[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 136 (Tuesday, September 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12532-S12546]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                      Amendment No. 2125 Withdrawn

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Brown, I ask 
unanimous consent that amendment No. 2125, relating to Pakistan, be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the amendment (No. 2125) was withdrawn.


                              crusader/lp

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I wish to engage the distinguished Senator 
from Virginia, the chairman of the Subcommittee on AirLand Forces, in a 
brief colloquy regarding the Army's Crusader program. Senator Warner, I 
note that the committee has fully supported the Army's priority 
development of the Advanced Field Artillery System, Crusader program 
and I commend the committee for its action. However, I am concerned by 
the actions of the House National Security Committee relative to the 
liquid propellant [LP] gun aspect of the Crusader program. I have been 
led to believe that the Army recognized the performance advantages of 
the LP gun and that the Army in recognition of those performance 
enhancements accepted the risks associated with LP development. Am I 
correct in that understanding?
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct. The range and volume of fire 
advantages of LP would greatly increase the performance and 
capabilities of the Army's field artillery.
  Mr. SHELBY. I am concerned that the House has written several pages 
of bill language which would legislate noncontractual performance goals 
which might add schedule risk and might jeopardize the schedule 
flexibility critical to the successful management of any development 
effort. I am also concerned that the House position appears to prejudge 
the failure of the LP gun while not adequately considering the risk nor 
providing comparable oversight for the Army's backup technology, 
unicharge.
  Mr. WARNER. The committee staff has reviewed the Army's Crusader 
program and LP development in detail. LP development is receiving 
intensive management by both the contractor and the Army. I understand 
the Senator's concern that the House position legislating performance 
goals and decision schedules might exceed the oversight needs of this 
program. I do believe, however, that we should maintain adequate 
congressional oversight over both LP and unicharge development as it 
affects this important Army program. I would point out that the Army is 
just completing the first year of an 8\1/2\ year development program 
for the Crusader. We are pushing the limits of technology in an 
entirely new area with the research and development of liquid 
propellant for Crusader. I believe that the potential advantages of LP 
justify the risks associated with its development. We will continue to 
watch this program carefully. We expect that the development of LP will 
be successful and that the Crusader will be produced and fielded on 
schedule. If, on the other hand, the technology challenges are too 
difficult, and LP simply doesn't work, then we won't buy it. However, 
in the meantime, I believe we should allow the Army's developmental 
efforts to proceed.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator would yield, I would point out that the 
Navy has a requirement to improve its naval surface fire support and 
has a cooperative agreement with the Army to monitor and leverage off 
of the liquid propellant gun development. The successful development of 
LP offers great opportunities for the Navy in this important area and 
in as much as the House legislation serves as a detriment to that 
effort, I would be happy to work to resolve this issue in conference.
  Mr. SHELBY. I want to thank the Senator from Virginia and the Senator 
from Massachusetts for their understanding of this matter and for their 
commitment to work to resolve this in conference.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THURMOND. 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. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise now to urge Senators who have 
amendments to the Defense authorization bill to come to the floor and 
take up their amendments. We are supposed to pass this bill today. If 
they wait until this afternoon, then they are all stacked in at the 
last minute and it is going to be very difficult to handle.
  I urge them to come on out. We have been here all morning starting at 
10 o'clock, and we have approved a few things. But there is a lot more 
to be done. I want them to come and take up the amendments and let us 
get them acted on one way or the other.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. EXON. 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. EXON. Mr. President, I would like to say we are making good 
progress, working back and forth on both sides. I think with a little 
cooperation here and a little cooperation there, this whole proposition 
might move much more expeditiously than we had earlier anticipated.
  I thank my friend and colleague from South Carolina for his usual 
good cooperation, and we are going to be working very hard the rest of 
the day to try to eliminate any and all barriers to cut down the time 
dramatically and probably come to a resolution, hopefully, on the 
authorization and the appropriations bills early this evening, and I 

[[Page S 12533]]
emphasize the word ``early'' this evening, which I think would be good 
news for all.


                           Amendment No. 2429

       (Purpose: To amend the hydronuclear provisions of S. 1026)

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

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for himself and Mr. 
     Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 2429.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of the Act, the 
     provision dealing with hydronuclear experiments is qualified 
     in the following respect:
       (c) Limitations.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed as 
     an authorization to conduct hydronuclear tests. Furthermore, 
     nothing in this Act shall be construed as amending or 
     repealing the requirements of Section 507 of Public Law 102-
     377.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the preceding amendments 
are set aside.
  The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this is a matter that myself, Senator 
Hatfield, and many other Senators have put in a great deal of time and 
effort on. I think this is a compromise amendment that has a chance of 
being accepted on both sides. Therefore, we have set aside the hour and 
a half, if I remember the figures correctly, that we agreed to in the 
unanimous-consent request. In any event, at the present time I yield 
such time as is assigned to me in the unanimous-consent agreement for 
the following remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, before the August recess, a number of 
amendments to the Defense authorization bill were debated at length. 
One of these was an amendment proposed by myself, Senator Hatfield, and 
nine other Senators to delete the $50 million add-on to the bill for 
hydronuclear weapons testing. While that amendment failed, I strongly 
feel that the Senate should revisit the issue in a different form so 
that it may be clarified in light of President Clinton's recent 
decision to forgo such tests.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I would emphasize that the amendment that I 
have just offered and has just been read by the clerk is an amendment 
that I believe goes a long way in clarifying the situation for all 
concerned. And I firmly believe that it is simply a restatement, a 
punctuation mark, if you will, with the wording that was agreed to on 
matters in this regard in the Defense authorization bill as it came out 
of the Armed Services Committee.
  The Defense authorization in its present form contains section 3135, 
a provision authorizing $50 million for preparation for the 
commencement of hydronuclear tests. As my colleagues may know, the 
United States has been negotiating a comprehensive test ban treaty with 
the world's nuclear powers for the past 2 years. President Clinton's 
August 11 announcement to push for an international agreement by 1996 
that would prohibit these types of nuclear detonations was an important 
development toward the goal of halting the spread of nuclear weapons 
around the world.
  I was particularly encouraged yet this morning to learn that the 
French President has now indicated a signal to cut dramatically short 
the full-scale underground nuclear testing that the French Government 
had proposed in the South Pacific. Things are coming together perhaps 
so that we can have a meeting of the minds.
  After over 1,100--and I emphasize 1,100--nuclear tests conducted by 
the United States over 50 years, the U.S. nuclear stockpile is the 
safest and most reliable on Earth. Computer simulation backed up with 
the data from these tests, not additional detonations, can maintain 
this high degree of confidence in the future. But a nonnuclear nation 
looking to obtain superpower status in the form of a nuclear bomb is 
unlikely to develop such a capability without the means to test these 
unproven weapons. A truly comprehensive and verifiable test ban treaty 
will be an effective tool at closing membership in the nuclear club.
  My amendment simply clarifies that the language in section 3135 is 
for test preparation--that is how it reads now, preparation--and not 
authority to violate the existing U.S. testing moratorium policy. My 
amendment reaffirms the congressional review process for new tests 
required by the 1992 Energy and Water Appropriations Act by adding the 
following simple and straightforward paragraph to the bill:
  I quote:

       Nothing in this act shall be construed as an authorization 
     to conduct hydronuclear tests. Furthermore, nothing in this 
     act shall be construed as amending or repealing the 
     requirements of section 507 of Public Law 102-377.

  Unlike my previous amendment on hydronuclear testing, this amendment 
does not affect--I emphasize--does not affect the $50 million 
authorization in the bill presently. The Department of Energy would be 
allowed to spend the funds but only for the purpose stated in the bill, 
that being test preparation. The intent of the bill language would be 
made clearer by my amendment and brought into line with the 
administration's stated policy. The funds can be spent on Department of 
Energy stockpile stewardship activities but the authorization of funds 
in no way should be construed as a congressional authorization to 
conduct a test. That prerogative, as I mentioned earlier, is reserved 
under a reporting requirement contained in the original Hatfield-Exon-
Mitchell provision to the 1992 energy and water appropriations bill, 
wherein the President must report to Congress and seek its approval for 
any new tests and provide the safety or reliability justification for 
such tests.

  There is no reason why the United States should restart nuclear 
weapons testing. To do so would be expensive, end up scuttling the 
comprehensive test ban negotiations, and, in a self-defeating turn, 
encourage other nations to pursue obtaining a nuclear capability. The 
preeminent nuclear weapons experts in America--if not the world--issued 
on August 3 of this year a study on whether we should continue nuclear 
weapons testing. The study, called the JASON study, was headed by 
Sidney Drell of Stanford and was written by 14 top scientists, 
including representatives from each of the national laboratories 
responsible for the stewardship and maintenance of these weapons. Their 
conclusion was unequivocal: There is no need to resume testing, 
including the hydronuclear tests discussed in this bill.
  Among the JASON report findings:

       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:

  A further quote from that report:

       A pervasive case has not been made for the utility of 
     hydronuclear tests for detecting small changes in the 
     performance margins for current U.S. weapons.

  Further quote:

       Underground testing of nuclear weapons at any yield below 
     that required to initiate boosting is of limited value to the 
     United States.

  Further quote:

       [Our] findings . . . are consistent with U.S. agreement to 
     enter into a comprehensive test ban [CTBT] of unending 
     duration, that includes a standard ``supreme national 
     interest clause.''

  Mr. President, these are findings of the JASON report authors--the 
foremost nuclear experts in the United States. They are saying, they 
are telling and they are advising two things of primary importance: 
First, that the United States does not need to test this year or the 
next or into the foreseeable future in order to maintain a safe and 
reliable nuclear arsenal. Second, they are saying that a comprehensive 
test ban is in our national security interests.
  I find it ironic that proponents of the fast-tracked national missile 
defense system try to justify the estimated $48 billion project by 
saying we can never be sure what rogue nation may develop nuclear 
warheads in the next century and, therefore, we must protect ourselves. 
A comprehensive test ban is an effective way of stemming this 
proliferation tide. It is a means by which to limit the have-nots from 
trying to find superpower status in the form of a nuclear warhead. A 
nation is unlikely to develop a nuclear capability with any degree of 
confidence if it cannot test the weapons. By the United States showing 
leadership and announcing 

[[Page S 12534]]
that all tests should be banned under a comprehensive test ban treaty, 
the goal of nuclear nonproliferation has been greatly enhanced. Let us 
keep it that way.
  There is another reason why a comprehensive test ban treaty is 
beneficial for the United States. No nation has tested more than the 
United States and has more advanced computer technology than we do. A 
comprehensive test ban will lock in the technological advantages that 
we possess over the rest of the world.
  But this discussion about a comprehensive test ban treaty is all 
prospective. The negotiations are ongoing and no agreement has been 
reached as of yet. All the more reason for the Congress not to 
interject itself capriciously into the question of mandating weapons 
testing of any kind.
  The issue at hand is my amendment and whether the words in section 
3135 of the bill mean what they say. My amendment does not touch the 
$50 million add-on in the bill for test preparation. It simply 
reiterates that ``preparation'' is different than an actual decision to 
test.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I will revisit 
this issue at a later time.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bingaman and 
Senator Lieberman be added as original cosponsors of the Exon 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Pursuant to a previous discussion I had with my distinguished friend 
and colleague from South Carolina, the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, I think at this time we may be in a position to proceed with 
the adoption of a series of amendments that I understand have been 
cleared on both sides.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on this particular amendment, I want to 
say we are looking at the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that it be 
laid aside until we can go to other things and then reconsider it at a 
later time during the day. I am pleased to go the matters that have 
been agreed upon.
  Mr. EXON. I agree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. May I inquire of my colleague from South Carolina if he is 
prepared, as a manager of the bill, to proceed with the 20-odd 
amendments that I understand have been offered and have been cleared on 
both sides. We are prepared to take those matters up now, if it is the 
will of the chairman.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, of those that have been cleared, it is 
agreeable for us to take those up at this time. I would like for us to 
get the staff here to see about that.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


Section 551 of S. 1026--The Determination of Whereabouts and Status of 
                            Missing Persons

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the fiscal year 1995 National Defense 
Authorization Act directed the Secretary of Defense to review current 
law related to missing service personnel and report to Congress on 
recommended changes. In addition to the recommendations made in the 
mandated report, the Department of Defense accommodated the committee's 
concerns by agreeing to several additional provisions, which are 
included in this bill, that went considerably beyond the scope of the 
initial recommendations.
  In the provisions of this bill, the committee has gone as far as the 
Congress should on this issue. I believe the committee and the 
Department of Defense have agreed on a course of action that will 
improve current procedures without imposing a new and cumbersome 
bureaucracy on the Department, the Services, and commanders in the 
field.
  However, the report language accompanying the bill does not 
accurately reflect the intention of the bill language in one key 
aspect. The recommended provision would not prohibit the Department of 
Defense from declaring a serviceman dead when there are obvious 
indications that he is indeed dead, including the passage of time. 
Contrary to the report language, the bill language does not confer 
immortality on MIA's. Further, I do not share the editorial 
characterization of the current accounting system as insensitive and 
unresponsive. Whereas this may have been true many years ago, the 
Department of Defense and the Services have since taken extensive 
measures to make the system sensitive, responsive, and most important, 
workable.
  When the bill before us goes to conference, I will steadfastly 
support the Senate position and oppose the provisions in the House bill 
which, in my view, are unwise and unworkable. I encourage my colleagues 
in the strongest possible terms to do likewise.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my colleague, the distinguished senior 
Senator from Nebraska, will take up an amendment by Senator Harkin.


                           Amendment No. 2430

 (Purpose: To increase the amount provided for the Civil Air Patrol by 
                              $5,000,000)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Harkin, I offer an 
amendment which will reduce and refocus the reduction of the bill to 
the Civil Air Patrol budget from a $5 million reduction to a $2.9 
million reduction. This amendment would effectively speed up the 
ongoing reorganization of the Civil Air Patrol so that the savings plan 
for 1997 would be achieved by 1996.
  I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the pending amendments will 
be set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Harkin, for 
     himself, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Robb, Mr. Heflin, and 
     Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 2430.

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

       On page 72, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:

     SEC. 305. INCREASE IN FUNDING FOR THE CIVIL AIR PATROL.

       (a) Increase.--(1) The amount of funds authorized to be 
     appropriated by this Act for operation and maintenance of the 
     Air Force for the Civil Air Patrol Corporation is hereby 
     increased by $5,000,000.
       (2) The amount authorized to be appropriated for operation 
     and maintenance for the Civil Air Patrol Corporation under 
     paragraph (1) is in addition to any other funds authorized to 
     be appropriated under this Act for that purpose.
       (b) Offsetting Reduction.--The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated under this Act for Air Force support of the 
     Civil Air Patrol is hereby reduced by $2,900,000. The amount 
     of the reduction shall be allocated among funds authorized to 
     be appropriated for Air Force personnel supporting the Civil 
     Air Patrol and for Air Force operation and maintenance 
     support for the Civil Air Patrol.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on behalf of my esteemed colleagues 
Senators Shelby, Campbell, Robb, Heflin, Bingaman, and myself, I offer 
an amendment to restore the cuts in the Civil Air Patrol budget. The 
Senate defense authorization bill S. 1026 cuts the Civil Air Patrol 
[CAP] operations and maintenance by $5 million, from $14.7 million to 
$9.7 million, a 34 percent reduction. This heavy cut would severely 
limit the CAP's capability to carry out its search and rescue missions, 
emergency air transport, counterdrug surveillance, and other important 
functions.
  The Harkin-Shelby-Campbell-Robb-Heflin-Bingaman bipartisan amendment 
to the fiscal year 1996 defense authorization bill restores the CAP 
budget to the amount approved by the House, the original $14.7 million.
  The Civil Air Patrol is a nonprofit corporation designated as an 
auxiliary of the Air Force by public law in 1948. It is mostly made up 
of over 50,000 volunteers who are mainly ex-Air Force personnel, and 
who often must fly over large areas of country in their missions of 
mercy. It is to the credit of the CAP that their volunteers relieve the 
Government of expense such that only 10 percent of the CAP budget need 
be used to reimburse the volunteers. Furthermore, the CAP is undergoing 
a reorganization to replace active duty Air 

[[Page S 12535]]
Force personnel with retired fliers who receive only one-half their 
former pay. This will save taxpayers about $3 million. Additionally, 
the Air Force active duty personnel are being replaced by civilians at 
the CAP headquarters, so the CAP budget reflects an increase equivalent 
to the decrease in the Air Force budget used to pay for headquarters 
personnel. These reorganizational changes were misinterpreted in a 
General Accounting Office report to justify cutting the CAP. The 
Harkin-Shelby-Campbell-Robb-Heflin-Bingaman amendment corrects the 
well-intentioned but misguided cuts in the CAP. The CAP is invaluable 
to our country, and performs its missions much more inexpensively than 
could be done by Government.
  Because the Air Force personnel are being replaced by retirees and 
other civilians, the active duty Air Force personnel and operations and 
maintenance budget should be reduced by $2.9 million. This reflects the 
savings to the taxpayer that the recent reorganization attains.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I support this amendment to cut the level 
of support for the Civil Air Patrol in the Air Force operations and 
maintenance and personnel accounts by $2.9 million and restore $5 
million to the Civil Air Patrol Corporation budget. The $2.9 million 
cut from the administration's request for this program will reduce the 
amount of military resources unnecessarily dedicated to its overhead 
and administration.
  Furthermore, although I believe that this program is noble, its 
military benefits are negligible. The primary mission of this program, 
search and rescue of downed civilian pilots, would more appropriately 
be funded through the budget of the Department of Transportation or 
another civilian agency. I urge the administration and the Congress to 
explore alternative funding for this program in the future to ensure 
its decreased reliance upon the Department of Defense.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared by 
the other side.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. We support the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2430) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask to have my personal view reflected in the Record. I 
had occasion to visit Civil Air Patrol installations in several places 
in my State and elsewhere. I also had a brief service with them during 
the early stages of World War II. I think it is a highly useful and 
productive organization, helping many of our young people in their 
first introduction to aviation.
  I strongly support the Civil Air Patrol.


                           Amendment No. 2431

(Purpose: To increase the authorization of appropriations for operation 
and maintenance for the Air Force Reserve by $10,000,000, and to offset 
   that increase by reducing the authorization of appropriations for 
 operation and maintenance for Defense-wide activities by $10,000,000)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, Mr. Thurmond, I offer an amendment which would 
adjust funding for civilian personnel in the Air Force Reserve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] for Mr. Thurmond, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2431.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 69, line 25, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 70, line 5, strike out ``$1,472,947,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$1,482,947,000''.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this amendment would adjust the funding 
for civilian personnel under strength in the Air Force Reserve.
  The Department of Defense made an error in verifying the degree to 
which various accounts were overfunded. In response to my inquiry, the 
Department reconsidered its report and determined the figure for the 
Air Force Reserve should be $3 million in reductions, not $13 million 
as previously reported. This amendment would restore $10 million of the 
$13 million to the Air Force Reserve and reduce DOD funding by $10 
million.
  I thank the Chair, and yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. This amendment has been cleared by both sides.
  Mr. EXON. The amendment has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2431) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2432

   (Purpose: To provide $9,500,000 for the Joint Seismic Program and 
                        Global Seismic Network)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Glenn, I offer an 
amendment to authorize $9.5 million for seismic monitoring to detect 
nuclear explosions. These funds would be used to continue the operation 
of global seismographic network operated by the consortium of American 
University.
  I believe this amendment has been cleared on the other side of the 
aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Glenn, for 
     himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Pell, and Mr. Moynihan, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2432.

  Mr. EXON. 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 49, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 224. JOINT SEISMIC PROGRAM AND GLOBAL SEISMIC NETWORK.

       To the extent provided in appropriations Acts, $9,500,000 
     of the unobligated balance of funds available to the Air 
     Force for research, development, test, and evaluation for 
     fiscal year 1995 shall be available for continuation of the 
     Joint Seismic Program and Global Seismic Network.

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, the proliferation of nuclear weapons 
continues to be one of the most serious threats to national security, 
which underscores the need for the United States to maintain an 
effective capability to detect and identify clandestine nuclear tests. 
The challenge for seismic monitoring is the detection and 
identification of events of small magnitude. To meet this challenge it 
is necessary to acquire regional data not less than 1,000 kilometers 
from a test.
  For many years, a consortium of universities has operated a multiple-
use, global seismographic network that has been supported with funds 
from the Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation. 
These facilities represent a small but significant investment by the 
U.S. Government, offer effective and needed nuclear test monitoring 
capabilities worldwide, and enhance regional coverage in areas not 
adequately covered by National Technical Means [NTM].
  Data provided by this global seismographic network can be used to 
locate seismic events, discriminate natural versus explosive sources, 
and estimate magnitude and/or yield--all of which are critical in 
detection and identification of clandestine nuclear tests. Enhancing 
accuracy of event location is particularly important in greatly 
reducing the area which must be investigated through costly on-site 
inspections or the use of NTM. The data obtained from this network thus 
complement, rather than compete with, data obtained from NTM.
  This type of information will be invaluable in helping our Government 
to verify a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. We are already well 
into the evolution of the post-cold-war world, and one unpleasant fact 
of life about such a world is that professional test ban monitors no 
longer have the 

[[Page S 12536]]
luxury of simply gathering data about activities at certain fixed, 
well-characterized sites. Now the problem has gotten more complex: we 
are increasingly concerned about small, low-yield test explosions, and 
we are facing a verification challenge that is truly global in scope. 
Given the global distribution of significant nongovernmental seismic 
monitoring capabilities, it is only prudent for us to exploit whatever 
resources are available and appropriate to get the job done.
  The network is administered by a consortium which today consists of 
over 80 research institutions and affiliates around the globe. The 
National Science and Technology Council [NSTC] is developing a long-
term funding plan for the GSN and JSP. Because of delays in the NSTC 
process funding recommendations were not included in the 
administration's fiscal year 1996 budget request, but are being 
incorporated in the fiscal year 1997 budget request. In the meantime, 
this action is needed to ensure continuation of these important 
programs.
  My amendment specifies that $9,500,000 of prior year funds from the 
Defense Support Program which are available as a result of the omnibus 
reprogramming shall be available for continuation of the Global 
Seismographic Network [GSN] and Joint Seismic Program [JSP]. This is 
maintained by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research [AFOSR] in PE 
601102F, project 2309.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2432) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2433

(Purpose: To reconcile authorization of the funds appropriated for the 
construction of a Special Operations Forces [SOF] Group Headquarters at 
  Fort Bragg, North Carolina with the Senate Appropriations Committee 
                            recommendation)

  Mr. WARNER. I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of the senior 
Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Helms, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2433.

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

       On page 422, in the table preceding line 1, in the matter 
     relating to the Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, 
     North Carolina, strike out ``$8,100,000'' in the amount 
     column and insert in lieu thereof ``$9,400,000''.
       On page 424, line 22, increase the amount by $1,300,000.
       On page 424, line 25, increase the amount by $1,300,000.

  (At the request of Mr. Dole, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this technical amendment is to fix an 
incorrect authorization level for construction of a mission essential 
Special Operations Forces Group Headquarters at Fort Bragg, NC.
  This project was authorized by the Senate Armed Services Committee at 
the original, incorrect estimate of $2,600,000.
  As background, the U.S. Special Operations Command--or USSOCOM, as it 
is called--requested in its fiscal year 1996 milcon budget a Group HQ 
originally estimated to cost $2,600,000.
  Based upon that erroneous estimate, the administration requested and 
the House Appropriations Committee appropriated that amount.
  The correct project estimate is $3,900,000. The cost increase is 
attributable to two key factors; a failure to account for the area cost 
factor for construction in the Fort Bragg area and the realization that 
special construction requirements are necessary.
  Equipped with the new, accurate estimate, the Senate Military 
Construction Subcommittee, approved $3,900,000 for the project.
  My amendment will fix the discrepancy between the Senate Military 
Construction Subcommittee's appropriation and the Senate Armed Services 
Committee's authorization.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is a technical correction to the 
funding level of a project included in the President's budget request. 
I believe this amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this is a technical amendment that is 
entirely in order and has been cleared on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2433) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2434

 (Purpose: To state a rule of construction to clarify the supremacy of 
      the Secretary of State's authority to coordinate policy on 
             international military education and training)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Simon, I offer an 
amendment to provide that nothing shall impair the authority and 
ability of the Secretary of State to coordinate policy regarding the 
international military education and training program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Simon, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2434.

  Mr. EXON. 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 366, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       (d) Relationship to Authority of Secretary of State.--
     Nothing in this section or section 462 of title 10, United 
     States Code (as added by subsection (b)(1)), shall impair the 
     authority or ability of the Secretary of State to coordinate 
     policy regarding international military education and 
     training programs.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared by 
the other side.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is correct.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2434) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2435

   (Purpose: To provide $5,000,000 for continued development of the 
              depressed altitude guided gun round system)

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

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Smith, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2435.

  Mr. WARNER. 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 49, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 224. DEPRESSED ALTITUDE GUIDED GUN ROUND SYSTEM.

       Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under section 
     201(1), $5,000,000 is authorized to be appropriated for 
     continued development of the depressed altitude guided gun 
     round system.

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering would 
authorize $5 million from within the Army research, development, test 
and evaluation account to continue development of the depressed 
altitude guided gun round [DAGGR] system.
  DAGGR is a surface-to-air weapon that could provide an effective 
defense against low-altitude threats, both in rear areas and for 
maneuver forces in forward areas. It has an all-weather capability, and 
could be mounted on either standard trucks or an armored 

[[Page S 12537]]
chassis such as the AGS or M113A. DAGGR would integrate an existing 
radar guided 60 millimeter gun round, developed by the Navy, with an 
interferometric radar, developed by the Army.
  As currently envisioned, DAGGR could address mortars, short range 
rockets, unmanned aerial vehicles, cruise missiles, and helicopter 
delivered air-to-ground missiles. The Army currently has little or no 
direct capability against these threats
  Mr. President, this program is not part of the Army budget. However, 
the committee was contacted by the Army after markup and apprised of 
their strong interest in the program. I have been fully briefed on the 
potential application of this technology and believe that it has merit. 
It would complement other ongoing efforts to provide 360-degree 
coverage for our maneuver forces, and enhance the warfighting 
capabilities of our frontline units.
  I believe that this amendment has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment provides $5 million of Army 
research and development funds which may be used to continue 
development of the depressed altitude guided gun round system.
  It is my understanding. this amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. EXON. It has been cleared on this side, and we are prepared to 
accept the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2435) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2436

 (Purpose: To require the Army to provide a report to the Congress on 
plans to provide T700-701C engine upgrades for Army AH-64D helicopters)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kennedy, I offer an 
amendment which would require the Secretary of the Army to submit a 
report on the program upgrade of the engines AH-64D, Apache helicopter 
fleet. This amendment would make no change in the current funding, but 
would require the Secretary to submit a detailed plan and estimated 
funding requirements for the program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Kennedy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2436.

  Mr. EXON. 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 21, following line 21, insert the following:

     SEC.   . REPORT ON AH-64D ENGINE UPGRADES.

       (a) Report.--No later than February 1, 1996, the Secretary 
     of the Army shall submit to Congress a report on plans to 
     procure T700-701C engine upgrade kits for Army AH-64D 
     helicopters.
       The report shall include:
       (1) a plan to provide for the upgrade of all Army AH-64D 
     helicopters with T700-701C engine kits commencing in FY 1996.
       (2) detailed timeline and funding requirements for the 
     engine upgrade program described in (a)(1).

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I therefore urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2436) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2437

(Purpose: To clarify that the $54,968,000 authorized to be appropriated 
     for the Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) is for 
                  procurement of eight JPATS aircraft)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Dole. It relates to the joint 
primary aircraft training program (JPATS).
  Mr. President, the amendment clarifies that the Air Force is 
authorized to buy up to eight joint primary aircraft training systems 
with the $54 million authorized for procurement of these aircraft.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Dole, for 
     himself and Mr. Thurmond, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2437.

  Mr. WARNER. 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 31, after line 22, insert the following:

     SEC. 133. JOINT PRIMARY AIRCRAFT TRAINING SYSTEM PROGRAM.

       Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under section 
     103(1), $54,968,000 shall be available for the Joint Primary 
     Aircraft Training System program for procurement of up to 
     eight aircraft.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator for offering 
this amendment on my behalf. The amendment is simple. It allows the Air 
Force to buy up to eight joint primary aircraft trainers [JPATS] in 
fiscal year 1996.
  In its fiscal year 1996 budget submission, the Department of Defense 
had requested authorization to buy 3 JPATS aircraft for $55 million. 
However, at the time the budget was submitted, the JPATS competition 
had not been completed and the contract had not been awarded. 
Consequently, the Air Force had to plan for the possibility that the 
contract could be awarded for a much more expensive aircraft than the 
submission which was actually selected. Let me be clear, this amendment 
does not increase funding for JPATS procurement--it simply allows the 
Air Force to procure this new trainer at a more efficient rate. 
Additionally, my colleagues should know that this change has been 
coordinated with the Air Force.
  Again, I thank Senator Thurmond and my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle for their assistance in clearing this amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. I urge the adoption of the amendment. It has been cleared 
on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2437) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2438

(Purpose: To provide $15,000,000 (under the line item for the M1 Abrams 
tank series (MYP)) for procurement of direct support electronic system 
test sets (DSESTS) test program sets for the M1 Abrams series tanks and 
                 the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Heflin and Senator 
Shelby, I offer an amendment which would shift some funds within the 
Army's budget to buy more software for direct support electronic system 
tests.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Heflin, for 
     himself and Mr. Shelby, proposes an amendment numbered 2438.

  Mr. EXON. 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 16, line 20, strike out ``$1,532,964,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$1,547,964,000''.
       On page 69, line 25, strike out ``$10,060,162,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$10,045,162,000.''

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, this amendment will provide funds for test 
equipment for the U.S. Army.
  The Army plans to field a number of modernized combat vehicles in the 
years ahead including the M1A2, the upgraded Bradley, the new breacher, 
and the new light tank. Unfortunately, the Army budget has been reduced 
to the point where the Army is unable to 

[[Page S 12538]]
fund the development of the test equipment required to support these 
new vehicles. However, it makes no sense to field new vehicles without 
simultaneously fielding the required support equipment.
  The Army's acquisition decision memorandum dated March 30, 1995, 
directs the continued use of DSESTS for the ASM fleet. Furthermore, 
there is a standing Army requirement for new test program sets to 
support these vehicles. I therefore ask the support of my colleagues in 
adding $15 million to the ASM budget for the acquisition of DSESTS test 
program sets needed to support our modern combat systems.
  Let me say now that I am not pleased by the source of the funds used 
to pay for this amendment. I stand firmly against raiding the readiness 
accounts to fund procurement programs. In fact, I would not offer this 
amendment if it were not for the fact that not purchasing the equipment 
will cost the readiness accounts even more. If we do not buy this 
equipment, the combat units will be forced to send broken equipment 
back to the depot rather than repairing it in the field. This will add 
millions in additional maintenance costs each year. Purchasing this 
equipment will save much needed readiness dollars.
  That being said, I hope that in conference the committee will be able 
to provide an alternative source of funding for this important test 
equipment.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Army believes this additional software 
would help save operation and maintenance funds, since testing will be 
avoided, and shipping equipment to depots, when the action is not 
necessary.
  I believe this is a very worthy amendment. I understand it has been 
cleared on the other side.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2438) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2439

    (Purpose: To amend the effective date for the authority to pay 
transitional compensation for dependents of members of the Armed Forces 
                     separated for dependent abuse)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] entitled ``Spousal 
Abuse.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Domenici, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2439.

  Mr. WARNER. 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 277, after line 25, insert the following:
       (b) Effective Date for Program Authority.--Section 
     554(b)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1994 (107 Stat. 1666; 10 U.S.C. 1059 note) is 
     amended by striking out ``the date of the enactment of this 
     Act--'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``April 1, 1994--''.
       On page 277, beginning on line 21, strike out ``: 
     Clarification of entitlement''.
       On page 277, line 23, insert ``(a) Clarification of 
     Entitlement.--before ``Section''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I offer a technical correction to 
section 1059 of title X, United States Code, which provides the 
authority to the Secretary of Defense to provide transitional benefits 
for abused military spouses and their children. I understand that my 
amendment has been accepted on both sides, and I want to thank the 
chairman and ranking member for their support.
  I would like to take just a few brief moments to refresh my 
colleagues memories about this issue. Members will recall that in the 
fiscal year 1993 Defense authorization bill I offered an amendment to 
provide up to 50 percent of the retirement pay of a military member to 
his spouse and children if that member were dishonorably discharged 
from the service for spouse or child abuse. That amendment was accepted 
by this committee and it had the full support of both the chairman and 
ranking member. I am very proud of that amendment, Mr. President. Today 
abused military spouses and their children have a way out.
  There was such a recognized need for that amendment that the fiscal 
year 1994 Defense authorization bill included language that provided 
the Secretary of Defense with this authority to make 
transitional benefits for up to 3 years payable on a force-wide basis 
to any military spouse or child whose member was dishonorably 
discharged from the service for spouse or child abuse.

  By the fiscal year 1995 Defense authorization bill, the Department of 
Defense had not implemented the language from the fiscal year 1994 
bill. When the bill came to the floor, I offered an amendment to make 
the fiscal year 1994 language mandatory and to provide commissary and 
other benefits that were not included in the fiscal year 1994 language.
  On July 1, 1994, during the consideration of the Defense 
authorization bill, in a colloquy with Senator Nunn I informed 
Senators, ``Frankly, I was going to try to make this mandatory in the 
original amendment, but I am not doing that because I have assurance of 
the Chairman that he is going to join me here on the floor urging that 
the military take care of this responsibility.'' Senator Nunn did that.
  On July 7, 1994, Assistant Secretary of Defense Dorn, sent a letter 
to Chairman Nunn stating that the DOD ``intends to implement 
transitional compensation, authorized by the fiscal year 1994 Defense 
Authorization Act, on October 1, 1994, with coverage retroactive to 
April 1, 1994.''
  Despite Secretary Dorn's letter, DOD did not implement the fiscal 
year 1994 language until January 25, 1995, and they only made benefit 
payments retroactive to October 1994, not April 1994 as they committed.
  I wrote to Assistant Secretary Dorn on February 9, 1995, expressing 
my extreme displeasure and informing him that the only reason we 
withdrew our amendment to the fiscal year 1995 DOD authorization bill 
was because the DOD gave the staff of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee assurance that the transitional benefits would be retroactive 
to April 1994.
  Assistant Secretary Dorn responded on March 6, 1995. Most 
importantly, he said, ``As you correctly stated in your letter, the DOD 
made a commitment, and we do plan to take the appropriate actions to 
rectify the situation. My staff is preparing the request to Congress 
asking for a technical change in the language that will allow us to 
make retroactive payments to April 1, 1994.''
  Assistant Secretary Dorn submitted the request to both the House 
National Security Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee for 
inclusion in the fiscal year 1996 Defense authorization bill. The House 
National Security Committee included the technical correction in 
section 556 of their bill. My amendment achieves the same objective.
  Mr. President, I have been working on this issue for 4 years. Every 
year it seems that there is always something else standing in the way. 
It took a few years to convince the DOD to acknowledge the problems 
they face in this area, and they were very reluctant to follow the 
Congress' leadership and direction.
  Last year, I was informed that the DOD was poised to implement the 
program. A letter was sent to then Chairman Nunn on July 7, 1994, 
stating the program would be implemented and that it would be 
retroactive to April 1, 1994. It took the DOD a half year to implement 
the program after I withdrew my amendment, and that was already after a 
1-year delay. When they did implement the program, it was only 
retroactive until October 1, 1994; a full half-year later than the date 
committed on me and to the Senate Armed Services Committee in the July 
7, 1994 letter from Assistant Secretary Dorn to then Chairman Nunn.
  For whatever reason, the DOD did not honor their commitment to the 
committee, and my amendment makes sure that the commitment is honored. 
I appreciate the support of my colleagues. Mr. President, I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment establishes the effective 

[[Page S 12539]]
  date of the transitional spouse abuse payments as April 1, 1994. This 
amendment, it is my understanding, has been accepted on both sides.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I think this is a very worthy amendment 
offered by Senator Domenici. We have accepted this on this side and I 
urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2439) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2440

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the 
    feasibility of using private sources for performance of certain 
          functions currently performed by military aircraft)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Robb, I offer an 
amendment which would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report on the feasibility of using private sources for performance of 
certain functions currently performed by military aircraft.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Robb, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2440.

  Mr. EXON. 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 137, after line 24, insert the following:

     SEC. 389. REPORT ON PRIVATE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS 
                   PERFORMED BY MILITARY AIRCRAFT.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than May 1, 1996, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     feasibility, including the costs and benefits, of using 
     private sources for satisfying, in whole or in part, the 
     requirements of the Department of Defense for VIP 
     transportation by air, airlift for other personnel and for 
     cargo, in-flight refueling of aircraft, and performance of 
     such other military aircraft functions as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to discuss in the report.
       (b) Content of Report.--The report shall include a 
     discussion of the following:
       (1) Contracting for the performance of the functions 
     referred to in subsection (a).
       (2) Converting to private ownership and operation the 
     Department of Defense VIP air fleets, personnel and cargo 
     aircraft, and in-flight refueling aircraft, and other 
     Department of Defense aircraft.
       (3) The wartime requirements for the various VIP and 
     transport fleets.
       (4) The assumptions used in the cost-benefit analysis.
       (5) The effect on military personnel and facilities of 
     using private sources, as described in paragraphs (1) and 
     (2), for the purposes described in subsection (a).

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, these functions would include personnel and 
cargo transport, in-flight refueling, and such other military aircraft 
functions as the Secretary considers appropriate to discuss.
  I believe, also, this amendment has been cleared on the other side of 
the aisle.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct. This is a very worthy amendment. 
It has my full support and the support of all of our Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2440) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2441

 (Purpose: To require the Department of Defense to conduct a study to 
    assess the risks associated with transportation of the unitary 
 stockpile within the continental United States and of the assistance 
available to communities in the vicinity of chemical weapons stockpile 
   installations that are affected by base closures and realignments)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown], and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Brown, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2441.

  Mr. WARNER. 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.   . STUDY ON CHEMICAL WEAPONS STOCKPILE.

       (a) Study.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a 
     study to assess the risk associated with transportation of 
     the unitary stockpile, any portion of the stockpile to 
     include drained agent from munitions and the munitions from 
     one location to another within the continental United States. 
     Also, the Secretary shall include a study of the assistance 
     available to communities in the vicinity if the Department of 
     Defense facilities co-located with continuing chemical 
     stockpile and chemical demilitarization operations which 
     facilities are subject to closure, realignment, or 
     reutilization.
       (2) The review shall include an analysis of--
       (A) the results of the physical and chemical integrity 
     report conducted by the Army on existing stockpile;
       (B) a determination of the viability of transportation of 
     any portion of the stockpile, to include drained agent from 
     munitions and the munitions;
       (C) the safety, cost-effectiveness, and public 
     acceptability of transporting the stockpile, in its current 
     configuration, or in alternative configurations;
       (D) the economic effects of closure, realignment, or 
     reutilization of the facilities referred to in paragraph (1) 
     on the communities referred to in that paragraph; and
       (E) the unique problems that such communities face with 
     respect to the reuse of such facilities as a result of the 
     operations referred to in paragraph (1).
       (b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report on the study carried out under subsection (a). The 
     report shall include recommendations of the Secretary on 
     methods for ensuring the expeditious and cost-effective 
     transfer or lease of facilities referred to in paragraph (1) 
     of subsection (a) to communities referred to in paragraph (1) 
     for reuse by such communities.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, as you know, several communities have been 
affected by the recent base closures and base realignments. I have been 
working with these communities in my State, trying to assist them to 
make these transitions as smooth as possible.
  For nearly 50 years the Pueblo Depot Activity [PDA] in Pueblo, CO, 
was an integral part of the U.S. Army's system of supply and storage 
depots. In 1988, however, the Pueblo Depot Activity was designated for 
realignment. Since this base currently stores chemical weapons, the 
Army does not plan to transfer ownership of any of the unused lands or 
buildings at the Pueblo Depot Activity until the destruction of 
chemical weapons is complete. According to the Army, this would occur 
at the earliest in 9 years, fully 16 years after it wad designated for 
realignment and eventual closure.
  Despite the fact that the PDA was slated under the law for 
realignment, it was not planned for closure. Consequently, many 
programs available to other communities whose bases are to be closed 
are not available to communities like Pueblo. Under the study required 
by the amendment, the Secretary of Defense must study the assistance 
available to communities in the vicinity of Department of Defense 
facilities co-located with continuing chemical stockpile and chemical 
demilitarization operations where the facility is subject to closure, 
realignment or reutilization. My hope is that this study will continue 
the efforts of the Army and the city of Pueblo to work together to find 
the best possible solutions for reuse of the Pueblo Depot Activity.
  Current plans call for new incineration plants to be built at each 
chemical weapons storage site at a cost of billions of dollars to U.S. 
taxpayers. In my view, it makes sense to study first the cost 
effectiveness of the transportation of neutralized and unneutralized 
chemical weapons to a few centrally located chemical weapons 
destruction facilities. The amendment I offer today directs the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct a study to assess the risk associated 
with transportation of the unitary stockpile, both neutralized and 
unneutralized, within the continental United States.
  I especially would like to recognize the work of Mel Takaki and Chuck 
Finley of the Pueblo Depot Activity 

[[Page S 12540]]
Development Authority. They have worked hard for the community of 
Pueblo during this realignment process.
  Mr. President, the study proposed in this amendment offered by 
Senator Campbell and myself will make an important contribution to the 
resolution of a number of problems faced by communities in the vicinity 
of Defense Department facilities co-located with continuing chemical 
stockpile and chemical demilitarization operations.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to thank my Colorado 
colleague, Senator Brown, for proposing this amendment of which I am a 
cosponsor.
  The city of Pueblo faces a dual burden from the chemical weapons 
stockpile at the Pueblo Depot. First, Pueblo's citizens must cope with 
a controversial and complicated chemical demilitarization effort. 
Second, as the depot was realigned in 1988, Pueblo must deal with 
finding ways to profitably reuse excess facilities.
  Unfortunately, despite years of effort by the depot's reuse 
commission, the reuse process is still blocked. People like Mel Takaki, 
Chuck Finley, and many others worked hard to find users who would be 
willing to pay for space at the depot's buildings, and they have some 
takers. They still cannot come to a satisfactory agreement with the 
Army on leasing the depot's facilities--it seems mostly because of 
uncertainty about the needs of the demilitarization process.
  There are not many communities that face this type of situation. 
There are only eight chemical weapons stockpile sties in the United 
States. All this amendment does is require the Defense Secretary to let 
us know that he understands the unique problems faced by Pueblo and 
other communities in the vicinity of chemical weapons stockpile sites. 
For those sites that, like Pueblo, also involve closed or realigned 
military installations, the Secretary would also give citizens in those 
communities some ideas on how to move forward with reusing those 
facilities.
  This is a simple amendment, and it should not require much work at 
the Defense Department, but it will go a long way toward addressing 
issues that concern citizens living near stockpile facilities. I hope 
that the Senate and the conferees will accept this amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the amendment would require the Department 
of Defense to conduct a study on the risks of transporting the unitary 
chemical stockpile within the United States, and assistance that would 
be available to the communities surrounding the chemical weapons 
stockpiles that will be closed when destruction of the stockpile is 
completed.
  I understand this amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. EXON. It has been cleared on this side of the aisle, Mr. 
President.
  Mr. WARNER. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2441) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2442

  (Purpose: To provide for the disposal of property and facilities at 
Fort Holabird, MD, as a result of the closure of the installation under 
              the 1995 round of the base closure process)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Mikulski, I offer an 
amendment and send it to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Ms. Mikulski, for 
     herself and Mr. Sarbanes, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2442.

  Mr. EXON. 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 468, below line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 2825. CONSOLIDATION OF DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY AND 
                   FACILITIES AT FORT HOLABIRD, MARYLAND.

       (a) Consolidation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of Defense shall dispose of the property 
     and facilities at Fort Holabird, Maryland, described in 
     subsection (b) in accordance with subparagraph (2)(e) of the 
     Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance 
     Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-421), treating the property described 
     in (b) as if the CEO of the state had submitted a timely 
     request to the Secretary of Defense under subparagraph 
     (2)(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Base Closure Redevelopment and 
     Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-421).
       (b) Covered Property and Facilities.--Subsection (a) 
     applies to the following property and facilities at Fort 
     Holabird, Maryland:
       (1) Property and facilities that were approved for closure 
     or realignment under the 1988 base closure law that are not 
     disposed of as of the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     including buildings 305 and 306 and the parking lots and 
     other property associated with such buildings.
       (2) Property and facilities that are approved for closure 
     or realignment under the 1990 base closure law in 1995.
       (c) Use of Surveys and Other Evaluations of Property.--In 
     carrying out the disposal of the property and facilities 
     referred to in subsection (b)(1), the Secretary shall utilize 
     any surveys and other evaluations of such property and 
     facilities that are prepared by the Corps of Engineers before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act as part of the process 
     for the disposal of such property and facilities under the 
     1988 base closure law.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``1988 base closure law'' means title II of 
     the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and 
     Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
       (2) The term ``1990 base closure law'' means the Defense 
     Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title 
     XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).

     SEC. 2826. LAND CONVEYANCE, PROPERTY UNDERLYING CUMMINS 
                   APARTMENT COMPLEX, FORT HOLABIRD, MARYLAND.

       (a) Conveyance Authorized.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of the Army may convey to the 
     existing owner of the improvements thereon all right, title, 
     and interest of the United States in and to a parcel of real 
     property underlying the Cummins Apartment Complex at Fort 
     Holabird, Maryland, consisting of approximately 6 acres and 
     any interest the U.S. may have in the improvements thereon.
       (b) Consideration.--As consideration for the conveyance 
     under subsection (a), the owner of the improvements referred 
     to in that subsection shall provide compensation to the 
     United States in an amount equal to the fair market value (as 
     determined by the Secretary) of the property interest to be 
     conveyed.
       (3) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be conveyed under 
     subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey that is 
     satisfactory to the Secretary.
       (d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment by Senator Mikulski first 
would allow for all base closure affected property at Fort Holabird, 
MD, to be disposed of in the 1994 base closure disposal process and, 
second, would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, for fair 
market value, 6 acres of real property at Fort Holabird to the owner of 
the apartment complex that is situated on the real property.
  I believe this is a noncontroversial amendment that has been cleared 
on the other side.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2442) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2443

  (Purpose: To designate the NAUTICUS building in Norfolk, VA, as the 
                     ``National Maritime Center'')

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

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2443.

  Mr. WARNER. 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 403, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       
[[Page S 12541]]


     SEC. 1095. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL MARITIME CENTER.

       (a) Designation of National Maritime Center.--The NAUTICUS 
     building, located at one Waterside Drive, Norfolk, Virginia, 
     shall be known and designated as the ``National Maritime 
     Center''.
       (b) Reference to National Maritime Center.--Any reference 
     in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record 
     of the United States to the building referred to in 
     subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
     ``National Maritime Center''.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the amendment designates a building in 
Norfolk, VA, as the ``National Maritime Center.'' It is a name change.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the designation of the 
NAUTICUS building in Norfolk, VA, as the ``National Maritime Center.''
  Designation as the ``National Maritime Center'' is indeed a special 
honor and should only be bestowed upon a center of the highest caliber 
in an area with a rich history of maritime excellence. I believe that 
NAUTICUS, located in the city of Norfolk, VA, more than qualifies for 
this honor and deserves to receive this special recognition. NAUTICUS 
is a comprehensive maritime center that includes an interactive aegis 
and ship design theater, exhibits, and presentations on a variety of 
subjects including marine environmental issues, marine research, and 
ocean exploration. Additionally, the Hampton Roads areas is where our 
world trade began hundreds of years ago. The area is home to the 
world's most powerful Navy, the world's largest natural harbor, the 
country's largest and oldest shipyard, and a center of marine 
engineering unequaled anywhere in the world.
  A national maritime center in this region could aid immeasurably in 
educating the public about maritime issues and the importance of the 
maritime industry in our Nation's history. Indeed, in the era of our 
All Volunteer Military, this center will help to maintain the ties 
between our naval forces and the public through education and 
understanding.
  Designation as a ``National Maritime Center'' need not be exclusively 
reserved to NAUTICUS but could also be granted to other institutions of 
similar statute and function upon nomination and consideration by 
Congress. Also, the designation carries with it no operational support 
funds nor any positive prejudice for future support of operational 
deficits by any Federal agency.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this matter has been cleared on this side. 
This amendment as written would be under the Commerce Committee. But it 
has been cleared by the Commerce Committee. We have no objection on 
this side. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am thankful for the personal 
consideration of my colleague, who serves on the Commerce Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Virginia.
  The amendment (No. 2443) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2444

 (Purpose: To require a report on the disposal of certain property at 
               the former Ford Ord Military Complex, CA)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in behalf of 
Senator Boxer and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mrs. Boxer, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2444.

  Mr. EXON. 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 487, after line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 2838. REPORT ON DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY, FORT ORD MILITARY 
                   COMPLEX, CALIFORNIA.

       Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a 
     report describing the plans of the Secretary for the disposal 
     of a parcel of real property consisting of approximately 477 
     acres at the former Fort Ord Military Complex, California, 
     including the Black Horse Golf Course, the Bayonet Golf 
     Course, and a portion of the Hayes Housing Facility.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as passed by the House of Representatives, 
the fiscal year 1996 Department of Defense authorization bill included 
a provision authorizing the Secretary of Defense to sell at fair market 
value to the city of Seaside, CA, two golf courses and neighboring 
property at Fort Ord. It was my hope to offer an amendment adding a 
similar provision during Senate consideration of the bill.
  We had made significant progress toward agreement on such an 
amendment. Unfortunately, several important issues still remain 
unresolved. Because of the managers' strong desire to complete action 
on the bill, I have agreed not to offer my original proposal at this 
time. Instead, I have offered this amendment, which requires the 
Secretary of the Defense to submit a report to the Congress describing 
his plans for disposal of the property.
  Final resolution of this issue now falls to the conference committee. 
It is my hope that the conferees will seriously consider adopting the 
House provision, or will modify it in a way that results in the prompt 
conveyance of this property.
  Mr. NUNN. I can assure the Senator from California that the conferees 
will look very closely at the House provision. I understand the 
importance of this issue to the people of Monterey County and thank the 
Senator for her amendment.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment that I have offered on behalf 
of Senator Boxer is an amendment which requires the Secretary of 
Defense to report to the Congress on the disposal plans of 477 acres of 
real property located at Fort Ord, CA.
  Mr. President, I believe this is a noncontroversial amendment also 
that has been cleared on the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
California.
  The amendment (No. 2444) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2445

  (Purpose: To continue until May 1, 1996, the application of certain 
 laws with respect to the ocean transportation of commercial items by 
                        the Federal Government)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the senior Senator from 
Alaska, Senator Stevens, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Stevens, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2445.

  Mr. WARNER. 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 305, beginning on line 1, strike all through line 
     10 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

     SEC. 802. PROCUREMENT NOTICE POSTING THRESHOLDS AND 
                   SUBCONTRACTS FOR OCEAN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES.

       (a) Procurement Notice Posting Thresholds.--Section 
     18(a)(1)(B) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act 
     (41 U.S.C. 416(a)(1)(B)) is amended--
       (1) by striking out ``subsection (f)--'' and all that 
     follows through the end of the subparagraph and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``subsection (b); and''; and
       (2) by inserting after ``property or services'' the 
     following: ``for a price expected to exceed $10,000, but not 
     to exceed $25,000,''.
       (b) Subcontracts for Ocean Transportation Services.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither section 
     901(b) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. 1241(b)) 
     nor section 2631 of title 10, United States Code, shall be 
     included prior to May 1, 1996 on any list promulgated under 
     section 34(b) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act 
     (41 U.S.C. 430(b)).

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have just been advised that Senator Breaux 
has asked to be a cosponsor of amendment 

[[Page S 12542]]
2445--as introduced and which was agreed to a few moments ago--by 
Senator Stevens.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment would delay the 
implementation of regulations waiving the application of the Cargo 
Preference Act to subcontracts for commercial items.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this side 
of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Alaska.
  The amendment (No. 2445) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2446

    (Purpose: To require that the fiscal year 1997 report on budget 
submissions regarding reserve components include a listing of specific 
amounts for specific purposes on the basis of an assumption of funding 
   of the reserve components in the same total amount as the funding 
                     provided for fiscal year 1996)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in behalf of Senator Robb, I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Robb, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2446.

  Mr. EXON. 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 331, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
       (3) If the total amount reported in accordance with 
     paragraph (2) is less than $1,080,000,000, an additional 
     separate listing described in paragraph (2) in a total amount 
     equal to $1,080,000,000.

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to fix, in 
part, a longstanding procedural contest between the executive and 
legislative branches. Each year, the administration sends over a budget 
request for the Department of Defense which includes funding for the 
National Guard and Reserves. Typically this budget includes a robust 
request for reserve personnel and O&M funding. But two accounts are 
invariably unfunded, or underfunded. They are the procurement account, 
which ensures our reserve forces have modern weaponry and equipment, 
and military construction, which provides the buildings and other 
infrastructure needed by the Reserves.
  With one exception in the last 10 years, the administration's request 
has failed to include any funding for National Guard and Reserve 
weapons or equipment. In the last 5 years, Reserve construction has 
been underfunded in the request, typically by several hundred million 
dollars each year. The result is that the Congress must add the 
necessary funding and this leads to several complications., First, the 
Congress must add back funding that must be taken out of other 
requested defense programs, or increase the total defense authorization 
level above the request to accommodate the Reserves. Second, the 
Congress must determine specifically what the Reserves need in terms of 
equipment and construction, and how much these additions will cost. In 
the last several years, the Congress has in fact not specified exactly 
what equipment should be procured, but rather authorized a generic pot 
of money for each of the Reserve components and left the decision on 
how specifically to spend the money to the Department of Defense and 
the Guard and Reserves. This begs the question as to how the Congress 
came up with its reserve equipment dollar allocations.
  This year, the Armed Services Committee decided to specify what 
equipment to procure, rather than leaving it up to the Department of 
Defense. Although this process involved extensive collaboration with 
the Guard and Reserves and the Department of Defense, it makes little 
sense that the Congress must initiate this process absent an 
administration recommendation. Without initial Department of Defense 
guidance, the Congress becomes vulnerable to catering to Member-
interest items. More fundamentally, it is imprudent for the Department 
of Defense to ignore all Reserve equipment and many Reserve 
construction requirements during its regular budget preparations. How 
can our military be optimally structured if the Guard and Reserves are 
treated as mere afterthoughts in the budgeting process?
  Since the Congress cannot require the executive to submit a Reserve 
budget recommendation at a set level, the bill before us has a useful 
provision requiring the Secretary of Defense to submit a report, 
concurrently with the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization request, 
that details actions taken by the Department of Defense to enhance the 
Guard and Reserves during the previous fiscal year. The provision also 
requires the Secretary to submit a details listing on how the 
department will spend its fiscal year 1997 Reserve equipment and 
construction requests. Because the administration can still choose to 
make a request of zero--or one that is far too low--this provision 
still will not necessarily fix the problem.
  The amendment I offer today will do much to alleviate this problem, 
Mr. President. It requires the Secretary of Defense to include a 
listing or report, in addition to the one already required in the bill, 
that assumes a serious equipment and construction request level. In my 
amendment, the fiscal year 1996 Armed Services Committee authorization 
request level for Reserve equipment and construction of $1,080,000,000 
is used, but any comparable sum will do the job. In other words, if the 
fiscal year 1997 Reserve equipment and construction requests are lower 
than $1,080,000,000, the Secretary of Defense must provide the Congress 
with a report detailing how it specifically would allocate funding for 
equipment and construction assuming that it would have this amount to 
spend.
  The amendment accomplishes several things. It gives the Congress a 
foundation to work from in determining a rational topline for the 
Reserves. The Congress could decide on a significantly lower or higher 
amount, but at least it would have guidance from the Department of 
Defense on the Department's Reserve priorities should the Department 
again decide to deliberately underfund the Guard and Reserve. It forces 
the Department of Defense to fully address Guard and Reserve funding 
while Active Force budgets are under preparation. It reduces 
temptations by Congress to distort Reserve accounts with Member-
interest items. Finally, it helps put the Reserves on equal footing 
with the Active Forces, rather than giving them the leftovers from 
budgeting for the active components.
  Mr. President, it is my understanding that this amendment is 
acceptable on both sides, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment would modify section 1007 to 
require DOD to provide Congress with a prioritized list of 
modernization and investment priorities, at least for large amounts, 
amounts that will be funded by Congress this year. This will ensure 
that the Congress gets DOD's best advice on priorities for reasonably 
sized funding packages.
  Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been agreed to by those 
on the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. EXON. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Virginia.
  The amendment (No. 2446) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2447

 (Purpose: Relating to interim leases of property approved for closure 
                            or realignment)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senators Pryor, Feinstein, and Boxer, and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. 

[[Page S 12543]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Pryor, for 
     himself, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2447.

  Mr. EXON. 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 468, after line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 2825. 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.''.

  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 service 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 nationwise.
  At Eaker Air Force Base in Blytheville, AR, 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 1 year lease with a 30 day 
cancellation clause, Cotton Growers Inc. decided not to locate at 
Eaker.
  At Alameda naval base in Alameda, CA, AEG Transportation is seeking a 
10-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 10 years, and AEG desires a 10 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 5 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.
  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 passage of this amendment.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment provides the military 
services greater flexibility to negotiate longer interim leases for the 
reuse of property at a closing of a military installation. This 
amendment allows for flexibility without eliminating important 
environmental protections.
  Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been agreed to on the 
other side.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is correct.
  Mr. EXON. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas.
  The amendment (No. 2447) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2448

 (Purpose: Relating to the operational support airlift aircraft fleet)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Grassley, I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Grassley, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2448.

  Mr. WARNER. 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 403, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

     SEC. 1095. OPERATIONAL SUPPORT AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT FLEET.

       (a) Submittal of JCS Report on Aircraft.--Not later than 
     February 1, 1996, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
     Congress the report on aircraft designated as Operational 
     Support Airlift Aircraft that is currently in preparation by 
     the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
       (b) Content of Report.--(1) The report shall contain 
     findings and recommendations regarding the following:
       (A) Modernization and safety requirements for the 
     Operational Support Airlift Aircraft fleet.
       (B) Standardization plans and requirements of that fleet.
       (C) The disposition of aircraft considered excess to that 
     fleet in light of the requirements set forth under 
     subparagraph (A).
       (D) The need for helicopter support in the National Capital 
     Region.
       (E) The acceptable uses of helicopter support in the 
     National Capital Region.
       (2) In preparing the report, the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
     shall take into account the recommendation of the Commission 
     on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces to reduce the size 
     of the Operational Support Airlift Aircraft fleet.
       (c) Regulations.--(1) Upon completion of the report 
     referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary shall prescribe 
     regulations, consistent with the findings and recommendations 
     set forth in the report, for the operation, maintenance, 
     disposition, and use of aircraft designated as Operational 
     Support Airlift Aircraft.
       (2) The regulations shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, provide for, and encourage the use of, 
     commercial airlines in lieu of the use of aircraft designated 
     as Operational Support Airlift Aircraft.
       (3) The regulations shall apply uniformly throughout the 
     Department of Defense.
       (4) The regulations should not require exclusive use of the 
     aircraft designated as Operational Support Airlift Aircraft 
     for any particular class of government personnel.
       (d) Reductions in Flying Hours.--(1)(a) The Secretary shall 
     ensure that the number of hours flown in fiscal year 1996 by 
     aircraft designated as Operational Support Airlift Aircraft 
     does not exceed the number equal to 85 percent of the number 
     of hours flown in fiscal year 1995 by such aircraft.
       (2)(a) The Secretary should ensure that the number of hours 
     flown in fiscal year 1996 for helicopter support in the 
     National Capital Region does not exceed the number equal to 
     85 percent of the number of hours flown in fiscal year 1995 
     for such helicopter support.
       (e) Restriction on Availability of Funds.--Of the funds 
     authorized to be appropriated under title III for the 
     operation and use of aircraft designated as Operational 
     Support Airlift Aircraft, not more than 50 percent of such 
     funds shall be available for that purpose until the submittal 
     of the report referred to in subsection (a).

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman of 

[[Page S 12544]]
  the committee, Senator Thurmond, and the ranking minority member, 
Senator Nunn, for their assistance and cooperation in developing this 
compromise agreement on the operational support airlift [OSA] aircraft 
issue.
  This amendment deals with the 600 executive aircraft and VIP 
helicopters operated by the Department of Defense [DOD]. These are 
called OSA aircraft.
  I think we have succeeded in working out a reasonable compromise on 
the OSA issue.
  When I first began discussing the issue, I was recommending a 50-
percent cut in the OSA fleet.
  But from day 1, I never claimed to have the magic solution. The 50 
percent figure was nothing more than a starting point.
  I just wanted to see us take a significant first step down the road 
toward downsizing the OSA fleet.
  Mr. President, the idea of downsizing the OSA fleet was not dreamed 
up by Chuck Grassley.
  My thinking on this issue is based on a mountain of studies and 
analyses--all prepared by the DOD.
  All the studies point in one direction: cut the OSA fleet.
  In February 1993, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. 
Colin Powell, recommended that the OSA fleet be cut.
  In September 1994, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General 
McPeak, recommended that the OSA fleet be cut.
  Then in May 1995, the DOD Commission on Roles and Missions 
recommended that the OSA fleet be cut.
  Well, the Roles and Missions Commission was chaired by Mr. John P. 
White.
  Right after Mr. White made those recommendations, he became the 
Deputy Secretary of Defense.
  So cutting the OSA fleet is not Chuck Grassley's idea.
  The idea of cutting the OSA fleet is coming directly from the top at 
the Pentagon.
  Chuck Grassley is just trying to do what these top DOD officials say 
must be done. That's it.
  Mr. President, this issue has been studied to death.
  It's time to make some cuts.
  This is where the rubber meets the road.
  The only question is this: How do we do it?
  How should the cuts be made?
  The compromise agreement embodied in this amendment starts us down 
the road toward downsizing the OSA fleet.
  It gets us headed in the right direction.
  It directs DOD to develop a plan to carry out the recommendations of 
the Commission on Roles and Missions.
  It directs DOD to identify excess OSA aircraft and to develop a plan 
for disposing of those aircraft.
  It directs DOD to prescribe regulations that would require the use of 
commercial airlines for routine official travel.
  And those regulations must not require the use of OSA aircraft by any 
particular class of personnel.
  The compromise agreement would curtail OSA flight operations by 15 
percent in fiscal year 1996.
  The reduction in operations would also apply to helicopter flights in 
the National Capital region.
  The amendment contains a device to encourage DOD to submit its plan 
for downsizing the OSA fleet in a timely manner.
  Fifty percent of all OSA funds in the bill are fenced until the plan 
is submitted to Congress.
  Again, Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking minority 
member for their help in crafting this compromise agreement.
  I would also like to thank a member of the committee staff, Mr. Steve 
Madey, for his persistence and determination. His efforts were 
instrumental in shaping the final agreement.
  We can revisit the issue next year after we have had an opportunity 
to assess how well the DOD plan is working.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment would reduce the Flying 
Hour Program for operational support aircraft and require a review of 
regulations and a study. I understand it has been accepted on both 
sides.
  Mr. EXON. This represents the responsible role for the operation of 
support aircraft and responds to the recommendations by management of 
these aircraft by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Commission 
on Rules and Missions of the armed services.
  We strongly support the amendment and urge its adoption.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). If there is no further debate, the 
question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Iowa.
  The amendment (No. 2448) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2449

(Purpose: To transfer funds for procurement of communications equipment 
                     for Army echelons above corps)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the senior Senator from New 
Mexico, [Mr. Domenici], and the Senator from Hawaii, [Mr. Inouye], I 
send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Domenici, 
     for himself and Mr. Inouye, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2449.

  Mr. WARNER. 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 49, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC.   . ARMY ECHELON ABOVE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS.

       Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under section 
     201(3), $40,000,000 is hereby transferred to the 
     authorization of appropriations under section 101(5) for 
     procurement of communications equipment for Army echelons 
     above corps.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand that my amendment on the 
Army's EAC communications system has been accepted on both sides. I 
want to thank the Senators Thurmond, Warner, and Nunn for their 
cooperation in this effort. My amendment will fund modernization of the 
Army's vital command, control, and communication systems. It will allow 
the Army to move more of its communications equipment, including 
switches, multiplexer assemblies, message controllers, network 
assemblies, and other equipment, into combat areas quickly during 
combat and contingency operations.
  This program has allowed the Army to downsize its combat 
communications equipment to the point that it can now transport more 
critical combat information systems into a fire zone in less time and 
at significantly less cost than before.
  For example, the benefits of this program save $1 million in air 
transportation costs every time the Army move a single communications 
battalion from Fort Gordon, GA to a major center in the Middle or Far 
East. Consequently, if the Army moves a minimum of 25 communications 
battalions this year during exercises, it will save $25 million in 
operational costs.
  Furthermore, this new equipment permits the Army combat personnel to 
communicate more frequently, under severely adverse conditions, with 
greater success than ever before. The new systems are faster, more 
secure, vastly more dependable, and of significantly smaller size than 
their predecessors. They also provide more interoperability than has 
ever been possible.
  The new downsized configurations of this equipment fit neatly into 
the Army's latest heavy HMMWV. Sizeable numbers of these vehicles can 
be transported into combat zones on C-141 and C-5 aircraft, providing 
significantly more communications capability in world hot spots sooner 
than was previously possible.
  Maj. Gen. Edward Anderson, Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations and 
Planning for Force Development, strongly support this program. 
Nevertheless, the Army has been limited in its budget submissions due 
to modernization and weapons systems requests. I believe this amendment 
addresses the critical communications needs of the Army, and I thank 
the Senate Armed Services Committee for its support.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment adds $40 million for the 

[[Page S 12545]]
  procurement of certain communications programs for the Army.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment would allow the Army to 
continue its program to make theater-level communications units more 
capable, lighter and more easily deployable in emergencies.
  We think it is a very good amendment. We urge its adoption.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, and I 
urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico.
  The amendment (No. 2449) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2450

   (Purpose: To authorize the conveyance of certain parcels of real 
                     property at Fort Sheridan, IL)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in behalf of 
Senator Simon, and I ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Simon, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2450.

  Mr. EXON. 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 487, below line 24, add the following new sections:

     SEC. 2838. LAND CONVEYANCE, NAVY PROPERTY, FORT SHERIDAN, 
                   ILLINOIS.

       (a) Authority To Convey.--Subject to subsections (b) and 
     (l), the Secretary of the Navy may convey to any transferee 
     selected under subsection (i) all right, title, and interest 
     of the United States in and to a parcel of real property 
     (including any improvements thereon) at Fort Sheridan, 
     Illinois, consisting of approximately 182 acres and 
     comprising the Navy housing areas at Fort Sheridan.
       (b) Requirement for Federal Screening of Property.--The 
     Secretary may not carry out the conveyance of property 
     authorized by subsection (a) unless the Secretary determines 
     that no department or agency of the Federal Government will 
     accept the transfer of the property.
       (c) Consideration.--(1) As consideration for the conveyance 
     under subsection (a), the transferee selected under 
     subsection (i) shall--
       (A) convey to the United States a parcel of real property 
     that meets the requirements of subsection (d);
       (B) design for and construct on the property conveyed under 
     subparagraph (A) such housing facilities (including support 
     facilities and infrastructure) to replace the housing 
     facilities conveyed pursuant to the authority in subsection 
     (a) as the Secretary considers appropriate;
       (C) pay the cost of relocating Navy personnel residing in 
     the housing facilities located on the real property conveyed 
     pursuant to the authority in subsection (a) to the housing 
     facilities constructed under subparagraph (B);
       (D) provide for the education of dependents of such 
     personnel under subsection (e); and
       (E) carry out such activities for the maintenance and 
     improvement of the facilities constructed under subparagraph 
     (B) as the Secretary and the transferee jointly determine 
     appropriate.
       (2) The Secretary shall ensure that the fair market value 
     of the consideration provided by the transferee under 
     paragraph (1) is not less than the fair market value of the 
     property interest conveyed by the Secretary under subsection 
     (a).
       (d) Requirements Relating to Property To Be Conveyed to 
     United States.--The property interest conveyed to the United 
     States under subsection (c)(1)(A) by the transferee selected 
     under subsection (i) shall--
       (1) be located not more than 25 miles from the Great Lakes 
     Naval Training Center, Illinois;
       (2) be located in a neighborhood or area having social and 
     economic conditions similar to the social and economic 
     conditions of the area in which Fort Sheridan is located; and
       (3) be acceptable to the Secretary.
       (e) Education of Dependents of Navy Personnel.--(2) In 
     providing for the education of dependents of Navy personnel 
     under subsection (c)(1)(D), the transferee selected under 
     subsection (i) shall ensure that such dependents may enroll 
     at the schools of one or more school districts in the 
     vicinity of the real property conveyed to the United States 
     under subsection (c)(1)(A) which schools and districts--
       (A) meet such standards for schools and school districts as 
     the Secretary shall establish; and
       (B) will continue to meet such standards after the 
     enrollment of such dependents regardless of the receipt by 
     such school districts of Federal impact aid.
       (f) Interim Relocation of Navy Personnel.--Pending 
     completion of the construction of all the housing facilities 
     proposed to be constructed under subsection (c)(1)(B) by the 
     transferee selected under subsection (i), the Secretary may 
     relocate Navy personnel residing in housing facilities 
     located on the property to be conveyed pursuant to the 
     authority in subsection (a) to the housing facilities that 
     have been constructed by the transferee under such subsection 
     (c)(1)(B).
       (g) Applicability of Certain Agreements.--The property 
     conveyed by the Secretary pursuant to the authority in 
     subsection (a) shall be subject to the Memorandum of 
     Understanding concerning the Transfer of Certain Properties 
     at Fort Sheridan, Illinois, dated August 8, 1991, between the 
     Department of the Army and the Department of the Navy.
       (h) Determination of Fair Market Value.--The Secretary 
     shall determine the fair market value of the real property 
     interest to be conveyed under subsection (a) and of the 
     consideration to be provided under subsection (c)(1). Such 
     determination shall be final.
       (i) Selection of Transferee.--(1) The Secretary shall use 
     competitive procedures for the selection of a transferee 
     under subsection (a).
       (2) In evaluating the offers of prospective transferees, 
     the Secretary shall--
       (A) consider the technical sufficiency of the offers and 
     the adequacy of the offers in meeting the requirements for 
     consideration set forth in subsection (c)(1); and
       (B) consult with the communities and jurisdictions in the 
     vicinity of Fort Sheridan (including the City of Lake Forest, 
     the City of Highwood, and the City of Highland Park and the 
     County of Lake) in order to determine the most appropriate 
     use of the property to be conveyed.
       (j) Descriptions of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     descriptions of the real property to be conveyed by the 
     Secretary under subsection (a) and the real property to be 
     conveyed under subsection (c)(1)(A) shall be determined by 
     surveys satisfactory to the Secretary. The cost of such 
     surveys shall be borne by the transferee selected under 
     subsection (i).
       (k) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyances under this section as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.

     SEC. 2839. LAND CONVEYANCE, ARMY RESERVE PROPERTY, FORT 
                   SHERIDAN, ILLINOIS.

       (a) Authority To Convey.--Subject to subsection (b), the 
     Secretary of the Army may convey to any transferee selected 
     under subsection (g) all right, title, and interest of the 
     United States in and to a parcel of real property (including 
     improvements thereon) at Fort Sheridan, Illinois, consisting 
     of approximately 114 acres and comprising an Army Reserve 
     area.
       (b) Requirement for Federal Screening of Property.--The 
     Secretary may not carry out the conveyance of property 
     authorized by subsection (a) unless the Secretary determines 
     that no department or agency of the Federal Government will 
     accept the transfer of the property.
       (c) Consideration.--(1) As consideration for the conveyance 
     under subsection (a), the transferee selected under 
     subsection (g) shall--
       (A) convey to the United States a parcel of real property 
     that meets the requirements of subsection (d);
       (B) design for and construct on the property conveyed under 
     subparagraph (A) such facilities (including support 
     facilities and infrastructure) to replace the facilities 
     conveyed pursuant to the authority in subsection (a) as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate; and
       (C) pay the cost of relocating Army personnel in the 
     facilities located on the real property conveyed pursuant to 
     the authority in subsection (a) to the facilities constructed 
     under subparagraph (B).
       (2) The Secretary shall ensure that the fair market value 
     of the consideration provided by the transferee under 
     paragraph (1) is not less than the fair market value of the 
     real property conveyed by the Secretary under subsection (a).
       (d) Requirements Relating to Property To Be Conveyed to 
     United States.--The real property conveyed to the United 
     States under subsection (c)(1)(A) by the transferee selected 
     under subsection (g) shall--
       (1) be located not more than 25 miles from Fort Sheridan;
       (2) be located in a neighborhood or area having social and 
     economic conditions similar to the social and economic 
     conditions of the area in which Fort Sheridan is located; and
       (3) be acceptable to the Secretary.
       (e) Interim Relocation of Army Personnel.--Pending 
     completion of the construction of all the facilities proposed 
     to be constructed under subsection (c)(1)(B) by the 
     transferee selected under subsection (g), the Secretary may 
     relocate Army personnel in the facilities located on the 
     property to be conveyed pursuant to the authority in 
     subsection (a) to the facilities that have been 

[[Page S 12546]]
     constructed by the transferee under such subsection (c)(1)(B).
       (f) Determination of Fair Market Value.--The Secretary 
     shall determine the fair market value of the real property to 
     be conveyed under subsection (a) and of the consideration to 
     be provided under subsection (c)(1). Such determination shall 
     be final.
       (g) Selection of Transferee.--(1) The Secretary shall use 
     competitive procedures for the selection of a transferee 
     under subsection (a).
       (2) In evaluating the offers of prospective transferees, 
     the Secretary shall--
       (A) consider the technical sufficiency of the offers and 
     the adequacy of the offers in meeting the requirements for 
     consideration set forth in subsection (c)(1); and
       (B) consult with the communities and jurisdictions in the 
     vicinity of Fort Sheridan (including the City of Lake Forest, 
     the City of Highwood, and the City of Highland Park and the 
     County of Lake) in order to determine the most appropriate 
     use of the property to be conveyed.
       (h) Descriptions of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     descriptions of the real property to be conveyed by the 
     Secretary under subsection (a) and the real property to be 
     conveyed under subsection (c)(1)(A) shall be determined by 
     surveys satisfactory to the Secretary. The cost of such 
     surveys shall be borne by the transferee selected under 
     subsection (g).
       (i) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyances under this section as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Simon, I offer this 
amendment which would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey 
real property and military family housing at the former Fort Sheridan, 
IL, to a competitive bidder in exchange for a parcel of real property 
and a newly constructed Navy neighborhood of excellence; and, two, 
authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey real property at former 
Fort Sheridan, IL, to a competitive bidder in exchange for a parcel of 
real property and newly constructed Army Reserve facilities. These 
property changes are at fair market value.
  Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it has been cleared. I wish to thank my 
distinguished colleague. This is an issue that has been before the 
committee on which the Senator from Nebraska and I serve. We would note 
that Senator Dixon tried to lay foundations for this many years ago. It 
has been considered by the committee through the years, and I strongly 
support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 2450) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       missing service personnel

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, before we conclude consideration of the 
fiscal year 1996 Defense authorization bill, I would like to make a few 
comments regarding section 551, which addresses the determination of 
whereabouts and the status of missing persons. Section 551 is the 
direct result of S. 256, the Missing Service Personnel Act of 1995, 
which I introduced on January 20 of this year. I want to thank Senator 
Coats, the Personnel Subcommittee chairman, for his efforts to include 
as much of the original bill in the Defense authorization bill as was 
possible. It wasn't easy. DOD had its objections, as did a number of 
our colleagues.
  The original intent of S. 256 was to reform the Department of 
Defense's procedures for determining the status and location of missing 
personnel of the Armed Forces. Legislation concerning those missing in 
action has not changed in the past 50 years. Since the Vietnam war, the 
Department of Defense and the United States Government have been 
criticized for their handling of the POW/MIA issue. Some of that 
criticism is justified. The Government's own actions--or inaction--has 
provoked legitimate criticism. S. 256 was an attempt to correct these 
problems and establish a fair and equitable procedure for determining 
the exact status of missing personnel. At the same time, it was my hope 
that we might restore some of the Department's credibility on this 
issue and renew the trust between the public and the Federal 
Government.
  I realize that some who supported S. 256 are concerned that section 
551 is not identical. I agree, it is not everything we had hoped to 
achieve. However, I do believe that section 551 represents the best 
language we could pass in the Senate. There are reforms we had hoped to 
achieve but which are not reflected in the Defense authorization bill. 
But our colleagues in the House have included this matter in their 
version of the Defense authorization bill. In my view, some of the 
House language better reflects our original bill. When the Senate goes 
to conference, it is my hope that all of the essential provisions of 
the original bill will be included in the conference report.
  So, again, I would like to thank Senator Coats for his efforts. 
Section 551 centralizes oversight and responsibility for accounting for 
missing persons, it establishes new procedures for reviewing cases of 
missing persons, and it protects the missing service member from being 
declared dead solely based on the passage of time. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to ensure that the conference report 
includes all of the necessary reforms outlined in S. 256.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, Mr. Thurmond, again has asked that I urge Senators to come 
forward with their amendments. We are making some steady progress this 
morning. I believe we are about to receive instructions from the 
majority leader that the Senate will stand in recess.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, just before we recess, if I may make a brief 
statement, I thank once again the chairman of the committee for his 
cooperation.
  I thank my friend from Virginia. For the last few minutes we have 
worked together to pass a whole series of amendments that were not 
controversial. I simply say that we are making remarkable progress, and 
I understand that when we reconvene at 2:15, following the statement 
the Senator from Virginia is about to make, we will be moving forward 
and tentatively have unanimous consent on an agreement that is going to 
collapse about an hour and a half of time which would otherwise be 
required, followed by another amendment the Senator from Nebraska had 
intended to offer if this amendment does not pass, which I understand 
will now.
  So I am overjoyed to announce to Senators that we are making 
remarkable progress under the bipartisan cooperation of both sides. It 
would appear to me that if we can continue this remarkable speed, we 
could have a chance of passing both the defense authorization and 
appropriations bills at a very fair and early hour this evening. I 
thank my friend from Virginia and those on that side of the aisle for 
their cooperation.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend and 
colleague. It is always a pleasure to work with him as we have now 
17\1/2\-plus years.

                          ____________________