[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 11 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S446-S461]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

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

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 
     1124) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1996 for 
     military activities of the Department of Defense, to 
     prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the 
     Armed Forces, and for other purposes, having met, after full 
     and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do 
     recommend to their respective Houses this report, signed by a 
     majority of the conferees.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of January 22, 1996.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am disappointed that the Senate has to 
consider the revised Defense authorization conference report for fiscal 
year 1996. To the dismay of many Members, President Clinton vetoed the 
original bill on December 28 because of his objections to: Deploying a 
missile defense system able to defend all 50 States; certifying that 
deployments of U.S. forces under U.N. command and control are in the 
national interest; and, requiring the President to seek congressional 
approval of funding of unanticipated contingency operations.
  The primary reason for the President's veto of the bill was the 
administration's uncompromising opposition to deploying a system to 
defend the United States against ballistic missiles. The first duty of 
the President, as defined in the Constitution, is to defend America. 
Missile defense for America is a very achievable goal; it is hard to 
understand the opposition to providing protection for America.
  Mr. President, we are told that there is no immediate threat, but I 
can assure you that when we are threatened, it will be too late to 
start. We will then be at the mercy of an aggressor's blackmail, or 
worse. In order to complete action rapidly on the renewed conference 
without further diluting the national missile defense provisions, the 
conferees dropped the NMD sections from the conference report. Although 
the conference report we are now considering does not include language 
on NMD, Republicans remain determined to enact forceful NMD legislation 
in the near future. I remain strongly committed to the deployment of a 
multiple-site NMD system by 2003 and am working with Senator Lott, 
Senator Smith, Senator Kyl, and others in formulating a new bill.
  Mr. President, the requirement to submit a supplemental request of 
funds to pay for contingency operations was also listed as a reason for 
the President's veto.
  Unfortunately, President Clinton continues to deploy our military 
forces overseas for a variety of non-traditional military operations 
without due regard to cost or funding. These operations absorb 
significant human resources and funds which had been budgeted and 
appropriated for military readiness and modernization.
  Our provision would merely have required the submission of a 
supplemental request to ensure that readiness is maintained, while at 
the same time allowing the Congress to carry out its constitutional 
responsibility. Although I disagree with President Clinton's argument 
that such a requirement is unconstitutional, the conferees agreed to 
change this requirement to a sense of Congress.
  In his veto message, the President asserted that he thought his 
authority as commander in chief would be undermined by a requirement to 
certify that placing U.S. troops under operational control of the 
United Nations is in our national security interest. I do not 
understand how any President can possibly object to a requirement that 
explicitly states to the American people that any deployment of 
American troops is in the national interest. This was a broadly 
supported provision and the President's veto ensures that neither the 
Congress nor the President has seen the last of this common-sense 
legislation.
  While I disagree with the objection, since certification is an 
accepted way 

[[Page S447]]
for Congress to exercise oversight responsibility, I do not want this 
important bill delayed by another veto. Further, if we had watered down 
this section as the President would have liked, the Congress would be 
abdicating its oversight responsibilities.
  For these reasons, the conferees concluded that it would be better to 
drop the section in its entirety. A separate bill will preserve the 
integrity of Congress' intention to ensure U.S. forces are placed under 
UN control only when it is in the U.S. national security interest.
  Mr. President, the House National Security Committee and the Senate 
Armed Services Committee have moved swiftly to resolve the President's 
objections to the previous defense authorization bill because we 
recognize the importance of the bill to our Armed Forces. This 
conference report retains the many important initiatives of the earlier 
bill.
  The conference agreement contains a number of acquisition reform 
provisions which make it easier for Federal agencies to buy commercial 
technologies, while preserving the standard of full and open 
competition. Other initiatives range from improved quality of life for 
servicemembers and their families, to a full pay raise. Our Armed 
Forces should not have to wait any longer for the support they deserve.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to say we will now have the opportunity 
to express our support for our military men and women by voting to 
approve the conference agreement on the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 1996. I urge my colleagues to pass this conference 
report in a strong, bipartisan show of support for our Armed Forces.
  Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to the able ranking 
Member, Senator Nunn, for the great contribution he has made to this 
bill. Without his cooperation and counsel it would have been very 
difficult to get this revised bill enacted.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Thurmond 
in support of the revised conference report on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996, which has just passed. The 
annual Defense authorization bill is one of the major responsibilities 
of the Congress each year. It has become the primary vehicle for 
fulfilling the responsibility of Congress, set forth in article I, 
section 8 of the Constitution, to raise and support the Armed Forces 
and to provide rules for the governance and regulation of our military 
forces. The fact that we have a Defense authorization bill that is 
likely to be approved by the Congress and signed by the President 
reflects the determination of Senator Thurmond, and many other Members, 
to make significant changes in the bill that was vetoed on December 28, 
1995.
  The Senate debated the first conference report on December 19, 1995. 
I voted against that conference report, which was the first time in my 
23 years in the Senate, that I voted against a Defense authorization 
conference report. I had supported every previous Defense authorization 
conference report, including 6 years in which I served in the minority 
under two Republican chairmen. I concluded then that the conference 
report contained fundamental flaws that were contrary to the best 
interests of the taxpayers and the sound management of our national 
defense activities. On balance, the bill's bad policy outweighed its 
good policy. My floor statement on December 19 detailed the serious 
reservations that I had about the first conference report.


                             major changes

  Mr. President, the revised conference report satisfies a number of 
the concerns which I addressed in my December 19 remarks on the Senate 
floor in opposing the bill and in the President's veto message. I view 
these changes as very substantial.
  The revised conference report completely eliminates the objectionable 
National Missile Defense language from the previous conference report. 
As I noted on the Senate floor, the language in the first conference 
report amounted to an anticipatory breach of the Antiballistic Missile 
Treaty. I had expressed serious objection, as had the administration, 
to that language. The language in the first conference report could 
have had a significant impact on Russian consideration of the START II 
Treaty which is designed to produce a major reduction in Russian 
nuclear weapons. The language also could have lead the Russians to 
abandon other arms control agreements if they conclude that it is 
United States policy to take unilateral action to abandon the ABM 
Treaty. All that language is has been removed from the conference 
report.
  The revised conference report changes the first conference report in 
a number of other significant respects:
  The new report completely eliminates the proposed restrictions on 
U.S. forces under U.N. command and control, which the administration 
had viewed as interfering with the constitutional prerogatives of the 
President.
  The new report eliminates the mandatory requirement in the 
contingency funding provision for a supplemental appropriation, and 
replaces it with a sense-of-Congress provision, thereby removing 
another constitutional concern expressed by the President.
  The new report completely eliminates the language which would have 
repealed the statutory authority for an independent Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation--a key position in terms of ensuring 
unbiased tests of major weapons systems.
  The new report makes it clear that the conferees support placing the 
oversight of special operations under a senior DOD official who is 
subject to Senate confirmation in order to ensure strong civilian 
control of special operations activities. The action of the conferees 
reflects the fact that when Congress created this position of Assistant 
Secretary for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, we were 
not simply trying to give visibility to an Assistant Secretary. There 
are significant substantive differences between the Assistant Secretary 
of Defense for Special Operations and each of the other Assistant 
Secretaries. The position of Assistant Secretary for Special Operations 
is tied directly to a unique combatant command that exercises 
management powers similar to those of a civilian Service Secretary. The 
conference report makes it clear that there is a continuing requirement 
for a senior, Senate-confirmed official to exercise these 
responsibilities as the individual's principal duty.

  The new report extends the time period for the sale of the naval 
petroleum reserve from 1 to 2 years. The 1 year period in the previous 
version was insufficient to ensure that the taxpayers would obtain the 
maximum value through knowledgeable competitive bidding.
  The new report specifically requires consideration of costs and risks 
in the development of plans for future submarine technology. The 
previous report omitted these vital factors, which could have lead to a 
great deal of wasted effort on theoretical and impractical approaches 
to modernizing our submarine fleet.


                   important legislative initiatives

  The conference report contains important legislative authorities 
which I support, such as:
  Important military pay and allowance provisions, including a 2.4-
percent pay raise for the troops and a 5.2-percent increase in the 
basic allowance for quarters.
  Approval of Secretary Perry's family and troop housing initiative, 
which would provide new authorities--including shared public and 
private sector funding--to finance needed construction and improvements 
in military housing.
  Detailed acquisition reform legislation that complements last year's 
landmark Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act. Key provisions would: 
Use simplified procedures to streamline the process of procuring 
commercial products and services while preserving the requirement for 
full and open competition; reduce the barriers that inhibit acquisition 
of commercial products by eliminating the requirement for certified 
cost and pricing data for commercial products; streamline the bid 
protest process by eliminating the separate bid protest authority of 
the General Services Board of Contract Appeals and providing for all 
bid protests to be determined by the General Accounting Office; 
consolidate and clarify the standards of conduct for Federal officials 
in the acquisition process to ensure consistent treatment of such 
personnel on a government-wide basis.

[[Page S448]]

  Establishment of a Defense Modernization Account. This provision, 
which I sponsored, will encourage the Department of Defense to achieve 
savings in procurement, R&D, and operations and maintenance by allowing 
the Department to place those savings in a new account, the Defense 
Modernization Account. The Department could use amounts in the account 
to address funding shortfalls in the modernization of vital weapons 
systems.


                            continuing flaws

  I am disappointed, however, that the conferees retained a variety of 
flawed provisions that were contained in the previous conference 
report. I recognize that there was a reluctance to rewrite the entire 
conference report at this point in time, but I am particularly 
concerned about a number which are contrary to the best interests of 
the taxpayers and the national interest. I detailed the problems with 
these provisions in my floor statement on December 19, and I will 
simply highlight a number of my continuing concerns today.


                               earmarking

  Mr. President, I am particularly concerned about the provisions of 
the bill which earmark the procurement of specific ships in specific 
shipyards. These anticompetitive provisions are contrary to the 
longstanding practices of the Armed Services Committee. In the past, we 
have provided appropriate guidance on the development and procurement 
of major weapons systems and to leave to the executive branch the 
process of awarding contracts. We have done this to ensure that the 
Government achieves the best price and quality based upon bids and 
proposals reviewed under merit-based criteria. We have endeavored to 
avoid legislation and conference report language which earmarks 
specific contracts to specific contractors. We have avoided earmarking 
because there is too great a danger that awards under such a system 
could be based on political and parochial considerations rather than 
the best interests of national defense. I am very concerned about the 
shipbuilding provisions of the conference report, which could lead to 
substantial unnecessary expenditures for the procurement of Navy 
vessels.
  I am also concerned that section 1016 of the bill has the effect of 
earmarking a ship maintenance contract for a specific shipyard. This is 
a provision that not only precludes competition, it also directs work 
to be performed that the Navy says is unnecessary. Once we start down 
this route, other shipyards--as well as repair and maintenance 
contractors for aircraft and vehicles--will want their share of these 
directed, noncompetitive contracts. The Competition in Contracting Act 
is designed to save money through effective competition. From time to 
time, there are exceptions which can be justified on the merits in 
terms of industrial base considerations--but those decisions should be 
made on the basis of sound analysis and thorough consideration of 
executive branch views, not on the basis of legislated earmarks.


                             protectionism

  The conference report establishes new Buy American legislative 
provisions for ships and naval equipment which will result in enormous 
cost increases for naval vessels and which could produce an unfavorable 
reaction against U.S. military sales abroad--one of the strongest 
elements of our export economy. As a result of the conference, foreign 
countries which lose the right to bid on American contracts as a result 
of this provision will likely retaliate by imposing their own 
restrictions on American products, thereby damaging the export sector 
of the United States that currently has a strong surplus.
  There is ample existing authority for DOD to exclude foreign 
companies from competing on contracts when there is a valid industrial 
base requirement for a domestic producer. The Department of Defense has 
not requested any additional legislative authority to impose specific 
Buy-American requirements on the components listed in the conference 
report. There has been no showing of a critical domestic industrial 
base need that would justify singling out these vessel components, 
among the hundreds of thousands of items procured by the Department of 
Defense, as warranting protection from competition. Mr. President, I 
find it strange that a Republican majority in the House and Senate 
committed to free trade and market competition, would inject the most 
sweeping Buy American provisions we have placed in a Defense 
authorization bill I have ever seen. This will damage the U.S. defense 
industry and the American taxpayer.
  A more onerous Buy-American provision is set forth in the bill's 
authority to use sealift funds to purchase vessels for the National 
Defense Reserve Fleet. Unlike the Buy-American provision that applies 
to components, which I previously discussed, the provision governing 
National Defense Reserve Fleet vessels has no waiver authority. As a 
result, DOD would be precluded from purchasing foreign vessels for the 
five additional Roll-on/Roll-off ships called for in the mobility 
requirements study, despite the potential for major savings to the 
taxpayers. This provision could add over $1 billion to the cost of 
these ships. The result could be a bonanza for certain domestic 
shipbuilders at taxpayer expense, or--what is more likely--the Navy 
will decided that the cost is likely to be so high that the Navy might 
forego purchasing enough ships to meet mobility requirements. That 
would be bad for the taxpayers and bad for national defense.


                       unwise personnel policies

  The conferees have approved legislation mandating the discharge of 
HIV-positive servicemembers. Out of the 1.4 million members of the 
Armed Forces on active duty, only 1,150 are HIV positive. That is less 
than one-tenth of 1 percent. Moreover, these HIV-positive 
servicemembers constitute only 20 percent of the total permanent 
nondeployable personnel in the military. The other 80 percent 
nondeployable for reasons such as cancer, heart disease, asthma, and 
diabetes. The bill requires discharge only of the HIV-positive 
servicemembers--not any of the other medically nondeployables.
  This is particularly unfortunate because many of those who are HIV 
positive are not adversely affected in terms of their ability to 
perform useful military service.
  Mr. President, we need to put a human face on these statistics.
  There is a sergeant with 16 years of service, with a wife and two 
children, who contracted HIV from a blood transfusion. He is performing 
sophisticated personnel management activities in a nondeployable 
status. When he heard about our bill, he said to his commander: ``The 
service is my life. I've given everything I have to it. When this bill 
passes, I'll be out of the service and out of a job. How am I supposed 
to support my family?'' What do we tell that sergeant and his family? 
How can we justify to the taxpayers the waste of 16 years of military 
training and education?
  There is a female staff sergeant with 8 years of service who is 
assigned to a high level administrative position in one of the military 
departments. She contracted HIV from her husband, who subsequently 
died. She is the mother of a 4-year-old child. Under the bill, she will 
be out of the service, out of a job, and ineligible to reach 
retirement. She is perfectly capable of continuing her outstanding 
performance of duty, but now she will be fired.
  There is an E-6 married for 10 years, who has a child and who is HIV 
positive. His service record includes a Navy Commendation Medal, two 
Navy Achievement Medals, and four sea-service deployment ribbons. His 
Navy Commendation Medal was awarded for automating a warehouse system 
that saved the Navy an estimated $2 million over a 2 year period. He 
has 12 years of service and has been HIV positive for 5 years. There is 
a reasonable likelihood that he could serve for many more yeas, with 
the potential to develop systems that will save millions more for the 
Navy. This bill deprives him of his livelihood and deprives and 
taxpayers of the contributions that he can make to greater efficiency 
and savings.
  There is a sergeant with 13 years of service who is married, with 
three children. He is HIV positive, as is his wife and two of the three 
children. Under the bill before us, he is the only one of the family 
who will retain a right to DOD medical care. His family, including his 
HIV-positive wife and two HIV-positive children, will be excluded from 
any DOD health care. As a result of the bill, he will be discharged 
from service, lose his employment, lose his retirement potential, and 
lose his family's 

[[Page S449]]
medical care. This is an individual who is perfectly capable of 
performing military duties, yet we are going to throw away our 
investment in him and place him in dire financial straits. This is 
unacceptable.
  Mr. President, these are but a few examples of the many productive 
servicemembers who will be discharged at great personal harm to them 
and their families, and at a great personnel investment loss to the 
taxpayers. This is not a situation where we have a large number of 
nondeployables. The numbers are small--well within the range of the 
number of nondeployables who have been retained on active duty under 
longstanding military manpower policies.
  In my view, Mr. President, the HIV provision is counter productive 
should have been stricken from the bill. In an effort to forge a 
compromise, I proposed that the conferees establish a waiver 
procedures. My compromise proposal would have permitted a Service Chief 
and Service Secretary to recommend waiver of the mandatory discharge, 
on a case-by-case basis, when retention of the individual would be in 
the ``best interests of the Department of Defense'' or would ``prevent 
an unacceptable hardship for the individual service member and the 
immediate family.'' The majority conferees, however, refused to 
consider this approach.
  It is my hope, Mr. President, that we will come to our senses, take a 
rational look at this policy, and repeal it before it can do any harm.
  Other flawed personnel provisions include unwarranted restrictions on 
access of servicemembers and dependents overseas to abortion services 
at private expense and the unnecessary interjection of the judiciary 
into POW/MIA determination process.


                               CONCLUSION

  Mr. President, I continue to be concerned abut these flawed policies 
as well as the others I discussed in my December 19 statement. In my 
judgment, however, in view of the important provisions contained in the 
conference report and the major changes that were made by the second 
conference, I believe it is time to enact these provisions into law and 
put this year's debate behind us. I will vote for the conference 
report, but it is my intent to propose amendments during the coming 
year to address the significant flaws that remain in the bill.
  As I mentioned, Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator 
Thurmond in support of the revised conference report on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996. Of course, this bill is 
one of the major responsibilities of the Congress each year. Given the 
number of people who want to speak, I am going to make my remarks brief 
and summarize what is a very comprehensive bill.
  Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Thurmond for his persistence 
and his tenacity and his dedication. Without that dedication and energy 
and leadership, we would not be here on this bill; certainly it would 
not have come back after it was vetoed.
  Mr. President, the revised conference report completely eliminates 
the objectionable national missile defense language from the previous 
conference report. As I noted on the Senate floor in considerable 
detail on a number of occasions, the language in the first conference 
report amounted to an anticipatory breach of the Anti-Ballistic Missile 
Treaty.
  Mr. President, we did have a compromise proposal that passed the 
Senate. That compromise proposal passed overwhelmingly in the Senate. 
It was changed in the conference, and that is what prompted the veto 
from the President. That Senate language, which is not in the report 
that has just passed, would still, I believe, be acceptable. Certainly, 
I hope we can work constructively in that regard this next year.
  Mr. President, this conference report made a number of other 
significant changes, some of which were outlined in the veto message by 
the President. Others were changes that I had urged and that others had 
urged, including the extension of the naval petroleum reserve sale to 2 
years, which I think is very important. The original bill, which was 
vetoed, had only 1 year, which could have put a tremendous amount of 
pressure and resulted in perhaps billions of dollars of loss in the 
competitive bidding process to the taxpayers of America.
  The new report also eliminates restrictions on U.S. forces that the 
White House had objected to. It eliminates the mandatory requirement on 
contingency funding provisions for supplemental appropriations, 
replacing it with a sense of Congress. It also eliminates the language 
which would have repealed the statutory authority for an independent 
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, and makes it clear that 
the conferees support continued oversight of the special operations 
under a DOD civilian official who is subject to Senate confirmation.
  In addition, Mr. President, this conference report has a number of 
important legislative provisions, including military pay and allowance, 
including basic allowance for quarters for our military forces, 
including Secretary Perry's family and troop housing initiative, 
including detailed acquisition reform, which is enormously important, 
which streamlines the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, and also 
including, I think, an important new provision, a defense modernization 
account, which I sponsored, which in effect says to each of the 
services, if you save money on any of your research and development 
procurement, if you find ways to save money, you can put the money in 
this specific account; and, subject to further approval of Congress, 
which I think would be almost automatic, hopefully, they will be able 
to spend this money on modernization.

  This gives the military a real incentive to save money and put it 
into much higher priority purposes because we all know we are going to 
be very short in modernizing our force in the outyears.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona has enumerated a number of 
provisions which he objects to in this bill. I too have some concerns 
about this bill. I share his concern about earmarking of specific ships 
in specific shipyards. I think that works against the best interests of 
the taxpayers. I think it is very poor procurement policy, and I 
believe it is a real danger in terms of eroding the kind of support we 
need for the defense bill from the broad segment of the American people 
concerned about how much money we spend. This is counterproductive, and 
it really means there is the danger we could go more and more toward 
awarding ship contracts to parochial interests or political interests 
rather than on the merits and based on true competition. That is 
something I hope we can correct next year. I raised that question over 
and over again to no avail.
  Mr. President, this bill also, as the Senator from Arizona pointed 
out, has some buy American provisions in it that will cost us lots and 
lots of money in terms of lost trade because we will basically be 
taking a trade advantage we have in defense articles and saying we are 
not going to buy your articles and then we are going to get retaliation 
and we are going to have our own defense contractors and our own 
workers suffer. So in order to help a few defense contractors, we are 
hurting a much broader segment and we are hurting our overall work 
force when we do that. I hope we can take corrective steps on those buy 
American provisions which I will not enumerate in the interest of time.
  One other subject which I think has to be mentioned this evening is 
the provision in this bill on mandating by law the discharge of HIV 
positive service members. This was not requested by the Department of 
Defense, not requested by any of the military services. Out of 1.4 
million members of the armed services on active duty, 1,150 are HIV 
positive. That is less than one-tenth of 1 percent. Moreover, these HIV 
positive service members constitute only one-fifth or 20 percent of the 
total permanent nondeployable personnel in the military. The other 80 
percent are people who cannot be deployed into combat for reasons such 
as cancer, heart attack or heart disease, asthma and diabetes. The bill 
requires discharge only of HIV positive service members, not any of the 
other medically nondeployable personnel.
  This is particularly unfortunate because many of those who are HIV 
positive are really not adversely affected in terms of their ability to 
perform their job in a useful way. If they are adversely affected in 
that regard, certainly there is every right to discharge under the 
current law. 

[[Page S450]]

  Mr. President, we need to put a human face on this matter rather than 
treating it simply as some abstract political move which it has been 
treated as so far. Let me just give the Senate three or four real human 
examples that already have come to my attention that are going to 
suffer serious consequences as a result of the provision in this bill 
which I think is very unwise. There is a sergeant with 16 years of 
service, with a wife and two children, who contracted HIV from a blood 
transfusion. He is performing sophisticated personnel management 
activities in a nondeployable status--16 years of investment we have in 
this sergeant that has tremendous experience in his area of expertise. 
When he heard about our bill, he went to his commander, and he said, 
``The service is my life. I have given everything I have to it. When 
this bill passes, I'll be out of the service and out of a job. How am I 
supposed to support my family?'' What do we tell that sergeant and his 
family, Mr. President? How can we justify to the taxpayers the waste of 
16 years of military training and education?

  Another example. A female staff sergeant with 8 years of service--
these are actual examples--who is assigned to a high-level 
administrative position in one of the military departments contacted 
HIV from her husband who subsequently died. She is the mother of a 4-
year-old child. Under the bill, she will be out of the service, out of 
a job, and ineligible to reach retirement even though she already has 
put in 8 years in the military and performs her job very ably every 
day. She is perfectly capable of continuing her outstanding performance 
of duty but now she is going to be fired by law.
  We do not give discretion to anyone. We just say, Fire them all. Fire 
them all. They have HIV. Get rid of them.
  It does not matter how they got it. It does not matter whether it is 
their fault--even a blood transfusion, getting it from your wife or 
from your husband. We are firing them.
  Another example. There is an E-6 married for 10 years who has a child 
and is HIV positive. His service record includes a Navy Commendation 
Medal, two Navy Achievement Medals, and four sea-service deployment 
ribbons. His Navy Commendation Medal was awarded for automating a 
warehouse system that saved the Navy an estimated $2 million over a 2-
year period. He has 12 years of service, has been HIV positive for 5 
years. There is a reasonable likelihood he could serve for many more 
years with the potential to develop systems that will save millions of 
dollars for the Navy. This bill deprives him of his livelihood, 
deprives the taxpayers of his contributions that he can make to the 
military service.
  Another example. A sergeant with 13 years of service, married with 
three children, is HIV positive as is his wife and two of the three 
children.
  Under the bill before us, he is the only one in the family who will 
retain the right to DOD medical care. His family, including his HIV 
positive wife and two HIV positive children will be excluded from any 
DOD health care as a result of this bill. As a result of this bill, he 
will be discharged from the service, lose his employment, lose his 
retirement potential, and lose his family's medical care. This is an 
individual who is perfectly capable of performing military duties, yet 
we are going to throw away our investment in him, and place him and his 
family in dire financial straits.
  Mr. President, as everyone in this Chamber knows, I led the fight in 
making sure that we have a sensible provision in terms of gays and 
lesbians serving in the military service. That is not what we are 
talking about here. We are talking about punitive action. We are 
talking about action that does not make any sense from any point of 
view.
  During the consideration of this bill and in conference, I proposed a 
compromise. I proposed that the conferees establish a waiver provision. 
My compromise proposal would have permitted a service Chief and a 
service Secretary--would require both, both the uniformed military and 
the civilian to recommend waiver of the mandatory discharge that is in 
this bill on a case-by-case basis, when retention of the individual 
would be in the best interests of the Department of Defense or would 
present an unacceptable hardship for the individual servicemember 
and his immediate family. The majority of conferees, however, did not 
consider this approach.

  I have given just a few examples where there is going to be 
tremendous harm to families, great personnel investment loss to the 
taxpayers. The numbers are small but the human tragedy here is going to 
be very large for no justifiable military reason. We are not talking 
about unit cohesion now. We are not talking about morale in the 
military. We are talking about people who can do their job and who may 
have been infected with HIV for no fault whatsoever of their own.
  I am concerned about these flawed policies. I am also concerned about 
the overseas abortion services restrictions that are in this bill, and 
I am also concerned about, as Senator McCain said, what I believe to be 
the unnecessary interjection of the judiciary into the POW/MIA 
termination process.
  However, in my judgment, the overall balance is in favor of passage 
of this bill, and it has passed. I believe it is time to enact these 
provisions into law and put this year's debate behind us. And, of 
course, I voted for the conference report because of my overall feeling 
of the necessity of getting this report passed for the benefit of our 
military services and our national security. But we have some badly 
flawed policies in this bill that need protecting, and I will be 
working with others to try to change those provisions in the coming 
year.


   the revised conference agreement on the fiscal year 1996 national 
                       defense authorization bill

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret very much that I come to the 
Senate floor today to speak against the revised conference agreement on 
the fiscal year 1996 national defense authorization bill. To my dismay, 
this revised conference agreement is significantly worse than the first 
agreement. It is another example of the inability of Congress to put 
aside the wasteful, pork-barrel spending practices of the past.


              opposition to original conference agreement

  Mr. President, I voted against the original conference agreement for 
several reasons, principally:
  The inclusion of an additional $493 million for the B-2 bomber 
program.
  Authorization for a third Seawolf submarine.
  The $700 million for unrequested, low-priority military construction 
projects.
  The $777 million for unrequested equipment for the Guard and Reserve, 
without regard to the priorities of the Guard and Reserve.
  Legislation placing unnecessary and counter-productive ``Buy 
America'' restrictions on DOD's procurement decisions, to the detriment 
of our relations with some of our most faithful allies.
  Legislation directing the noncompetitive allocation of four attack 
submarine contracts to Electric Boat and Newport News shipyards.
  Myriad earmarks for entities and organizations favored by individual 
Members of this body.
  And finally the unworkable, unnecessary, and burdensome new 
provisions dealing with POW/MIA issues.
  For all of these reasons, which are discussed in more detail in my 
statement contained in the December 19, 1995, Congressional Record, I 
voted against the original conference agreement on this bill.


  supporting the committee and the authorization/appropriation process

  Now, I know that some of my colleagues were disturbed at my decision 
to cast my vote against the bill, even though the bill did pass the 
Senate. But, Mr. President, let me state very clearly that it was not 
an easy decision for me to make.
  I have great respect for Chairman Thurmond, and I know that he worked 
very hard to accomplish the principal task of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee--enactment of the annual defense authorization legislation. 
It saddens me that, to date, that goal has not been accomplished.
  Having served for more than 8 years on the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, I also clearly appreciate the Committee's crucial role in 
the Congress' defense budget review. As I said on the floor last 
December, this Committee has been at the forefront of the debate on 
national security policy and defense programs since the days of John 
Tower's chairmanship. The authorization 

[[Page S451]]
committee, with its historically unbiased and nonparochial approach to 
defense issues, is an essential check-and-balance in the congressional 
budget process. In my view, it would be in the best interests of our 
Nation's national security to sustain the relevance and viability of 
the Armed Services Committee in the defense budget and policy review 
process.
  For these reasons, I voted in committee last summer to report a 
defense authorization bill to the Senate floor, and I also reluctantly 
signed the original conference agreement. In both instances, I opposed 
many of the principal provisions in the bill. In taking these actions, 
I was not supporting the bill itself. I was supporting the Chairman, 
the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the congressional budget 
review process.
  When it came time to cast my vote in the Senate on the original 
conference agreement, I came to the conclusion that the many positive 
aspects of the bill were outweighed by its negative provisions 
discussed above. I therefore voted against the original conference bill 
last December.


             problems with the revised conference agreement

  When the President vetoed the original conference agreement late in 
December, I was hopeful that some of my objections would be addressed 
in a revised conference agreement. To that end, I wrote to Chairman 
Thurmond on January 4, 1996, to ask that he revisit some of these 
issues. I made it very clear that I could not support a revised 
conference agreement which does not address my specific concerns with 
the original, vetoed bill.
  But my concerns were, unfortunately, ignored.


                               veto fixes

  Mr. President, while the conference agreement does address the three 
major objections raised by the President, in my view, the conferees 
overreacted by stripping two provisions from the bill and substantially 
modifying the third.
  I was disappointed that the conferees chose to eliminate entirely the 
policy language for national missile defense programs. I fully support 
the early deployment of effective missile defense at an affordable 
cost, which is what the conferees directed in the original agreement. 
Unfortunately, the conferees chose to strike this entire section from 
the bill, instead of working to modify it slightly to achieve some 
progress toward a meaningful effort to protect the people of the United 
States from accidental or unauthorized attacks.

  The conferees also chose to remove entirely the language restricting 
the President's ability to place U.S. military forces under the command 
and control of the United Nations. The President did object strongly to 
the requirement to certify a national security interest before placing 
our troops under U.N. command. However, it seems to me, at a minimum, 
that it would have been useful to retain some statement of the 
Congress' strong objection to this type of action, as a base upon which 
to proceed with additional legislation during this year.
  Finally, the conferees caved in to the President's objections to 
language requiring submission of a timely supplemental appropriations 
request to pay for contingency and peacekeeping operations. This 
language constituted nothing more than an expansion of the current law 
which requires submission of a Federal budget request each year at a 
specified time. Changing the conference language from a requirement to 
a sense of the Congress provision seems to be a very fine distinction 
and an unnecessary change.
  Certain other changes were made to address the President's objections 
to the bill, most of which I do not oppose. However, I should note that 
very little was done to address a major concern raised by the 
President, namely, the noncompetitive allocation of shipbuilding and 
ship repair contracts. Another area that was not resolved to the 
satisfaction of the administration was the ``Buy America'' language, to 
which I also objected. Both of these are provisions to which I also 
objected.


                              buy america

  Mr. President, let me take a moment to discuss the ``Buy America'' 
restrictions in this bill. The conferees did remove a waiver provision 
which would have had the unintended consequence of rewarding nations 
with a history of retaliatory trade practices. However, the bill adds 
``Buy America'' restrictions for propellers, ball bearings, and many 
other items which, frankly, are counterproductive to our ongoing trade 
relations with our most important allies.
  As an example, the British placed orders for approximately $5 billion 
in United States-made defense articles last year; United States orders 
of British-made defense items totaled only about $800 million last 
year, a ratio of 4-to-1 to our economic advantage. This is a somewhat 
unusual year, in terms of the size of British orders to United States 
companies. I am advised that, on average, the British Government 
purchases twice as much defense equipment from the United States as we 
do from them.

  Yet, even with this obvious economic advantage to the United States 
of doing business with the British Government, the new restrictions in 
this conference agreement would require the Pentagon to purchase many 
items from United States manufacturers rather than allowing competition 
from British and other foreign manufacturers. The result is that the 
U.S. taxpayer will not necessarily get the best deal on the price of 
these goods, and our trade relations with our allies will suffer as a 
result.
  Let me take a moment to list some of the specific defense items that 
the British Government has procured from United States contractors.
  Laser guided bombs from Texas Instruments.
  C-130J aircraft from Lockheed-Martin.
  Airborne stand-off radar system from a Loral/Raytheon team.
  CH-47 helicopters from Boeing.
  Infra-red countermeasures capability from Northrop Grumman.
  Torpedo engines from Sundstrand.
  I should also note that the British Government has announced its 
intention to sign contracts for two major procurements which affect 
contractors in my State of Arizona, namely, McDonnell-Douglas' Apache 
helicopters and Hughes' Tomahawk missiles.
  Let me take a few minutes to talk about some of the specific domestic 
source restrictions in the bill.
  The bill establishes in permanent law a requirement to buy the 
following defense items from U.S. suppliers:
  Welded anchor and mooring chains, which benefits one company in 
Pennsylvania and possibly another in Washington State.
  Air circuit breakers, which benefits two companies in Pennsylvania.
  Vessel propellers of at least 6 feet in diameter, which benefits 
companies in Mississippi and Pennsylvania, and possibly Massachusetts.
  Enclosed lifeboats, which benefits a company in Florida.
  Ball and roller bearings, which benefits a company in South Carolina.
  Gyrocompasses, benefiting a company in Virginia.
  Electronlic navigation chart systems, benefiting 12 companies in 
Maryland, California, Iowa, Utah, Massachusetts, and Virginia.
  Steering controls, benefits six companies in Louisiana, California, 
Wisconsin, and Georgia.
  Pumps, benefiting 25 companies scattered throughout the United 
States.
  Propulsion and machine controls, benefiting a company in California 
and one in Canada.
  I find it interesting to note that these restrictions are usually 
justified on the basis of industrial base concerns, but in 6 of these 
10 cases, there are at least 2 U.S. manufacturers of these items, and 
in some cases as many as 25 U.S. suppliers. Where is the threat to our 
industrial base for these items?
  Several provisions in the bill have specific relevance to our defense 
trade with the British. The bill restricts the purchase of ball and 
roller bearings; there is a competent British manufacturer of these 
items. The bill also restricts procurement of propellers for naval 
vessels; a competent British source exists for these items. British 
companies are also capable of producing electrical navigation charts, 
propulsion systems, and a number of the other items that are limited in 
this bill to American companies.
  This bill adds a number of new Buy America restrictions, although not 
by any means all of the items the House 

[[Page S452]]
bill would have protected. I can assume that there are still other 
industries who might want to take advantage of the apparent willingness 
of the Congress to enact this type of protectionist legislation. If 
that were the case, if even more defense items were added to the 
domestic sources restrictions for Pentagon procurement, the negative 
impact on both foreign and U.S. business could be far greater.
  For example, many British companies have entered into teaming 
arrangements with United States companies to compete for contracts for 
some very important United States military programs. Shorts Bros., 
teamed with Lockheed-Martin, is interested in the Starstreak air-to-air 
missile system for the Apache helicopter. British Aerospace, teamed 
with Hughes, is interested in the AIM-9X advanced short-range air-to-
air missile program. Westlands, teamed with McDonnell-Douglas, is 
interested in the EH-101 combat support helicopter for the Navy. GEC, 
teamed with Northrop Grumman, is interested in the Army's Infra-red 
countermeasures program.
  Judging by the enthusiasm of Congress for legislating Buy America 
restrictions, some of these British companies could, in the future, be 
precluded from competing for United States defense business. The 
secondary impact of additional Buy America restrictions would then be 
preventing their U.S. teaming partners from competing for these 
contracts. That is an outcome that I suspect many of my colleagues had 
not considered.
  Mr. President, some of these restrictions have been in place for many 
years. The Buy American Act of 1933 implemented the first restrictions 
on U.S. Government purchases of foreign-made products. Since this type 
of protectionist trade legislation was initiated, items such as food, 
clothing, fabrics, watches, bolts, and nuts have been required to be 
purchased from American companies. In the defense field, the Pentagon 
must purchase from American companies such items as buses, machine 
tools, bearings, anchor and mooring chains, and numerous other items.
  Let me cite one particular instance in this bill. The ball bearing 
industry in this country has been protected from foreign competition 
for many years, but the existing Buy America restriction ended last 
October. This bill extends the restriction until the year 2000. It 
seems to me that, if an American company cannot position itself to 
compete in the international marketplace after a period of protection 
from competition, perhaps there is more benefit to the American 
taxpayer in permitting foreign companies to compete for that Government 
business than in propping up a weak American concern.
  Mr. President, I talked with the British Defense Minister last week. 
The British Defense Minister made it very clear, very clear, that, if 
these Buy America provisions prevailed, they will have to reevaluate 
their policies of purchasing defense and other products from the United 
States of America.
  I cannot understand why the conferees decided to implement these 
additional protections for U.S. businesses. In my view, they are 
extremely short-sighted, in that they do not take into account the 
distinct possibility that our trading partners may understandably 
decide to retaliate against these unfair, protectionists restrictions 
by denying the United States access to their markets, defense or 
otherwise.
  It is a bizarre circumstance, in my view, when the U.S. Congress 
concocts legislation which operates counter to the best interests of 
the taxpayer and which threatens our positive defense trade balance 
with allies like the British. I generally do not favor trade 
restrictions of any kind. In particular, the defense trade restrictions 
contained in this bill are not necessary to protect any U.S. defense 
industrial base. And further, defense trade restrictions negatively 
affect our defense capability by inhibiting the Pentagon's ability to 
buy the best weapons systems at the cheapest cost from any supplier in 
the world.
  I had hoped that the unnecessary restrictions added in this bill 
would be removed in the second conference, as requested in the 
President's veto message, but they were not. I intend to work to remove 
these counter-productive domestic source restrictions to ensure free 
and open markets for defense goods and services. A true two-way street 
arrangement with our loyal allies, such as the British, is the best way 
to ensure the future availability of defense items which are vital to 
the continued readiness of our Armed Forces and those of our allies.


                      new provisions and reversals

  Mr. President, beyond the action of the conferees in addressing some 
of the major veto objections, it is entirely incomprehensible to me 
that the conferees decided to add entirely new material and to reverse 
previous good decisions in order to satisfy some Members' parochial 
interests. These additions and changes were not even mentioned in the 
President's veto message.
  Let me review just a few examples of programs which were added in the 
second conference agreement. These earmarks were gratuitously added to 
match funding included in the already enacted Defense Appropriations 
Act.
  Some $10 million was earmarked for Aurora Borealis research, called 
the HAARP Program, in Alaska.
  This program is a perennial congressional add-on, and its relevance 
to military requirements is completely inexplicable; 2 years ago, the 
program was described as a technology which would allow the United 
States military to locate tunnels and caverns in North Korea which 
could hide artillery pieces. Last year, an article in the Washington 
Post, April 17, quotes Pentagon and contractor officials who claim that 
the program will enhance communications with submarines. Still others 
claim that the program could seriously disrupt communications around 
the globe.
  For a program which has been ongoing for a number of years and which 
is estimated to cost $160 million, it seems that a clear military 
purpose should be identified for it. And it seems that the Pentagon 
should be requesting funding for this program if it is of any military 
relevance whatsoever.
  Some $10 million was earmarked for the Thermionics Program, in 
addition to $12 million in prior year funds which are directed to be 
transferred to the program. I understand that this earmark was 
mistakenly dropped in the conference agreement. However, in my view, 
that does not make any less onerous the fact that an earmark has been 
added in bill language that was not included in either of the Senate or 
House versions of the bill, or in the original conference agreement.
  In addition, the revised conference agreement contains a legislative 
earmark of $4 million for a Counterterror Explosives Research Program, 
which was not included in the bill language in either the House or 
Senate version of the bill or in the original conference agreement. 
Apparently, this earmark was moved from the report language to the bill 
language, in exchange for the inclusion of the thermionics earmark in 
bill language. An interesting tradeoff.
  The conferees also reversed several policy decisions contained in the 
first conference agreement. For example:

  The decision to shut down the unnecessary National Drug Intelligence 
Center in Pennsylvania was reversed, and the new conference agreement 
provides $20 million for its continued operation.
  Mr. President, let me take just a moment to discuss this issue. The 
fiscal year 1994 Defense Appropriations Act directed DOD to fund the 
staff and operation of the National Drug Intelligence Center [NDIC], 
located in Johnstown, PA, for the Department of Justice. Over the past 
5 years, DOD has spent over $102 million in support of this center.
  Because of concern over the amount of defense funding being used to 
fund a Department of Justice operation, the Senate adopted a provision 
in its version of the fiscal year 1996 National Defense Authorization 
Act limiting DOD support to providing 36 skilled technicians. What this 
means is that the DOD would no longer pay the salaries of the 209 
Department of Justice employees at the center, nor would it pay for the 
travel and other associated costs of these employees. I believe that 
this is more than fair. If the Attorney General believes that NDIC 
provides a valuable service to Justice Department operations, then the 
Department of Justice should pay for its operations.
  The original conference agreement included the Senate's provision. 
Unfortunately, when the bill came back from 

[[Page S453]]
conference the second time, the restrictions had been removed and $20 
million was authorized for operation of the center in fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. President, there is no defensible reason this issue was reopened 
in conference. It was not mentioned in the President's veto message. 
Nobody has been able to justify why the Department of Defense should be 
paying the bill for this Department of Justice operation. Apparently, 
however, one powerful Member of Congress had a special interest in this 
project, and so it was restored.
  The conferees also reversed a decision of the first conference to 
prohibit the Department of Defense from entering into a long-term lease 
agreement for a financial management educational institution in 
Southbridge, MA, without benefit of competitive, merit-based selection. 
This is, of course, unacceptable, Mr. President.
  Again, let me take a moment to discuss this provision in the revised 
conference agreement. While I understand that the legislation still 
requires the Department of Defense to choose the site of the Defense 
Business Management University by using a merit-based competition, I 
believe that the original conference agreement was much clearer in 
demonstrating the intent of Congress that such a site be chosen on its 
merits.

  I believe that the administration made an error in judgment when it 
decided to spend $69 million on a lease for a privately-owned facility 
which will have to be substantially renovated to accommodate the 
requirements of a teaching institution. There is no justification for 
this when there are suitable facilities, already designed and equipped 
to perform this activity, at many of the military bases that are being 
closed through the BRAC process.
  I have always maintained that competition should be used in selecting 
sites to host Federal facilities, and I will be monitoring the 
selection process of this site to ensure that the American taxpayer's 
interests are protected.
  Finally, Mr. President, the conferees struck from this revised 
agreement the prohibition on obligating funds for five unauthorized, 
earmarked projects contained in the fiscal year 1995 Defense 
Appropriations Act.
  Mr. President, since the days of John Tower's chairmanship of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee 
has faithfully fulfilled its role of authorizing the expenditure of 
defense funds. While there is some disagreement about the extent to 
which the authorizing committee should insist on a say in the 
allocation of funds, the committee has maintained a clear oversight 
role in this regard. Unfortunately, the decision of the conferees to 
strip this provision from the bill essentially waives the requirement 
that appropriations must be authorized on a line-item level.
  I suspect also that this provision was waived because the five 
specific programs for which appropriations were provided without 
authorization are programs which have special interest for certain 
Members of Congress. The programs for which the original conference 
agreement had prohibited the obligation of unauthorized appropriations 
were: $2.4 million for the TARTAR support equipment program for the 
Navy; $8 million for natural gas utilization equipment for the Navy; 
$7.5 million for a munitions standardization-plasma furnace technology 
program for the Army; $2 million for a cold pasteurization/
sterilization program for the Army, and $500,000 for an air beam tents 
program for the Army.

  By striking the prohibition on spending approximately $20 million for 
these five programs, this revised conference agreement provides a 
retroactive authorization for these unauthorized appropriations, a 
decision with which I strongly disagree.
  Mr. President, again, I find it incomprehensible that the conferees 
on this bill decided to reconsider matters which had been resolved by 
the full conference and which had nothing whatsoever to do with the 
President's veto of the original conference agreement.


                       original objections remain

  I am also distressed that none of the provisions to which I objected 
in the first conference agreement were satisfactorily addressed in this 
new agreement. So, like the first conference agreement, nearly $4 
billion of the $7 billion in defense spending added by Congress is 
wasted on unnecessary programs like the B-2 bomber, low-priority 
military construction projects, unrequested equipment for the Guard and 
Reserve, earmarks for Members' special interest items, and the like.


                               conclusion

  Mr. President, for reasons which are not readily apparent to me, not 
all members of the Armed Services Committee were appointed as conferees 
for the second conference on this bill. I and a number of my other 
committee colleagues did not serve as conferees, and therefore, we did 
not have an opportunity to discuss or vote on any of the changes 
included in this new agreement.
  For many years, I have been dedicated to exposing to the public 
instances of congressional mismanagement of taxpayer dollars. I have 
spoken out against wasteful spending and earmarks whenever it appears, 
whether in authorization or appropriation legislation. But the wasteful 
spending that is most offensive to me is that which is included in 
defense spending bills. Pork-barrel spending of defense dollars diverts 
resources from higher priority military requirements and potentially 
squanders the support of the American people for an adequate defense 
budget, and without that support, insufficient resources devoted to 
defense may potentially endanger the security of our people.
  The examples I have cited today--which bear little or no relevance to 
military requirements--are the most dangerous kind of pork-barrel 
spending. By approving the earmarks and add-ons in this bill, Congress 
is diverting scarce defense resources from other important defense 
programs which are necessary to ensure the security of our Nation. No 
other wasteful spending carries with it the potential for such great 
danger. The American public should be disturbed by this egregious waste 
of their money, and for this reason, I intend to vote against this 
revised conference agreement.
  Mr. President, I spoke earlier about my respect for Chairman Thurmond 
and the role of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the 
authorization and appropriation process. Looking at the magnitude of 
the wasteful spending in this bill, and the unprecedented degree of 
earmarking of funds for the narrow interests of some Members of 
Congress, my disappointment tempts me to rethink my view of the 
committee's role in the process. However, I am convinced that the bill 
before the Senate today is an anomaly and not a harbinger of the 
authorization process in the future. I will certainly do everything in 
my power to ensure that the committee retains its traditional, 
nonparochial approach to oversight of defense policy and budget issues, 
with the best interests of our military services and our national 
security as the highest priorities.
  Mr. President, I want to say again if we continue to do this, if we 
continue to add unneeded, unwanted, unnecessary pork barrel spending on 
defense authorization appropriations bills, the American people will 
lose confidence that their defense dollars earmarked for defense are 
being wisely and efficiently spent and we will not get the necessary 
funds to maintain this Nation's vital national security interests.
  This has got to stop, Mr. President. I hope that next year we can 
begin anew and recognize that we cannot do these things because we do 
not have the money in the defense budget anymore, and it is an 
abrogation of our responsibilities to the American taxpayer. Mr. 
President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the conference report on the 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, S. 1124.
  I voted against the earlier conference report last December. That 
bill had many serious defects that would have harmed our national 
security, rather than strengthening it. President Clinton vetoed the 
bill, and the veto was sustained by the House of Representatives 
earlier this month.
  In the conference, the Senate and House have reconsidered many of the 
key issues cited by those of us who opposed the bill and by the 
President in justifying his veto. Both sides have made a genuine effort 
to reach common ground. As a result, the current bill contains many 
noteworthy improvements.

[[Page S454]]

  I want to commend the Committee Chairman, Senator Thurmond and the 
distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Nunn, as well as their 
counterparts in the House, Congressman Spence and Congressman Dellums, 
for their leadership in guiding this conference. In addition, I commend 
Senator Exon, Senator Warner, Congressman Montgomery and Congressman 
Bateman and the other conferees for their constructive roles in 
producing this much improved bill.
  First and most important, the provision in the earlier bill calling 
for deployment of a national missile defense system has been dropped. 
That provision would have called upon the United States to violate the 
landmark Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, waste billions of dollars on an 
unnecessary Star Wars system, and would have undermined the START II 
Treaty with Russia. That provision was the worst defect in the earlier 
bill, and I commend the conferees for deleting it.
  In addition, two other objectionable provisions were dropped. One 
would have limited the ability of the President to put U.S. Forces 
under operational or tactical control of the United Nations. Limiting 
the President's control of U.S. forces in the field restricts his 
constitutionally-guaranteed powers as commander-in-chief.
  In addition, the previous bill restricted the President's ability to 
carry out contingency operations as he sees fit. This too was an 
unwarranted restriction on the President's ability to carry out his 
duties and to deploy troops whenever and wherever U.S. security demands 
it.
  Despite these key improvements, objectionable provisions in the bill 
remain. One of the worst provisions calls for the mandatory discharge 
of any members of the armed forces found to be HIV-positive. This 
provision has no legitimate purpose.
  It singles our for discriminatory treatment a group of loyal American 
servicemen and women who have contracted HIV. These men and women are 
still able to serve in the armed forces, and they do so under the same 
conditions as troops who suffer from other debilitating diseases, such 
as hepatitis, cancer, diabetes, asthma, or heart disease. Those 
individuals, however, are not summarily discharged, and neither should 
persons with HIV.
  The Defense Department opposes this provision. The Department is able 
to meet the needs of force readiness and treating these individuals 
with respect for the service they provide their nation.
  Soon, stories will begin to appear of loyal soldiers, sailors, 
marines, and airmen who have been thrown out into the street, denied 
the chance to continue serving their country, unable to obtain health 
insurance for their family members who are also afflicted with this 
condition.
  I hope that supporters of this provision will recognize both the 
bigotry and cruelty that underlie it, and will repeal it as soon as 
possible. I believe that a majority of Congress favors its repeal, and 
I will work over the year ahead to achieve such repeal.
  The conference report also includes a provision that prohibits 
service women based overseas from obtaining abortions with their own 
private funds in U.S. military medical facilities. I opposed this 
provision when it was included in the Defense Appropriations bill, and 
I oppose it now. We have always provided access for service women 
overseas to obtain the same quality health care available to those on 
duty in the United States, and continue to do so.
  I am also concerned about several issues related to the shipbuilding 
provisions in the bill. We have examined these provisions in detail in 
the Seapower Subcommittee, and I believe they will cause uncertainty, 
inefficiency, and unnecessary expenditures in the Department's 
shipbuilding program.
  Finally, I oppose the bill's endorsement of $7 billion in spending 
above the level requested by the Pentagon. This is the level of 
spending provided in the Defense Appropriations bill, previously 
enacted, which I opposed. It is wrong for Congress to force the 
Administration to accept a level of defense funding above what the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense have requested.
  It is especially wrong to do so at a same time when key programs that 
benefit other Americans are being severely shortchanged by Republican 
budgets. ``Let the Pentagon eat cake'' is no answer to our budget 
impasse.
  Despite these defects, I believe that on balance, the overall bill 
deserves to be enacted. We need to protect our national defense, and 
this bill is already long overdue in the fiscal year. The worst defects 
in the earlier bill have been eliminated, and we will continue to seek 
opportunities in other ways to remedy the remaining defects.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the 
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee in supporting 
the conference report on the DoD authorization bill which is currently 
before the Senate. Although this bill is the result of further 
compromise with the administration and, therefore is not all we hoped 
for, it is still a good bill.
  We must keep in mind that there are important items in this 
Conference Report that would have been lost if a compromise had not 
been reached and the President's veto had been allowed to stand.
  In addition to a pay raise of 2.4 percent and a 5.2 percent increase 
in basic quarters allowance, there are numerous other provisions in 
this bill to enhance the quality of life for our military personnel and 
their families, including new authorities to improve the quality and 
quantity of military housing; to improve health care and dental care 
for both active duty personnel and reservists; additional increases in 
special pay and allowances; and COLA equity for military retirees.
  In addition, this bill enacts a plan, which I introduced in the 
Senate, for the construction of nuclear attack submarines that will 
ensure adequate and effective competition in the years ahead.
  All of these things would have been lost if we had not been able to 
reach a compromise.
  However, we should not lose sight of the important provisions which 
we were forced to drop in order to get the President's commitment that 
he would sign the conference report. I would like to join with my 
Republican colleagues in putting all on notice that the battle for 
enactment of these provisions is far from over.
  Despite President Clinton's objections, I believe that it is vital 
that we enact a plan to provide for the deployment of an effective 
ballistic missile defense system for our nation. This is a basic 
responsibility of a government to provide for the security of its 
people. We have not done enough in this area. I am pleased that the 
provisions on theater missile defenses which will provide protection 
for our troops deployed overseas were retained in the final version of 
this bill, but we must continue to push for a national missile defense 
system.
  As I listened to the President's State of the Union address earlier 
this week, I was struck by the President's comments that Russian 
missiles are no longer targeted at America's children. As we all know, 
those missiles can be retargeted on a moment's notice. The Russian 
capability to destroy our nation with their intercontinental ballistic 
missile force remains.
  Moreover, the capability of Third World countries and rogue nations 
or terrorists to acquire weapons of mass destruction and ballistic 
missile delivery systems is growing.
  The way to ensure that our children will be protected is to build a 
defensive capability to counter such attacks. I would rather rely on a 
United States defense system, rather than Russian promises, to protect 
our great land.
  I am working with my Republican colleagues to draft legislation on 
national missile defense, which we will introduce in the near future.
  The second issue I would like to address is U.N. command and control. 
I have grave reservations about placing U.S. troops under U.N. command 
and control. That is why I joined, over a year ago, with Senator Dole 
and others in cosponsoring S. 5 to put conditions and restrictions on 
the President's ability to place U.S. troops in such command 
arrangements. Unfortunately, even the scaled-back version which 
appeared in the original conference report on this issue--which 
essentially amounted only to a reporting requirement--was rejected by 
the President. Again, this issue will not be forgotten.

[[Page S455]]

  As a final note, I would like to comment on the President's 
objections to the additional $7 billion contained in this conference 
report--an amount that was above the President's request for defense. 
At the time that the President and other administration officials are 
complaining about added dollars for defense, they are finding more and 
more ways to spend those defense dollars.
  I learned this morning that the Bosnia operation is now estimated to 
cost $2.5 billion. This is up from the original estimates of $1.5-$1.9 
billion. And this does not include the roughly $600 million in 
reconstruction aid for Bosnia to which we have committed. I was alarmed 
to learn that the Administration will propose that at least the first 
$200 million in reconstruction aid will be paid for out of the DOD 
budget. In my opinion, this is but the first step in a raid on the 
defense budget to find the vast sums that will be needed to rebuild 
Bosnia. I will resist this effort and work with my colleagues to find 
alternate, nondefense sources of funds for this portion of the Bosnia 
mission. The Defense Department is doing more than its fair share. It 
is time to look elsewhere for a bill payer.
  In addition to the Bosnia operation, there are ongoing contingency 
operations in other nations--also not budgeted for--that will result in 
a request for approximately $500 million in supplemental funding for 
the Defense Department in the current fiscal year.
  Add to that the millions of dollars DOD will pay for the F-16s that 
we have recently promised to send to Jordan, and you see how our 
defense dollars are quickly eroding.
  Mr. President, I strongly believe in maintaining a robust defense 
capability. This conference report--despite its shortcomings--
contributes to that goal.


      defense authorization act: no provision for missile defense

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am deeply troubled that the Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996 contains not a syllable of the 
decisive language regarding ballistic missile defense so prominent in 
the original bill. When he vetoed the original authorization, President 
Clinton gutted provisions designed to ensure the protection of American 
citizens against attack by ballistic missiles carrying nuclear, 
chemical, or biological warheads.
  So, Mr. President, America is being held hostage to an outdated 
concept of deterrence that is truly MAD. I have come to this floor to 
challenge the wisdom of the ABM Treaty innumerable times, and I feel 
obliged to do it again. The frenzied, fanatical defense of the ABM 
Treaty by some is rooted in the mentality of the cold war.
  The truth is, the threat to the United States has changed, and a lot 
of folks have missed the boat. The intent of the ABM Treaty, formulated 
in the midst of the cold war, was to circumvent the possibility of an 
expensive and potentially dangerous action-reaction spiral whereby the 
United States and the Soviet Union sought to overcompensate for one 
another's ballistic missile defenses by increasing their offensive 
arsenals.
  But, Mr. President, I find all of the evidence pointing to a contrary 
conclusion. The ABM Treaty did not stop the explosion in offensive 
arsenals between the two sides. The Soviets increased the number of 
deliverable nuclear warheads in their arsenal from 2,000 in 1972, to 
12,000 today. Furthermore, it was robust missile defense programs that 
proved conducive to arms control--not arms control itself. Above all 
else, the Strategic Defense Initiative broke the logjam on offensive 
reductions. SDI forced the Soviets to the table on the Intermediate-
range Nuclear Force Treaty, and contributed to START and the treaty on 
conventional armed forces in Europe.
  But--and I say this emphatically--the administration has forgotten, 
or chosen to ignore, these facts. Today we are being asked to consent 
to ratification of the START II Treaty when this country has suffered a 
massive blow to its plans to defend its citizens against nuclear 
weapons. This is completely at odds with the intent of START II. I urge 
Senators to recall that the Joint Understanding of June 17, 1992--which 
created the framework for the START II Treaty--was concluded 
simultaneously with a Joint Statement on a Global Protection System 
against ballistic missiles signed on the same day. This fact is 
explicitly referenced in the Preamble to the START II. Yet United 
States-Russian discussions on cooperation on defenses against ballistic 
missiles have fallen by the wayside. And today, with both the Defense 
Authorization Act and START II before us, I see neither hide nor hair 
of any protection against these abhorrent weapons.
  At the heart of this matter is the perverse logic of the ABM Treaty, 
which argues that vulnerability to these weapons is essential to 
stability. There are a number of factors that bring into question the 
value of this line of reasoning in the post-cold-war world. Thanks in 
no small part to SDI, we have made major technological advances in the 
last quarter of a century which make ballistic missile defenses both 
feasible and affordable.
  Also, there has been a considerable improvement in relations between 
the two countries following the dissolution of the soviet Union. At its 
most basic level, the logic of the ABM Treaty assumes hostility between 
Russia and the United States. Clearly, while there are movements afoot 
in Russia that are exceedingly troublesome, we are no longer grappling 
in a cold war embrace.
  Most important, the mounting problem of WMD and ballistic missile 
proliferation, the uncertainties of the new security environment which 
complicate the role of deterrence, and continuing concerns over the 
potential for turbulence in the former Soviet Union all suggest that--
in a world of multiple potential nuclear threats--the most likely 
nuclear danger to the United States is not a massive, preemptive 
Russian strike, but the deliberate or accidental launch of a few 
warheads. Such a danger is unpredictable, undeterrable, and something 
to which the United States--currently without any national missile 
defense whatsoever--is completely vulnerable.
  Ironically, though the possibility of an outright nuclear exchange 
between Russia and the United States is at an all-time low, the risk of 
mishap has not decreased proportionately to reductions in the Russian 
nuclear arsenal. In fact, the post-START II Russian force will be far 
more mobile than its predominantly silo-based predecessor. This poses a 
potential problem for command and control of the arsenal in the event 
of internal turmoil in Russia.
  Mr. President, I believe that the reduction of the U.S. strategic 
offensive arsenal under START and START II can only be conducted in 
connection with a review of U.S. deterrence doctrine and the value of 
strategic missile defenses in ensuring U.S. national security. A 
clearly articulated defense strategy and credible national missile 
defense system possess a deterrent value of their own, and need not 
threaten the viability of the Russian nuclear deterrent.
  For this reason I have directed the Committee on Foreign Relations, 
in consultation with the Committee on Armed Services and other 
appropriate committees, to undertake a comprehensive review of the 
continuing value of the ABM Treaty. In this regard, I reiterate my 
opposition, as I stated it this past September, to the creation of yet 
another special Select Committee replete with bureaucratic trappings, 
staff, and cost to the American taxpayer for the purpose of reviewing 
this treaty. We already have standing committees with the 
responsibility for making these determinations and recommendations, and 
we are not going to add another layer of bureaucracy to this task.
  Mr. President, in conclusion, I support this Defense Authorization 
Act since I shudder to think what this administration might do without 
the guidance that is contained in this bill. I do not, however, regard 
the issue of national missile defense to have been resolved, and will 
actively work to see that Americans are protected against attack by 
ballistic missiles.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have divided feelings about the 
Conference Report on the fiscal year 1996 Department of Defense 
authorization bill. I am very pleased that the conferees have retained 
my amendment prohibiting members of the Armed Forces convicted of 
serious crimes from receiving their pay. Also, I am pleased that the 
conferees deleted language mandating the deployment of an antiballistic 
missile system--a clear violation of the ABM treaty.
  However, I am compelled to vote against the bill because, among other 


[[Page S456]]
objectionable provisions, it includes a House provision that requires 
the separation of military personnel who test positive for HIV. This 
provision is cruel and nonsensical. It has had no rational basis 
whatsoever. The Department of Defense opposes this policy change.
  The current policy--developed in the Reagan and Bush administration--
works well. Under current policy, military personnel who test positive 
are permitted to keep their jobs, so long as they are physically able. 
HIV-positive personnel are not eligible for most overseas deployments.
  Currently, HIV-positive personnel are treated in the same manner as 
other soldiers with chronic ailments such as diabetes and heart 
disease. Only about 20 percent of the roughly 6,000 worldwide 
nondeployable troops are HIV-positive. This provision would unfairly 
single out HIV-positive troops for separation.
  This provision simply makes no sense. Why should the Pentagon fire 
military personnel who perform their duties well and exhibit no signs 
of illness? This would waste millions of tax dollars in unnecessary 
separation and retraining costs.
  Backers of this provision argue that HIV-positive personnel degrade 
readiness because they are not eligible for worldwide deployment. This 
argument is absurd on its face. Can anyone seriously contend that about 
1,000 personnel--less than 0.1 percent of the active force--could have 
a meaningful impact on readiness?
  Assistant Secretary of Defense Fred Pang clearly expressed the 
Department's position, writing, ``As long as these members can perform 
their required duties, we see no prudent reason to separate and replace 
them because of their antibody status. However, as with any service 
member, if their condition affects their performance of duty, then the 
Department initiates separation action; the proposed provision would 
not improve military readiness or the personnel policies of the 
Department.''
  Lt. Gen. Theodore Stroup, Jr., Army Deputy Chief of Staff for 
Personnel has echoed these sentiments, writing, ``It is my personal 
opinion that HIV-infected soldiers who are physically fit for duty 
should be allowed to continue on active duty.''
  Mr. President, this provision is cruel and unnecessary, and its 
inclusion in this final conference report compels me to oppose it.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I strongly object to the provision included 
in the DOD conference report that targets service members who are HIV-
positive for mandatory discharge. The Department of Defense did not 
seek and does not support this change in policy. This is a provision 
built on fear and ignorance and will undermine the strength of our 
military.
  Under current law, service members become nonworldwide deployable due 
to a number of medical reasons including HIV infection, diabetes, 
asthma, heart disease, cancer, and pregnancy. This policy, developed by 
the Reagan administration, allows individuals to continue to provide 
valuable military service to their country until such time as chronic 
illness or disability makes them unfit to perform their duties. 
Singling out the 1,050 service members who are HIV-positive for early 
separation is discriminatory and highly inappropriate.
  Beyond the pure and simple discriminatory nature of this provision, 
let's look at it as a practical matter. The American people have put a 
lot of money and resources into the training and development of these 
service members. Their discharge based solely on their status as HIV-
positive throws away the valuable people and taxpayer dollars that have 
been invested in them.
  No one wins with this provision. The service members are unfairly and 
inappropriately treated, the armed services lose valuable leadership 
and resources, and the American people lose a valuable investment.
  No one can deny that the HIV infection can lead to the deadly AIDS 
virus. In the same regard, no one can deny that cancer is a deadly 
disease.
  HIV-positive service members are still capable of making many 
contributions to the armed services.
  Anyone who believes that HIV-positive individuals are no longer 
valuable, vibrant individuals I suggest that you think back to the 1992 
Olympic games. Magic Johnson who is HIV-positive led our country to a 
gold medal in basketball.
  We must utilize all of our resources if we are to remain the 
strongest, most powerful Nation the world has ever known. We simply 
cannot afford to close the door of service members because of their 
status as HIV-positive. This provision will set a dangerous precedent. 
It is built on fear and ignorance, not facts. I hope that we repeal 
this misguided provision later this year.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Defense authorization conference report 
before us is somewhat different from the earlier conference report the 
President vetoed. For instance, it removes the provision that would 
have created the most immediate security problem.
  The conferees have removed the extreme provisions mandating 
deployment of national missile defenses that are not warranted by the 
threat, would cost tens of billions of dollars, and would violate the 
ABM Treaty. We had extensive debate on this issue in this body. The 
Senate-passed Defense authorization bill contained very carefully 
crafted, bipartisan compromise language setting out parameters for 
national missile defense [NMD] that would not violate or commit us to 
violate the ABM Treaty, and would not needlessly provoke Russia into a 
more aggressive defense posture, nor provide a reason for Russia to 
abandon nuclear weapon reductions. The original conference report 
substituted language that was strongly opposed by our top military 
leadership and that President Clinton warned would result in a veto.
  This new conference report drops the language on national missile 
defense, although it retains a half-billion dollar increase in NMD 
above what the Pentagon requested. It leaves in place current law 
regarding the objectives and policies of this country on NMD, which are 
compliant with the ABM Treaty.
  The conferees also dropped objectionable restrictions on the 
President's authority as Commander in Chief, and a requirement 
regarding how he must pay for so-called contingency operations. They 
also dropped a provision undermining the independence of operational 
test and evaluation of the Pentagon's new weapon systems.
  But, Mr. President, I oppose this conference report for many of the 
same reasons I voted against the previous version. It provides $7 
billion more than the Pentagon requested for defense budget authority. 
It funds numerous weapons systems not requested by the Pentagon in 
fiscal year 1996, including $493 million for B-2 bombers, $361 million 
for F-15 fighters, $159 million for F-16 fighters, $2.2 billion for 
amphibious assault ships, $30 million for hydronuclear tests and $30 
million for antisatellite weapons that we do not need. This bill also 
boosts other program funding significantly above the Pentagon's 
request, adding $915 million for ballistic and cruise missile defense 
above the President's request and $317 million for helicopter programs 
beyond what was sought.
  This level of defense spending is unsustainable and these unrequested 
expenditures are inconsistent with national priorities. Additional 
military spending beyond what the Department of Defense requested in 
fiscal year 1996, especially for items the Pentagon does not want and 
does not need, is reckless and unwise. Defense Secretary Perry said 
this week that such excess spending will cause a catastrophe for the 
Defense Department.
  While many Federal programs face enormous cuts, defense spending has 
been left off the table. This bill creates a ``bow wave'' of future 
spending requirements for unneeded items, which will swamp our efforts 
to preserve readiness, high morale, targeted modernization, and 
technological superiority in the U.S. Armed Forces.
  I also continue to object to this bill's earmarking of National Guard 
and Reserve equipment, specified procurement of ship building and 
maintenance contracts at particular shipyards, and mandated 
construction of submarine prototypes.
  In the personnel area, this bill still contains a very unfair 
provision mandating discharge for service personnel who test positive 
for the HIV virus. And it treats our servicewomen overseas worse than 
we treat them at home, by placing a ban on privately 

[[Page S457]]
funded abortions in overseas military hospitals.
  So, Mr. President, regrettably I will vote no on this conference 
report.
  Mr. DODD, Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in strong opposition 
to the 1996 DOD authorization conference report. I do so with 
considerable regret and concern for our national defense budget.
  The bill before us is essentially identical to the bill first 
proposed in September. And while I respect the efforts of the 
distinguished chairman and ranking member for bringing a more balanced 
bill to this body, my fundamental reservations regarding the overall 
spending levels contained in this legislation remains unchanged.
  Let me once again state for the record, this bill contains spending 
increases that were neither requested by the Pentagon, nor budgeted for 
by the President. In fact, almost $7 billion in excess spending is 
authorized by this bill. In an era of wholesale budget reductions, 
fiscal freezes on educational grants, and elimination of entire health 
programs, I cannot in good conscience vote for passage of this bill.
  In addition to my fiscal reservations, I am absolutely appalled at 
the codifying language to discharge military members diagnosed to be 
HIV positive. I understand that service members with HIV will be 
afforded some measure of medical care within the DOD system. However, I 
am extremely concerned about the plight of their families and children 
who will ultimately lose a level of their medical coverage because of 
this policy. They are the ultimate victims here.
  Let me also say to my colleagues that I am fully aware that the 
President has indicated he will sign this bill when it arrives at the 
White House. While I respect his decision, I must also respectfully 
disagree with that decision.
  In closing, I am deeply troubled by what is occurring here today. We 
are charting a course for further defense spending that we may 
ultimately be unable to sustain in later years. The out year costs for 
some of the programs that have been added in this bill may very well 
consume entire future year procurement accounts--effectively strangling 
vital programs that have been legitimately requested and budgeted for 
development. I raise this issue now, with the full intention of 
continuing this debate during review of the 1997 defense budget 
submission.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the 1996 defense authorization conference 
report before the Senate is by no means a perfect bill. As one who 
voted against the original version of this bill when it was considered 
last December, I am aware that numerous flaws remain in the legislation 
that will trouble many of my colleagues a great deal. While it is true 
that the majority has yielded to the three top objections raised by the 
President in his veto message--those legislative provisions dealing 
with national missile defense, United Nations command and control, and 
contingency operations funding--the record must reflect, and the 
American public should understand, that this bill is rife with unsound 
policy and extravagant spending priorities. I will not recount my 
earlier statements as to the particulars of my concerns except to note 
that the conference report before the Senate is still chock full of 7 
billion dollars' worth of unrequested, unneeded, and unjustified 
spending, much of which is earmarked for pet projects in Member 
districts and States. Force-feeding the Pentagon $7 billion it does not 
want at a time when many worthy domestic programs are slowly being bled 
dry by the majority is indeed difficult for this Senator to accept.
  However, the conference report is by no means without merit. To the 
contrary, it contains important and essential statutory authorizations 
and programmatic funding which, in my opinion, will enhance both the 
readiness and capabilities of our Armed Forces. To deny the Pentagon 
these positive aspects of the defense authorization bill due to the 
conference report's counterbalancing flaws--many of which have already 
been signed into law through the defense appropriations bill--would be 
unwise. In my opinion, passage of the conference report is warranted, 
but not by much. On balance, I believe the Nation will be better off if 
this bill is allowed to become law.

  While I will support passage of the conference report, I will put my 
colleagues on notice that when the Armed Services Committee begins 
deliberations of the fiscal year 1997 authorization bill later this 
spring, improvements must be made in the markup and conference process 
to make it more bipartisan and less exclusionary. If substantial 
changes in style and substance are not made, I fear we are destined to 
relive the mistakes of this year, the effect of which has us still 
debating a defense authorization bill in late January, 4 months after 
the fiscal year began.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                      cable tv franchise agreement

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Acquisition and Technology, I would like to engage the chairman of the 
committee in a colloquy regarding the section in the legislation 
entitled ``Treatment of Department of Defense Cable Television 
Franchise Agreements.''
  It has come to my attention that the Court of Federal Claims may have 
some concerns about the task we assign it in this section, given that 
it is not equipped to provide advisory opinions unless specific facts 
and parties are involved. Therefore, I wish to make clear that it is 
the committee's intent that the court allow the executive branch and 
any party with a franchise agreement in the section to part participate 
in the proceeding required by this section by identifying themselves 
promptly to the court within a period of time established by the court. 
The court may conduct the proceeding required by this section according 
to the pertinent rules of practice of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims 
to the extent feasible, including providing the opportunity for written 
submissions and a hearing. In order to ensure timely completion, any 
submissions or hearing should conclude no later than 120 days after the 
date of enactment of this act.
  I would also like to clarify that the phrase in paragraph (2), 
``required by law'' should be read to include both law and equity.
  Finally, I would encourage the court to consider the position taken 
by the Senate in section 822 of S. 1026 when addressing this matter.
  Mr. THURMOND. I agree with the statement of the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. NUNN. As the ranking member of the committee, I also concur with 
the Senator's statement.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I sincerely regret that I must again rise 
in opposition to this year's defense authorization legislation. This is 
a new position for me this year. During my tenure in the Senate, 
spanning more than two decades, I have been a vocal supporter of the 
need for a strong and adequately funded national defense. My commitment 
to a strong defense is the reason that I sought membership on the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  As the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Manpower, I continue to 
be a strong supporter of our military members and their families. And, 
as the former chairman and now ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Readiness, I support keeping our forces ready--that is keeping them 
trained and equipped to fight and win today wherever they are called 
upon to fight.
  I also recognize the equally critical need to invest in our ability 
to protect our freedom and our security in the future by funding the 
kinds of research and modernization programs that have made U.S. 
military forces the most combat capable and consequently the most 
feared forces in the world throughout the better part of this century. 
I make these background comments, Mr. President, in order to place my 
continued opposition to this year's defense authorization legislation 
in the proper context.
  This is the second time around for this conference report. There were 
many important and supportable provisions in the original conference 
report that remain in this bill, like the 2.4-percent military pay 
raise, the 5.2-percent increase in the basic allowance for quarters, 
the new housing initiative, as well as important acquisition reform 
measures.
  Furthermore, some critical improvements to the conference report are 
worth noting. I am pleased that the conferees eliminated the language 
requiring the deployment of a national missile defense system by the 
year 2003. And, I am pleased that the language restricting 
participation of U.S. 

[[Page S458]]
forces under U.N. command and control was dropped.
  Nevertheless, this bill remains too flawed to support. Mr. President, 
for starters, this bill still adds $7 billion in unrequested funding. 
With that added $7 billion, this conference report, in my view, spends 
more and buys less.
  As we are all painfully aware, we are in the midst of a budget 
struggle that has twice closed the Government and has called into 
question the future existence of virtually every Federal domestic 
program. Yet, we are asked in this legislation to approve a $7 billion 
increase for the Pentagon. Seven billion dollars the Pentagon didn't 
request and, with few exceptions, $7 billion in budget authority for 
programs the Pentagon doesn't need in this year's budget, if at all.
  I could have supported additional funding for the Pentagon, if I 
believed it was funding the Pentagon needed. But the $7 billion in this 
conference report, like its predecessor, still wastes that money. It 
adds $450 million for national missile defense--bringing the total 
funding to $820 million. The conference report still adds $493 million 
for the B-2 and, if that half a billion dollar nest egg is used to 
bring production beyond the 20 B-2's already approved, that $493 
million is a mere down payment on billions more for the B-2.
  The conference, report still buys F-15's, F-16's, F/A-18's, LHD's, 
LPD's, DDG's the Pentagon didn't ask for.
  The conference report still spends $30 million for nuclear testing.
  It still earmarks $770 million in unrequested National Guard and 
Reserve equipment.
  Furthermore, the conference report still discriminates against 
service members and their dependents by prohibiting abortions in 
overseas military medical facilities. The conference report still 
discriminates against HIV-infected servicemembers by requiring their 
discharge.
  The conference report still disregards the costs savings achievable 
through competition by directing the procurement of ships at certain 
shipyards. The bill takes the same approach with respect to ship 
maintenance and the purchase of naval equipment.
  I believe these funding and policy decisions are sufficient reason to 
vote against this conference report. Unfortunately, there are more 
reasons to oppose this legislation.
  The latest conference, which excluded most of the members of Armed 
Services Committee, including myself, revisited several funding 
decisions which do not appear to have been aimed at making better 
legislation or enhancing our national security but, instead appear to 
have been aimed at gaining additional votes for the conference report 
by appealing to home State interests.
  In a couple of instances, the conferees even funded programs that 
were beyond the scope of the conference, a practice to which I strongly 
object. Neither the House bill nor the Senate bill included funding for 
the HAARP Program, the Thermionics Program or the Counterterror 
Explosives Research Program. Yet, almost $20 million is earmarked in 
this conference report for these programs. Regardless of the merit or 
requirement for these programs, I object to their inclusion in the 
conference report because they were beyond the scope of the conference.
  This approach to drafting defense authorization is a dramatic 
departure from the practice of the Armed Services Committee. For at 
least as long as I have served on Armed Services, the committee has 
made its funding decisions based on our national security requirements, 
not based on parochial interests.
  Mr. President, I hope that this year's defense authorization process 
is only an aberration or false start rather than a glimpse of the Armed 
Services Committee's future. I hope that the committee's next attempt 
to draft legislation that will pass both Houses and be signed by the 
President will not represent merely a sufficient number of special 
interest items to make the bill passable but will mark a return to the 
committee's tradition of making a nonpartisan and objective assessment, 
in which all committee members are welcome and expected to participate, 
of what is in the best interest of our national security.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.


nomination of gen. eugene habiger to be commander in chief of the u.s. 
                           strategic command

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, Adm. Henry Chiles, the Commander in Chief of 
the U.S. Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force Base, is scheduled to 
retire on March 1, 1996, after a lengthy career of exemplary service to 
his country. Air Force Gen. Eugene Habiger has been nominated by 
President Clinton to replace Admiral Chiles and a change of command 
ceremony is scheduled to take place at Offutt Air Force Base on 
February 21. As I understand the majority leader's wishes, once the 
Senate adjourns, perhaps today, we will not be in session again until 
the last week of February. If such a schedule becomes a reality, the 
Senate will not have a chance to act on the Habiger nomination before 
the change of command ceremony on February 21 and will have mere days 
to approve Admiral Chile's retirement as well as the retirement of his 
deputy, Gen. Arlen Jamison.
  While I understand that the Senate Armed Services Committee was not 
able to consider General Habiger's nomination at this morning's 
nomination hearing because the necessary paperwork could not be 
completed in time, I would inquire of the distinguished chairman of the 
committee and President pro tempore as to what accommodation he will 
make for the committee and the full Senate to act promptly on this 
important nomination.
  Mr. THURMOND. Let me assure the distinguished Senator from Nebraska 
that I concur with his views as to the importance in bringing about a 
smooth and timely change of command at the U.S. Strategic Command. To 
this end, I will take every step possible, in consultation with Senator 
Nunn, the ranking member on the committee, to expedite Armed Services 
Committee action on the nomination and seek Senate confirmation prior 
to the change of command scheduled in February.
  Mr. EXON. While I would prefer that the Senate remain in session so 
as to continue its work on the unfinished business of the Nation, 
including this and other important executive branch nominations, I do 
appreciate the chairman's willingness to expedite this particular 
matter. He is a good friend and I thank him for his commitment to see 
that the Senate act on the Habiger nomination in a timely fashion.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will vote against the conference 
report on S. 1124, the second fiscal year 1996 National Defense 
Authorization Act which the Senate has considered.
  This bill is clearly better than the bill the President vetoed last 
month. A truly awful bill has been transformed into a merely bad bill 
by stripping it of a series of provisions that never made any sense. 
The provision on deployment of national missile defense by 2003 has 
been eliminated. The provisions on command and control of U.S. military 
forces and contingency operations have been eliminated or turned into 
sense-of-the-Congress language. The provisions undermining the landmine 
moratorium and eliminating the director of Operational Test and 
Evaluation have been removed. The sale of the Naval Petroleum Reserve 
at Elk Hills has been extended to 2 years while the safeguards 
protecting the taxpayers' interest have been maintained. I appreciate 
those changes and I commend Senator Nunn  in particular for being able 
to bring them about and Senator Thurmond for accepting them.
  But this remains, in my view, a bad bill with only a handful of good 
provisions. The bad still outweighs the good for me. The bill still 
spends $7 billion more on defense programs than the Pentagon requested 
at the same time we are cutting critical domestic programs in areas 
such as education, the environment, Indian health care, civilian 
research, and many, many more.
  The bill authorizes a whole host of pork-barrel projects from 
military construction to research to procurement that can not be 
sustained in future years. Indeed, new pork was added in the new 
conference.
  The bill still contains a provision mandating the discharge of 
service members who are HIV-positive even though they are capable of 
doing their jobs. This is bad policy which will needlessly and unfairly 
disrupt the 

[[Page S459]]
lives of service members who have served their Nation proudly and who 
could continue to serve their Nation for years before being stricken 
with AIDS. A majority of the Senate Armed Services Committee opposes 
this provision. I believe a majority of the Senate opposes it as well. 
I hope that it will be repealed later this year.
  The bill still includes unprecedented Buy-America provisions meant to 
protect the uncompetitive parts of our industrial base at the expense 
of the competitive industries who will certainly see their exports 
hindered by these provisions. Our protectionism will only beget 
European protectionism to the detriment of our security and to the 
detriment of taxpayers on both sides of the Atlantic.
  The bill still includes a provision denying female service members 
and the female dependents of all service members the right to use their 
own money to obtain an abortion in a military hospital overseas.
  The bill still includes a provision setting up a loan guarantee 
program for defense exports that is unneeded and unwise, a program 
under which up to $15 billion in defense exports will be guaranteed 
supposedly at no risk to the taxpayers, who should hold their wallets.
  The bill still prevents the Pentagon from retiring unneeded strategic 
weapons, weapons that do not make sense to retain under any budget-
constrained scenario.
  Unfortunately, I could go on and on concerning provisions in this 
bill which I can not support. There are some good provisions, the 
provisions on military pay and family housing, for example, and the 
provisions on acquisition reform, which I cosponsored when the Senate 
debated this bill last summer. The acquisition reform provisions were 
dealt with on a bipartisan basis in the first defense authorization 
conference last fall. I thanked Senator Cohen and Senator Smith for 
taking that approach to these important provisions when the Senate 
debated the first defense authorization conference report in December. 
Senator Cohen, in particular, has much to be proud of in the 
acquisition reform provisions on information technology on which he was 
the driving force. I hope people will refer to division E of this bill 
as the Cohen act, and perhaps one day we will make such a designation 
official.
  I'd also like to commend Senator Glenn, Senator Levin, Senator Smith, 
and Senator Stevens for their hard work and great contributions to the 
acquisition reform provisions in the bill.
  Unfortunately, the acquisition reform provisions, the pay provisions 
and the family housing provisions are the exception, not the rule in 
this bill. There is more in this bill that I can not support than that 
I can. I will vote against it today and work to fix as many of the 
problems in this authorization bill as I can in the fiscal year 1997 
defense authorization process which will soon be upon us.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today we again consider the fiscal year 1996 
Defense authorization bill. We are voting on this bill again today 
because the President vetoed the first bill the Congress sent to him. 
President Clinton vetoed the first Defense authorization bill because 
of his insistence that America remain vulnerable to ballistic missiles 
carrying weapons of mass destruction--and because of his insistence 
that American soldiers be permitted to serve under the blue flag of the 
United Nations. I believe that the White House is wrong on both 
accounts. Defending America should be the No. 1 defense priority. The 
U.N. Secretary General is no substitute for the Commander in Chief. I 
know that many of my colleagues, including the Republican members of 
the Armed Services Committee agree with me.
  Because the annual Defense authorization bill is critical for the 
operations of the Department of Defense and contains many provisions 
crucial to the well-being of the men and women of our Armed Forces, the 
distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator 
Thurmond, crafted a bill that would be signed by the President. The 
distinguished chairman was assisted, in particular, by the 
distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Senator Lott, in negotiating 
the compromise on ballistic missile defense provisions.
  With respect to those provisions that will support our men and women 
in uniform, the bill we sent to the President last month included a 
number of quality of life initiatives. The bill authorized a 2.4 
percent pay raise and a 5.2 percent increase in allowance for quarters. 
In addition, for the Reserve components, the bill authorized an income 
insurance program for involuntarily mobilized reservists and 
established a dental insurance program. These provisions will enhance 
the readiness of our Reserve Component Forces--who, like their active 
counterparts, have deployed to Bosnia.
  Additionally, the bill contains a new military housing privatization 
initiative. This initiative will allow the Department of Defense to 
utilize new approaches to reduce the family housing backlog. To further 
enhance the quality of life of our troops, the agreement increases 
military construction funding by $480 million. Apparently, meeting the 
basic needs of the Americans who have dedicated their lives to 
defending our Nation, was not sufficient reason for approving the 
Defense authorization bill.
  In order to ensure the readiness of our forces, the conferees added 
over $1 billion to the operations and maintenance accounts. 
Furthermore, they increased research and development and procurement 
funding. This is the only way to ensure the long-term readiness of our 
forces.
  As for the ballistic missile defense provisions in the bill, the 
comprehensive approach to defending America from ballistic missile 
attack adopted in the original conference report did not survive as a 
whole. The provision establishing a deployment goal of 2003 for a 
national missile defense system was dropped in the aftermath of the 
President's veto. Furthermore, the provisions regarding demarcation 
between strategic and theater missile defense were watered down also in 
face of White House objections--despite the fact that these provisions 
reflected the very proposal originally made by the Clinton 
administration to the Russians.
  In short, the Clinton administration has made a conscious decision to 
make our theater missile defense [TMD] systems less capable and subject 
to a Russian veto.
  On the other hand, this bill does retain the provisions establishing 
a core program in the area of theater missile defense, which includes 
THAAD and Navy Upper Tier--two of our most capable TMD systems. These 
systems are also required to be deployed by specific dates--in an 
attempt to ensure against repeated administration attempts to delay 
their deployment. Critical to both theater missile defense and national 
missile defense is the brilliant eyes program. Under this bill, an 
initial operational capability [IOC] of 2003 for the brilliant eyes 
space sensor is also established. This will facilitate earlier 
deployment of national missile defense system.

  It is indeed regrettable that the President was unwilling to join 
with us in supporting all of our initiatives related to the defense of 
our country, our citizens, and our allies. Once again, President 
Clinton has demonstrated his preference for cold-war-era arms control 
treaties, and multilateral sensibilities. Once again, the President has 
revealed where our Nation's future security fits on his list of 
priorities.
  But, let the White House be warned: We have agreed to this bill in 
order to support forces--many of whom are deployed overseas--not to 
support ill-conceived and short-sighted administration policies. This 
bill reflects the Republican-led Congress' commitment to equipping and 
training our forces to guarantee their overwhelming superiority on the 
battlefield. We have taken steps so our military--though smaller--will 
maintain their ability to project power around the world--quickly and 
decisively. We have not given up on our goal of defending America. We 
will continue to press forward on a national missile defense system.
  I understand that the Secretary of Defense has recommended the 
President sign this bill and that the President intends to do so. In 
closing, I again want to commend Senator Thurmond for his hard work on 
this bill.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
Conference Report to the Department of Defense authorization bill for 
fiscal 

[[Page S460]]
year 1996. First, I would like to associate myself with the thoughtful 
remarks of the distinguished Ranking Member of the Armed Services 
Committee, Senator Nunn. I continue to believe that this world is not a 
safe place. I, along with other leaders, had hoped that after the end 
of the cold war there might be more peace in the world. This has 
unfortunately not been the case. In fact, there is now more 
conflagration and more war. The price of freedom continues to be 
eternal vigilance.
  This legislation provides for the hardware and force structure that 
make our Armed Forces strong. It looks forward to our future defense 
needs by funding increased procurement of weapons systems vital to our 
war fighting capability and maintains the troop levels necessary to 
complete our Nation's military missions.


                            Weapons Systems

  This bill authorizes funding for more Air Force F-15, and F-16 
fighters--the backbones of our air attack strategy. It also funds the 
F-22 next generation fighter. This aircraft is the cutting edge of any 
fighter aircraft anywhere in the world. The Hellfire air-to-surface 
missile, used so effectively in The gulf war, are procured for the 
Army. The Navy received authorization to purchase additional F-18 
fighters which are used to protect our aircraft carriers and for 
attack. These systems provide our soldiers in the field with 
overwhelming force, thus protecting their lives as they fight for 
America.


                            Force Structure

  The troop strength of our active duty forces and guard and reserve 
forces is maintained in this bill. Our active duty Armed Forces will be 
over 1.4 million men and women strong and our guard and reserve forces 
will total nearly 940,000 soldiers.
  The bill enhances our national security by removing the language 
which would have lead to a U.S. violation of the ABM Treaty and 
continues the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program that 
helps reduce the risk of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons 
proliferation.
  It fully funds the research, development, test and evaluation account 
providing millions in funding to develop a theater missile defense 
system which will be able to protect our troops deployed overseas from 
Scud and other ballistic missile attacks. Funding in this account will 
also allow research to develop new alloys and designs for stronger and 
lighter fighter plane wings and studies to enhance the electric battery 
life in vehicles for use in new mechanized infantry equipment and in 
commercial vehicles.
  Finally, the conference report for the DOD authorization bill 
provides many benefits to our men and women in uniform. A much needed 
2.4 percent pay raise for our service men and women is included in the 
bill, as well as increased funding for the family advocacy and the new 
parents support programs that help military families balance their duty 
to their country with their responsibility to their family.
  Unfortunately, it is also in the area of military personnel that the 
provisions in this bill with which I disagree most exist. I would like 
to take this opportunity to talk about just three of these provisions.


           Required Discharge of HIV-Positive Service Members

  Most of all, I am saddened and angered by one provision of this bill 
that is the worst type of fear-mongering imaginable.
  I never imagined that I would live in a time when Congress would 
blatantly discriminate against a group of people who contract a 
disease, but that is exactly what this bill does.
  This conference report contains a provision that blatantly 
discriminates against an entire group of military personnel simply 
because they are infected with the HIV virus. The Department of Defense 
will be required to discharge any service member who tests positive for 
HIV. There are now more than 1,000 people serving in our military who 
would be discharged within the first 6 months. The fact that these HIV-
positive men and women can still perform their duties as ably as other 
nondeployable military personnel is ignored. There is no other disease 
for which a member of the Armed Forces can be forced to separate from 
service.
  What message is Congress sending to the businesses of America? It is 
essentially saying that if someone contracts the HIV virus, they should 
be immediately discharged regardless of their ability to work. Is this 
how we intend to treat people who contract a disease? Is this what our 
country is based upon?
  I pray that this mean-spirited provision does not move this country 
back to the dark ages of discrimination, hate, and fear. It is my 
sincere hope that this provision will be reversed by a future Congress 
that better respects the plight of those with the HIV virus or that it 
will be found unconstitutional by the courts.


 Restricted Access to Privately-Funded Abortions on U.S. Bases Overseas

  The conferees adopted language that prohibits abortions on U.S. 
military facilities overseas, even if a woman pays for the procedure 
herself, except in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. This 
provision is discriminatory and has no place on a defense authorization 
bill.


Elimination of Authorizations for Troops to Cops and Troops to Teachers

  On the issue of defense conversion, the Senate passed an amendment, 
cosponsored by Senator Pryor and myself, to authorize $10 million for 
the Troops to Cops Program and $42 million for the Troops to Teachers 
Program. These programs greatly assist the difficult transition of 
service personnel to the private sector in two ways. First, Troops to 
Cops and Troops to Teachers partially funds the training and hiring 
costs of local school districts and law enforcement agencies, and 
second, these programs provide trained and dedicated recruits. I am 
very disappointed that this provision was eliminated in conference 
committee.


             Lack of Competition for Shipbuilding Contracts

  The conference report provides for the construction of destroyers and 
submarines at designated shipyards without requiring competition for 
this workload. Competition among qualified industrial facilities is a 
procurement contracting fundamental. I am disappointed that this 
provision remained in the bill.
  Although I disagree with these provisions, on balance this bill 
enhances our national defense.


      Provides for the Purchase of Additional B-2 Stealth Bombers

  I was very pleased to support the authorization for $493 million in 
long-lead funding for the B-2 stealth bmber. This most technically 
advanced aircraft in our bomber fleet gives our Air Force the 
capability of immediate response to a conflict anywhere in the world 
without the need for escort aircraft to protect it from anti-aircraft 
fire. Even with this protection, our non-stealthy bombers are unable to 
penetrate enemy airspace, as we saw in the gulf war. The B-2 also has 
the ability to precisely target mobile units unlike any other bomber in 
the fleet today. The B-2's stealth, long-range, and precision munition 
capability make it a good investment for the money.


 Provides for Improvements to the Base Realignment and Closure Process

  The conference report includes several improvements to the base 
realignment and closure process. I am particularly proud of the 
amendment cosponsored by Senator McCain and myself which improves the 
base realignment and closure reuse process for local communities. One 
provision of this amendment changes the Base Closure Community 
Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994, by requiring that 
the Secretary of Defense consult with the Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development over the reuse plan that is developed by the local 
redevelopment authority. Homeless assistance providers would still be 
guaranteed a seat at the reuse table, and redevelopment authorities 
would still be required to accept expressions of interest for base 
property by homeless assistance groups and other interested parties. In 
addition, the Secretary of HUD would still review the final reuse plan 
to ascertain if the needs of the homeless have been met. However, 
instead of the Secretary of HUD approving or disapproving the reuse 
plan, the Secretary of Defense would make the final decision. 
Furthermore, the local redevelopment plan developed by the local 
community and local elected officials would be given substantial 
deference by the Secretary of Defense. This puts the power of base 
reuse firmly where it should be, in the hands of the local 
redevelopment authority and the community. 

[[Page S461]]



    Provides for Land Conveyances and Military Construction Projects

  Finally, this conference report includes many important land 
conveyances and military construction projects for California and the 
Nation. The land conveyance provisions will allow many local 
communities to redevelop and expand many underutilized industrial sites 
which will enhance economic growth. And the military construction 
projects will provide many needed housing units and other military 
facilities that will better enable our men and women in the Armed 
Forces to perform their duties.
  I voted for the conference report to the DOD authorization bill for 
fiscal year 1996, however, perhaps next year, we can concentrate on 
continuing to make our Armed Forces the best that they can be and 
restore the rights denied our men and women in uniform.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], the 
Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. 
Coats], the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], the Senator from 
North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth], the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], the 
Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], and the Senator from Alabama [Mr. 
Shelby] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Colorado [Mr. Campbell] would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. 
Hollings], is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 34, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 5 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Breaux
     Burns
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--34

     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bennett
     Campbell
     Coats
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Hollings
     Kyl
     Shelby
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________