. The 
defense budget would be eroded by efforts to fund popular nondefense 
items. 

[[Page S 12197]]

  Maybe impact aid was improperly classified. If this is the case, and 
I am not suggesting it is, then we should consider reclassifying this 
program to the defense category.
  If we reclassify impact aid, however, we need to make sure the caps 
are held harmless. Such a reclassification would involve shifting $400 
million associated with a portion of the impact aid account to the 
defense category. Next, we would increase the defense cap by $400 
million and reduce the nondefense category by the same amount.
  Absent such a reclassification, funding for impact aid will be scored 
as nondefense expenditure regardless of which bill funds the program.
                  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 the 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 preposition 
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.
revise the availability of funds for defense conversion loan guarantees

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, my amendment would make statutory 
changes to the Defense Conversion Loan Guarantee Program authorized 
last year. These revisions are necessary to optimize the program's task 
of providing financial and technical assistance to small, defense-
dependent firms adversely impacted by defense downsizing.
  The Defense Conversion Loan Guarantee Program is a joint Small 
Business Administration/Department of Defense program which provides 
loan guarantees and technical assistance to small firms adversely 
affected by defense reductions. This program would provide SBA 
guaranteed businesses and communities adversely affected by defense 
downsizing and base closures.
  In order to fully maximize this important program, there are three 
areas in the existing law which need to be modified:
  First, the portion of DOD funds used for salaries and expenses;
  Second, the current restrictive eligibility requirements which limit 
the number of participants in the program; and
  Third, the duration of the program.
  My amendment would implement these statutory changes without 
requiring any new appropriation of funds.
  In the wake of extensive U.S. Defense downsizing and military base 
closures, this program is both necessary and vital to helping small 
businesses retain the jobs of Defense workers and create new employment 
opportunities in communities affected by economic dislocation. I am 
pleased to offer this amendment and thank my colleagues for their 
support.
     the defense department's financial management training program

  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 Education 
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 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.

[[Page S 12198]]

  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.
                        Surplus DOD Helicopters

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment will set aside $5 
million for the conversion of surplus Defense Department helicopters 
for counter-drug activities. This funding is needed to upgrade these 
helicopters with new radio and avionics equipment, search lights, 
upgraded landing gear and other improvements.
  There is currently a program at DOD that provides surplus military 
equipment to local law enforcement agencies for counter-drug purposes. 
However, no funding is currently available to convert the military 
equipment for use by local law enforcement. Localities simply do not 
have the funds necessary to implement this important program.
  This funding is critical to allow local law enforcement agencies to 
respond to increased drug trafficking. For example, in Sacramento, 
there have been several large arrests made of drug transporting 
thousands of pounds of marijuana and heroin. The city plans to use the 
surplus helicopters for interdiction of traffickers through their area.
  This $5 million appropriation will make a huge difference in the 
ability of localities to utilize these surplus helicopters. I thank my 
colleagues for their support in adopting this very important amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, before we conclude consideration of the 
Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Appropriations Bill, I want to commend 
Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye for all of their work in preparing 
this bill. This is perhaps one of the most important appropriations 
bills we pass each year. With the largest share of defense spending, 
this bill funds such critical accounts as operation & maintenance, 
procurement, research & development, and military pay and personnel. 
Mr. President, I am pleased to support this bill.
  This year, again, the President submitted to Congress a defense 
budget which was woefully inadequate. As I am sure most of my 
colleagues know, long-term readiness is funded through the Procurement 
and R&D accounts, but under the President's budget, the procurement 
accounts were down 67.4 percent from their fiscal year 1985 peak. 
Additionally, the Research, Development Test & Evaluation accounts had 
fallen every year since hitting an FY 1988 high. Under the President's 
budget, these accounts would continue to plummet for the next 5 years. 
For all the administration's rhetoric, procurement spending and 
procurement rates are at their lowest levels in 45 years. Despite the 
administration's promises to enhance force capabilities, modernization 
has come to a virtual standstill. The bottom line is that under the 
Clinton administration, our forces have simply become smaller, but not 
more capable.
  However, the Republican controlled Congress has kept faith with our 
promise to the American people to restore our national security. We 
refuse to continue down the path which would lead us back to a hollow 
military. We have added $7 billion in overall defense spending, turning 
the corner on defense spending. The Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee, under the direction of Senator Stevens has worked to 
ensure that these additional funds were allocated to ensure not only 
our near-term readiness, but also to ensure that our forces were 
prepared to prevail in any future battle. This bill not only increases 
funding for accounts such as operation and maintenance but also for the 
Procurement and Research & Development accounts.
  Let me be clear. This year's increase does not fix all of the 
Department's funding problems. In fact, the burden for ensuring the 
readiness of our military again shifts back to the administration and 
the Department of Defense. In preparing next year's defense budget, the 
administration should follow the lead of this Congress.
  In closing, I again thank the chairman and ranking member for their 
hard work in shaping this defense bill and I am pleased to support it.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I know that the Senator from Nebraska is 
here to speak, and I am sorry to delay him.
  I want the clerk to clear with me, and see if the desk is in 
agreement with me, that we now have pending before the Senate under the 
procedure adopted for amendments filed by 8:30. I have the Bumpers 
amendment No. 2398, Harkin amendment No. 2400, and the Kerry motion to 
recommit; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. But there are 
additional amendments beyond those.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask the clerk provide us with a copy of those 
amendments.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am in error. I forgot to list the Hutchison amendment 
No. 2396. I know that is pending.


                      amendment no. 2399 withdrawn

  Mr. STEVENS. Amendment No. 2399 is a duplicative amendment, Mr. 
President. That was already considered in another form as an amendment 
submitted by Mr. Harkin.
  I withdraw this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment is withdrawn.
  So the amendment (No. 2399) was withdrawn.


                amendments nos. 2422 and 2423 withdrawn

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I withdraw amendments Nos. 2422 and 2423, 
which were proposed by me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments are withdrawn.
  So the amendments (Nos. 2422 and 2423) were withdrawn.


                           amendment no. 2408

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2408 for Mr. 
Pryor.
  This is an amendment offered by Senator Pryor dealing with certain 
certification requirements and approval beyond low-rate initial 
production for the theater missile defense interceptors.
  We have discussed this matter with the Senator from Arkansas and are 
prepared to accept it. It may have to be modified in conference, but we 
wish to accept it in its present form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2408) was agreed to.
  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. EXON. Mr. President, if I might have the attention of the 
managers of the bill, I must make a statement that I had not intended 
to make, but because of a very recent development I have a 
responsibility to advise the Senate that I have just been advised that 
the junior Senator from the State of Texas has filed an amendment to 
the Defense appropriations bill before the Senate that would duplicate 
the provisions in the Defense authorization bill allocating up to $50 
million for hydronuclear testing.
  It has not been generally known, I guess, but it should be 
established now that this Senator has been the principle proponent of a 
move to block passage of the Defense authorization bill until after the 
recess, primarily because the authorization for such tests that are 
also in the authorization bill on which we had a debate last week was a 
very close vote.
  I had agreed after many people on this side of the aisle in talking 
to me, I had agreed not to press this issue and thereby to not delay 
passage of the Defense appropriations bill that is now before the 
Senate and is generally thought to be ready for passage sometime 
tomorrow.
  If the Senator from Texas persists with her amendment in that regard, 
I withdraw my understanding not to interrupt passage of the 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, earlier in the day I had written some thoughts that I 
am going to deliver now that were aimed primarily at the Defense 
authorization bill, but much of my objection to the Defense 
authorization bill is also incorporated in the appropriations bill that 
I had not intended, until the action by the Senator from Texas, to 
bring up until some other time.
  To fully explain this to the Senate, and I have been under a lot of 
pressure from those on this side to not take the stand that I must take 
because I think a very important principle is involved, 

[[Page S 12199]]
and I might say that there are many Senators on this side of the aisle 
and some, including the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who 
agreed with me.
  Mr. President, I am advising the Senate that I will do everything 
reasonably within my power to block passage of the Department of 
Defense authorization bill that is still before the Senate and under 
the new action by the Senator from Texas that has now expanded to 
include the Defense appropriations bill, as well.
  This is, indeed, a sharp departure from the norm by this Senator. For 
the first time in my 17 years here, I am diametrically opposed to the 
package of a Department of Defense authorization bill and the 
appropriations bill, as well.
  There is still time to make some significant changes necessary that 
may allow for passage of the appropriations bill, but time is wasting. 
My remarks apply to both the defense authorization and the 
appropriations bills.
  There are many specific provisions in the Defense authorization bill 
and the appropriations bill that are, in my opinion, absurd and fraught 
with deficiencies with regard to the legitimate national security 
interests of the United States of America.
  Equally appalling are the parts of this bill that clearly rebuke our 
Nation's stated policies, our treaty obligations, and our 
responsibilities as a leader of the free world. In many respects this 
bill is an abomination from the standpoint of our Nation's thoughtful 
policies concerning the security of mankind tomorrow and well into the 
next century.
  If ever there was a clear example of the United States sticking its 
head in the sand to escape reality in the most thoughtless manner, this 
is it.
  Obviously, Defense policy and foreign affairs go hand and hand. The 
net result of the Defense authorization and to a considerable extent, 
the appropriations bill, as presently written, is that we are simply 
throwing up our hands in applause of short-sighted isolationism.
  For the purpose of this discussion, allow me to concentrate on only 
two of the most glaring potential disasters in the legislation as it 
has come out of committee, each of which has been affirmed by 
relatively close votes on the floor of the Senate last week.
  They both have to do with nuclear weapons initiative. They both 
dramatically reverse existing national policies. I speak of the 
provisions in the Defense authorization bill concerning the violation 
of the antiballistic missile ABM Treaty and the related matter that the 
United States resume nuclear weapons testing which would likely end any 
chance of successfully concluding a comprehensive test ban treaty 
agreement.
  Mr. President, this Senator has been pressing the administration for 
a firm statement on this policy. This is necessary more than ever 
because of the recent announcements by the French that they are 
continuing nuclear testing again, and now that is causing great 
political unrest against the Government in France because of that 
action as has been quite prominently displayed in the press.
  Likewise, the Chinese are doing additional nuclear testing. If the 
United States of America begins any kind of nuclear testing, and I 
emphasize any kind, it is going to eliminate any chance that we could 
have a real comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.
  The unilateral break out of the ABM Treaty was thoroughly debated on 
the floor last week and the Senate's final disposition of the issue 
remains unresolved. There can be no question that the President will 
veto this bill as it is written. There has been some progress towards 
correcting some of the most onerous provisions with regard to the 
ballistic missile treaty.
  I am studying those at the present time, but I wish to focus tonight 
on a controversy that is in the long run maybe even more damaging to 
world peace. That is the resumption of nuclear testing and its affect 
on the comprehensive test ban negotiations.
  While both arms control matters are extremely important, the ABM 
Treaty issue involves only two countries: The United States and Russia.
  On the other hand, the comprehensive test ban treaty involves almost 
every country in the world, regardless of their size or nuclear 
capability today and in the future.
  I have reason to believe that in the very immediate future the 
Clinton administration is going to take a very strong stand on this 
matter that will clearly indicate that the Senate did the right thing 3 
years ago, when the Hatfield-Exon-Mitchell amendment was agreed to. And 
the Senate did the wrong thing when it reported out of the Armed 
Services Committee the beginning of tests all over again.
  In Friday's debate on the nuclear testing issue, there were gross 
misstatements about the Exon-Hatfield et al amendment to delete the $50 
million funding authorization to resume testing reported out by the 
Armed Services Committee. This proposal would violate the carefully 
crafted Hatfield-Exon-Mitchell nuclear testing law of 3 years ago.
  The gross distortion of facts I refer to, possibly unwittingly but 
nevertheless untrue, contributed to the narrow vote overturning our 
Nation's nuclear testing policy. I refer primarily to the series of 
false statements made by the opposition to our amendment on the recent 
report of the Jasons group. The Jasons group is a collection of the 
most renowned and best informed scientists from our three national 
laboratories, including noted physicist Sidney Drell, regarding the 
resumption of so-called small nuclear tests at our Nevada test site.
  While I inserted the complete text of the JASON report--the executive 
summary of the JASON report into the Congressional Record on Friday, I 
ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post article be printed in 
the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. EXON. Whether intentional or not, what the opponents of our 
amendment did was distort, for their own purpose, the latest report 
from the JASON group. I quote briefly from the article from the 
Washington Post that I just referenced. The story opens with this 
statement:

       A group of eminent U.S. physicists and nuclear weapons 
     designers has concluded that the military has neither ``a 
     present nor anticipated'' need for small nuclear weapons 
     tests that a Senate majority voted last week to spend $50 
     million to prepare for.

  Mr. President, it goes on in the next paragraph:

       The scientific group concluded after a six-week study for 
     the Department of Energy that conducting the small explosives 
     would not add measurably to the safety and reliability of the 
     U.S. nuclear arsenal, which the scientists said has been 
     solidly established by more than 1,000 nuclear explosions.

  Then, Mr. President, I go to the last paragraph of the story which 
sums it up.

       This summary [that I have been referencing] stated that the 
     group's detailed findings ``are consistent with [a] U.S. 
     agreement to enter into a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty of 
     unending duration'' provided that the treaty allows the 
     country to withdraw if warranted by ``supreme national 
     interests.''
       I believe that this study represents the views of a very 
     diverse and experienced scientific community,

  said Drell, the Panel's chairman.
  Now, Mr. President, I hope and I expect that the Members of the 
United States Senate will study very carefully this whole issue, before 
we rush ahead. That is why I strenuously object to the inclusion of 
this matter in the appropriations bill, where it was left out during 
the considerations of that committee.
  So I repeat, whether intentional or not, these false statements that 
the opponents used against our amendment distorted for their own 
purposes the latest report of the JASON group, by confusing the 
justification for nonnuclear ``hydro-dynamic'' testing with that of 
low-yield nuclear detonations associated with ``hydro-nuclear tests,'' 
which is what is authorized in the defense authorization bill.
  By generally falsifying the report's conclusions and selectively 
lifting statements, the opponents of the Exon-Hatfield amendment were 
able to buttress their ill-advised and false arguments.
  Mr. President, I hope this statement and the following report from 
the Washington Post and other events that are likely to occur in the 
immediate future will make it clear to all Senators who may have been 
unfortunately misled by the debate on the 

[[Page S 12200]]
Exon-Hatfield amendment by the opponents that what the true findings of 
the JASON report are might study it, might change their minds.
  I hope certain Members will reconsider their positions in light of 
this clarification and vote to overturn the committee provisions at 
some time in the future.
  To protect that possibility I must reemphasize once again that I will 
do everything reasonably within my power to make certain that that is 
not authorized, the $50 million is not authorized as the JASON 
committee and others say it is not necessary. It is a waste of money.
  So I thought I had the obligation tonight, since I just found out 
about this, to advise the Senate and especially the two leaders of the 
Appropriations Committee, whom I have great respect for, because I did 
not want to blindside them.
  I yield the floor.
                               Exhibit 1

                [From the Washington Post, Aug. 9, 1995]

  Physicists Say Small Nuclear Tests Backed by Senate Are Unnecessary

                         (By R. Jeffrey Smith)

       A group of eminent U.S. physicists and nuclear weapons 
     designers has concluded that the military has neither a 
     ``present nor anticipated'' need for the small nuclear 
     weapons tests that a Senate majority voted last week to spend 
     $50 million to prepare for.
       The scientific group concluded after a six-week study for 
     the Department of Energy that conducting the small explosions 
     would not add measurably to the safety and reliability of the 
     U.S. nuclear arsenal, which the scientists said has been 
     solidly established by more than 1,000 test nuclear 
     explosions.
       ``The United States can, today, have high confidence in the 
     safety, reliability, and performance margins of the nuclear 
     weapons that are designated to remain in the enduring 
     stockpile,'' said a summary of the group's report. It was 
     signed by several of the country's veteran bomb designers 
     under the auspices of JASONS, a group of academic scientists 
     who consult for the government on national problems.
       The report, which has been presented to Secretary of 
     Defense William J. Perry, Secretary of Energy Hazel R. 
     O'Leary and other top administration officials, was issued 
     during a growing debate in Congress and within the 
     administration over the merits of additional nuclear testing.
       The Clinton administration has been unable for months to 
     decide whether to propose additional nuclear tests, due to 
     disagreement between testing proponents at the Pentagon and 
     opponents at the Energy Department, Arms Control and 
     Disarmament Agency, and the office of the White House science 
     adviser.
       On Friday, the Senate voted 56 to 44 to keep $50 million to 
     prepare for so-called hydronuclear tests, even though the 
     administration has said it does not plan to conduct any 
     during 1996.
       Proponents of additional nuclear testing, largely from the 
     Republican majority, have argued that more explosions are 
     needed to ensure that weapons remain safe and reliable. The 
     administration, in negotiations being conducted in Geneva on 
     a global accord barring all nuclear testing, has similarly 
     insisted on the right to continue setting off extremely 
     small-scale nuclear explosions for the purpose of maintaining 
     the U.S. arsenal.
       The group's report was endorsed by four of the principal 
     designers of the U.S. nuclear arsenal: John Kammerdiener and 
     John Richter of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New 
     Mexico, Robert Peurifoy of the Sandia National Laboratories 
     in New Mexico, and Seymour Sack of the Livermore National 
     Laboratory in California.
       The 14-member group also included noted Princeton physicist 
     Freeman Dyson, IBM scientist Richard Garwin, University of 
     California physicist Marshal Rosenbluth and Stanford 
     physicist Sidney Drell, each of whom has worked on aspects of 
     U.S. nuclear weaponry for more than three decades.
       Besides challenging the merits of the hydronuclear tests, 
     which would have an explosive yield equivalent to about 4 
     pounds of TNT, the report also challenges the prevailing 
     Pentagon view that conducting larger nuclear explosions is 
     also essential to ensuring that U.S. nuclear weapons will 
     continue to operate.
       It states that while such tests would doubtless provide 
     interesting data, the country should pursue other, better 
     routes to maintaining the nuclear arsenal, such as supporting 
     an extensive program of weapons surveillance and a 
     ``significant industrial infrastructure'' to maintain aging 
     weapons components.
       The summary stated that the group's detailed findings ``are 
     consistent with [a] U.S. agreement to enter into a 
     Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) of unending duration'' 
     provided that the treaty allows the country to withdraw if 
     warranted by ``supreme national interest.''
       ``I believe that this study represents the views of a very 
     diverse and experienced scientific community,'' said Drell, 
     the panel's chairman.

  Mr. STEVENS. We are awaiting temporarily for what we would call the 
wrap-up.
  So I ask, as in morning business, Mr. President, to make this 
statement.

                          ____________________