Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 91 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6424-S6455]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

Amendment No. 4049

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by Senator Kyl from Arizona. I knew our distinguished colleague
from Arizona when he was in the House, but I did not know him well. I
have come to have great respect for him as a legislator. He really is a
legislator who works

[[Page S6425]]

on bills and does the nitty-gritty work that is so important. But I
believe that an amendment to authorize the resumption of nuclear
testing is very ill-timed.
First of all, we have had over a thousand nuclear tests in the last
50 years. We do not need additional nuclear tests. If we were trying to
perfect some new nuclear weapon, then it makes sense. But that is not
the policy of this Government.
But more important than that, India and Pakistan are reluctant to
join in a comprehensive test ban. What we need now is for all nations
with nuclear power to come aboard. China, apparently, is coming aboard.
But India and Pakistan we do not know yet.
We should not do anything that is going to move a comprehensive test
ban further away. We need it as soon as possible. It is in the interest
of the United States, and it is in the interest of the world.
I think this amendment, and I know the motivation is good on the part
of our colleague from Arizona, but I think it is an ill-timed amendment
that is not in the national interest.
Mr. President, if no one else seeks the floor, I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum
call in progress be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to
proceed for up to 5 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma wishes to be
recognized to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes. Is there
objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Inhofe pertaining to the introduction of S. 1885
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I just want to say that we are sitting
here waiting and doing nothing. Why? Because those who have amendments
are not coming forward to present them. We are wasting the Government's
time. We are wasting the Senate's time. Why do those who have
amendments not come forward? I urge those who have amendments--hotline
both sides and tell them anybody who has amendments to bring them. We
want to get through this bill. We are supposed to finish this bill
tonight. We may have to go until 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. Let us
get going now and finish this bill.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, the amendment that will be presented in a
few minutes by the Senator from Hawaii deals with the Army and Air
Force Nurse Corps and the promotions of the nurses in that corps.
This amendment has been examined by our staff, and from the
Democratic side of the aisle, we would recommend when it is presented
that the Senate accept the amendment. That would be our position on the
amendment.
Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. We can accept the amendment on our side.
Mr. INOUYE. Thank you very much.
Mr. NUNN. I say to my friend from Hawaii that we recommended the
amendment be accepted. So we just wanted to let him know that.
Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Without objection, the pending amendment will be set aside.

Amendment No. 4050

(Purpose: To amend title 10, United States Code, to codify existing
practices of the Army and Air Force regarding the grade of the Chief of
the Army Nurse Corps and of the Chief of the Air Force Nurse Corps, and
the minimum grade required for appointment to the positions of Chief
and Assistant Chief of the Army Nurse Corps and to the positions of
Chief and Assistant Chief of the Air Force Nurse Corps; and for other
purposes)

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

The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] proposes an amendment
numbered 4050.

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

At the appropriate place, insert:

SECTION 1. CHIEF AND ASSISTANT CHIEF OF ARMY NURSE CORPS.

(a) Chief of Army Nurse Corps.--Subsection (b) of section
3069 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking out ``major'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``lieutenant colonel'';
(2) by inserting after the first sentence the following:
``An appointee who holds a lower regular grade shall be
appointed in the regular grade of brigadier general.''; and
(3) in the last sentence, by inserting ``to the same
position'' before the period at the end.
(b) Assistant Chief.--Subsection (c) of such section is
amended by striking out ``major'' in the first sentence and
inserting in lieu thereof ``lieutenant colonel''.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section
is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 3069. Army Nurse Corps: composition; Chief and
assistant chief; appointment; grade''.

(2) The item relating to such section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 307 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``3069. Army Nurse Corps: composition; Chief and assistant chief;
appointment; grade.''.

SEC. 2. CHIEF AND ASSISTANT CHIEF OF AIR FORCE NURSE CORPS.

(a) Positions and Appointment.--Chapter 807 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
8067 the following:

``Sec. 3069. Air Force nurses: Chief and assistant chief;
appointment; grade

``(a) Positions of Chief and Assistant Chief.--There are a
Chief and assistant chief of the Air Force Nurse Corps.
``(b) Chief.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall appoint
the Chief from the officers of the Regular Air Force
designated as Air Force nurses whose regular grade is above
lieutenant colonel and who are recommended by the Surgeon
General. An appointee who holds a lower regular grade shall
be appointed in the regular grade of brigadier general. The
Chief serves during the pleasure of the Secretary, but not
for more than three years, and may not be reappointed to the
same position.
``(c) Assistant Chief.--The Surgeon General shall appoint
the assistant chief from the officers of the Regular Air
Force designated as Air Force nurses whose regular grade is
above lieutenant colonel.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after
section 8067 the following:

``3069. Air Force Nurse Corps: Chief and assistant chief; appointment;
grade.''.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment
that would put into law a designated position and grade for the chief
nurses of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force. To the credit of the
past and present leadership of our Armed Services, they have appointed
a chief nurse in the rank of brigadier general since the 1970's.
However, for the Army and the Air Force, this practice has never been
codified in law, although I am pleased to note that the Navy has
designated their chief nurse as a rear admiral. Our military chief
nurses have an awesome responsibility--a degree of responsibility that
is absolutely deserving of flag officer rank.
You might be surprised at how big their scope of duties actually is.
For example, the chiefs are responsible for both peacetime and wartime
health care doctrine, standards, and policy for all nursing personnel.
In fact, the chief

[[Page S6426]]

nurses are responsible for more than 80,000 Army and 26,000 Air Force
nursing personnel. This includes officer and enlisted nursing
specialties in the active, reserve and guard components of the
military. If an executive officer in a large American corporation had
this much responsibility, he or she would undoubtedly have a position
title and salary at least comparable to that of a brigadier general,
and would certainly have a seat at the corporate table of policy and
decisionmaking.
You might wonder why it would be necessary to put these provisions in
law since this practice is already occurring. Sadly, I am most
concerned that without this official designation, these positions are
vulnerable to being downgraded or even eliminated. In recent years,
downsizing mandates and new ways of providing health care have led to
many reorganization efforts. Unfortunately, reorganization has become a
euphemism for eliminating positions--and health care reorganization has
too often become an excuse to eliminate nursing positions, particularly
senior and executive leadership positions.
There has been much discussion about the so-called glass ceilings
that unfairly impact the ability of women to achieve the same status as
their male counterparts. While I do not want to make this a gender-
discrimination issue, the reality is that military nurses hit two glass
ceilings: one as a nurse in a physician-dominated health care system
and one as a woman in a male-dominated military system. The simple fact
is that organizations are best served when the leadership is composed
of a mix of specialty and gender groups--of equal rank--who bring their
unique talents to the corporate table. For military nurses, the general
officer chief nurse position is the only way for nurses to get to the
corporate executive table.
Mr. President, I strongly believe that it is very important, and past
time, that we recognize the extensive scope and level of responsibility
the military chief nurses have and make sure that future military
health care organizations will continue to benefit from their expertise
and unique contributions.
Mr. President, as noted, the distinguished managers of the measure
have both agreed to its adoption.
I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4050) was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we have been waiting here now a long
time to act on these amendments. Again, I want to tell the Senators, if
they have amendments, to come forward with them. I want to inform all
Senators that I intend soon to ask unanimous consent that only
amendments that have been offered will be in order on this bill. So it
is important for them to come forward and offer their amendments,
otherwise, they may not be considered. I urge all Senators who have
amendments to come to the floor and offer them now--I repeat--now, not
later.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. KYL. Will the Senator withhold? I would like to discuss the
pending amendment.
Mr. THURMOND. Certainly.

Amendment No. 4049

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the pending amendment is the Kyl amendment,
cosponsored by Senator Reid from Nevada. The distinguished chairman of
the committee spoke in support of this amendment last night when I
offered it. Since then, there has been virtually no discussion of it.
Several people have asked me questions, and I thought I would come to
the floor and try to answer those questions because, for the life of
me, I cannot understand why this would be a controversial amendment. I
am advised that at least one Senator is awaiting instructions from the
White House.
I suggest that this body can take the action that it deems
appropriate. Certainly the White House will have its say in anything
that we do on the Defense authorization bill. But this ought not to be
that controversial. So let me attempt to explain again what I am trying
to do with this amendment. Again, I thank the distinguished chairman of
the Armed Services Committee for his support of the amendment.
Probably the best way I can do this, Mr. President, is to do it
graphically. Above this line we have the status quo, the current law
with respect to nuclear testing. Just to set the stage, we have not
conducted nuclear tests for a long time. The tests that have been
conducted in the last decade have been primarily to ensure safety and
reliability of our nuclear stockpile. I might add that about a third of
the problems that have been discovered with the stockpile were found as
a result of safety testing.
I also make the point, in general, with respect to testing, that it
has always seemed odd to me that while we hear speeches that we should
fly before we buy, we should be sure that we test the equipment that we
are going to buy for our military uses, we should make sure that we
continue to maintain our equipment, understand how it works, and
whether it might not work, and we want to make sure that all of the
things that we are going to have to rely upon will in fact work, that
the one thing that we do not want to test to see if it will continue to
work is the most sophisticated weapon we have in our inventory, namely,
our nuclear weapon.
On that we are going to close our eyes and say, ``Well, we tested
these a long time ago. We maybe built these systems 20 years ago, but
we're just going to hope that they continue to work if we ever have to
use them.'' I submit that that is not an intelligent way for us to
maintain our nuclear stockpile. But that is essentially where we are
right now. The administration does not want to test, is not testing. We
currently have the authority to test, if the President decides to do
so.

That is what is indicated here. We have a test moratorium in our
country, but we could test for safety reasons or to determine the
reliability of a system. So that if, for example, the Department of
Energy came to the President and said, ``Mr. President, we think we may
have a problem with one of these systems. It seems to be acting funny.
We obviously don't want to send it up in an airplane or put it on top
of a missile if something might happen. Therefore, we need to conduct a
test to determine exactly what's wrong here or how to fix it,'' the
President could do that today.
But that authority will expire on September 30 of this year under
existing law. The President will no longer have that capability.
That was done in order to anticipate the fact that a Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty, the so-called CTBT, would be entering into force. The
problem is, it has not been ratified by this country. It is obviously
not going to go into force for some time. Therefore, we are left with a
hiatus, a period between September 30 of this year and whenever the
CTBT comes into effect, if it comes into effect.
After the CTBT comes into effect, there are no tests except in a very
extreme situation called supreme national interest which, in effect,
would only exist if there was some grave emergency that existed where
the country was threatened and there was some need to do so.
So what we are talking about is simply extending this September 30
date until the CTBT goes into effect. It is not anti-test-ban treaty.
Anyone who favors a test-ban treaty should not be concerned about this.
In fact, I would think they would be supportive because it would
maintain the status quo until the CTBT goes into effect.
What actually changes? Two things. No. 1, we continue to require the
administration to report to the Congress on the status of the
stockpile. There is nothing wrong with that. I assume

[[Page S6427]]

there is no objection to that. So the test moratorium would continue
and the reporting requirements would continue. But the President could
still test for stockpile safety and reliability purposes beyond the
September 30 date until some date in the future if and when the CTBT
goes into force or when the U.S. Senate ratifies it.
The other difference is that under the test moratorium that will
exist if we do not change the law, there is one circumstance under
which the President can test. But it does not make any sense. The
President could test if another country tests. We do not need to test
just because China conducts a test or just because France conducts a
test or Russia conducts a test. That is no reason for the United States
to conduct a test. We are not testing in retaliation for what another
nation does. There is no rational reason to base our testing on whether
another nation tests.
Whether another nation tests will depend upon whether that nation
believes it to be in that nation's interest to test. Likewise, whether
the United States tests prior to the implementation of the CTBT, ought
to be based upon whether it is in our national interest to do so. Just
because France tests should not mean that the President should call for
the United States to do so.
But by the same token, if the Department of Energy or the Department
of Defense should discover a problem with one of our weapons, it is the
height of irrationality for us to close our eyes and say, ``But we
can't fix that weapon.''

Until this Nation has effective missile defenses and defenses against
any other way in which a nuclear warhead would be delivered to the
United States, we are relying upon our strategic retaliatory nuclear
capability. That is a fact. Therefore, it has to work and it has to be
safe. It makes no sense to say that we should not have the capability
of ensuring that safety.
I doubt very seriously whether President Clinton would ever order a
test, but why tell him that he cannot do so? For those who believe,
well, maybe it will not be President Clinton next year, maybe it will
be President Dole, and he is going to be irresponsible in this regard,
my amendment also requires that the Congress not disapprove the
decision. So Congress has a check on the President's actions. The
President cannot unilaterally call a test.
I do not know what could be more reasonable, Mr. President. All we
are saying is that the deadline that is going to expire on September 30
be continued--not the deadline--but that the ability to test be
continued, the power of the President to call for a test. We are not
saying he has to do anything. This has no relationship to the CTBT. We
are simply saying, until the CTBT comes into effect, the President
would have the ability to call for a test, but Congress would have to
not disapprove it.
Let me read some statements, perhaps, that will give people a little
sense of security in supporting this if they think there is some hidden
meaning to it. There is not. The administration's testing policies, as
articulated by the President himself, are totally consistent with what
we are doing.
On August 11, 1995, the President gave his statement regarding the
CTBT. He acknowledged that the possibility of future underground tests
might be needed. In fact, there is a specific safeguard in his policy
enumerated ``Safeguard F'' which reads as follows:

If the President of the United States is informed by the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Energy (DOE)--
advised by the Nuclear Weapons Council, the Director of DOE's
nuclear weapons laboratories and the Commander of the U.S.
Strategic Command--that a high level of confidence in the
safety or reliability of a nuclear weapon type which the two
Secretaries consider to be critical to our nuclear deterrent
could no longer be certified, the President, in consultation
with Congress, would be prepared to withdraw from the CTBT
under the standard ``supreme national interests'' clause in
order to conduct whatever testing might be required.
That is the end of Safeguard F.
Mr. President, what we are proposing here is something far short of
that. The President has made the point here that he needs a mechanism
for conducting an underground test if it is in the supreme national
interest to do so. We are simply saying until there is a CTBT, he
should have that same authority. A fortiori, once the CTBT goes into
effect, the President is saying he should still have that authority in
the supreme national interest. I agree. It does not make any sense for
that authority to exist at that time after this CTBT has already gone
into effect, and not to have the authority before it goes into effect.
Following the President's own understanding of the potential need for
an underground test to ensure safety and reliability of our weapons, we
simply gave him that authority beyond the deadline that it would
otherwise expire, and base it on what the President has said he would
need to base it on; namely, safety and reliability, rather than on
whether another nation tests. I cannot imagine anything more reasonable
and more rational.
I will read a quotation from one of the President's top advisers in
this entire area, former staff member for the distinguished ranking
member of the Armed Services Committee, Bob Bell, in a speech at the
National Missile Defense University Foundation. On May 8 of this year,
Bob Bell, who is a member of the National Security Council, suggested
that a key element of the administration strategy to defend America is
deterrence, both conventional and nuclear deterrence. He said,

The second line of defense against weapons of mass
destruction is deterrence, both at the conventional and
nuclear level. Any rogue nation foolish enough to contemplate
using nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against the
United States, its Armed Forces or our allies must not be
confused about how we would respond. As Secretary Perry
stated, it would be ``devastating'' and ``absolutely
overwhelming.''

Now, Mr. President, you cannot rely upon a nuclear deterrent that is
not safe or does not work. You have to know that it is safe and it will
work. That is why we have always maintained the ability, the right, to
test these weapons, to make sure they will work and that they are safe.
That is what the law provides today. That authority terminates on
September 30. For the life of me, I do not understand why anyone would
object to simply continuing the President's right to do what he said he
needed to have the ability to do. Not that he would ever do it. I am
sure everyone would acknowledge this President's inclinations would not
be to do it, but as he himself said, if he were advised by the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, the Nuclear Weapons
Council, and the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command that they did
not have a high level of confidence in the safety or reliability of a
weapon type that was deemed critical for nuclear deterrent, then he
would need that authority. If we are going to give him that authority
after a CTBT goes into effect, why should he not have that authority
before it goes into effect?
Mr. President, all I can do is continue to repeat the point that I
wish somebody would challenge it, would argue it, would debate it. This
amendment has been pending since last night. I said I am happy to
explain it, to debate it, but can we not have a discussion on it, and
then vote? I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose it.

Now, there have been two reasons suggested to me. One is that the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty negotiations are in a delicate stage now
and we do not want to do anything that might upset them. How would this
upset them? It has nothing to do with the CTBT. Surely, people who want
us to enter into the CTBT want us to do so with weapons that are safe
and reliable. Surely, they do not want us to deny ourselves the ability
to enter into the treaty, knowing we have safe and reliable weapons.
Why would they want us to have a period of time where our weapons could
deteriorate or become unsafe and we could not do anything about it, and
then enter into a comprehensive test ban limitation? That would not
make any sense.
We want to enter into the comprehensive test ban knowing that our
weapons are in good shape. I guarantee you, Mr. President, other
countries will make very sure that their weapons are in good shape
before they enter into it. Look at the evidence. What did France do?
France thumbed its nose at the international arms limitation community
by saying, ``We are going to test until we are confident that our
weapons are reliable and safe and they will do the job.'' They
conducted their tests, notwithstanding opposition from

[[Page S6428]]

practically, it seemed like, everybody in the world. When they finally
had concluded they had done enough testing and they were confident of
their weapons, they said, ``Fine. Now we will join up.''
China, likewise, has been conducting tests. They just concluded one.
They have said they are going to do another one. They have said, ``We
think we have to do one more to make sure that our system is reliable,
safe, and workable. After that, we will join up, or at least consider
joining up.'' It may be that Russia has conducted tests. There have
been reports of activity at their test site that may suggest that some
kind of activity has occurred there. I submit that other nations will
do the same thing if they believe their weapons are deteriorating or
they need to do something to improve the safety or reliability. They
will test to make sure that can be done.
All we are saying is the President of the United States ought to have
the authority to do that, with Congress not overruling, to ensure that
our nuclear deterrent, as Bob Bell said, is a meaningful deterrent.
That is to say that countries of the world will know that it is
workable, and that we, in fact, will employ it.
The argument that CTBT negotiations are underway does not suggest any
reason why we should not proceed with this. Are those negotiations so
touchy that if anybody talks about nuclear testing or continues
authority that currently exists in law, that they somehow are going to
full apart? I cannot imagine that. If that is the case, there is
something drastically wrong. Are those negotiations dependent upon an
elimination of our authority to test after September 30? That would not
be good policy for the United States, and I cannot imagine that other
countries of the world have made that a precondition. I have not heard
any evidence to that effect. Just because the CTBT negotiations are
going on does not mean that we cannot extend the President's authority
beyond September 30. We are not telling him he has to test, he should
test or anything of that sort. We are saying if he thinks it is
necessary to test, as he himself pointed out, he should have the
authority to do that, subject to Congress not saying no.

Now, I do not know of any other reason, except one reason expressed
to me by someone who said, ``Well, I have always been so much in favor
of absolutely eliminating all nuclear weapons from the world that I
would not want to do anything even to extend the ability of the United
States to test until there is a CTBT. If we can stop it on September
30, boy, that is great.''
Mr. President, if all of the other nations in the world were as
idealistic as this particular individual, I would not have a problem
with that. As we have already seen, since the United States has stopped
testing, since our moratorium, other nations, both friendly and
unfriendly, have decided it is in their best interests to go ahead. We
are not going to stop them from doing what they think is necessary and
in their national interests, and particularly where it relates to
safety, it seems to me, we ought to retain the ability to test. That
should have very little to do with the argument of whether or not all
the nations of the world will eventually agree to a comprehensive
limitation.
One final point I make, Mr. President. When I served in the House of
Representatives, I was the ranking member of the Department of Energy's
nuclear facilities panel, along with Representative Spratt from South
Carolina. We had the jurisdiction, basically to deal with the
Department of Energy programs, including the nuclear stockpile. During
that time, it came to light that a very new and sophisticated and
technical way of utilizing very new and powerful computers could
actually help us understand the dynamics of nuclear weapons much better
than we ever had before. This computer analysis seemed to suggest that
there might be some vulnerability to certain of our weapons that we
should look into.
Just to talk hypothetically, what we are talking about, if a nuclear
weapon were to be dropped, for example, could that possibly trigger
some kind of emission of radioactive material? In the past we had done
a lot of telephoning and we said, ``No, we think it is very safe.''
This new computer technology suggested that maybe there would be a bit
of a problem. So we caused a commission to be created called the Drell
Commission. The members of the commission were very prominent nuclear
scientists who studied for over a year whether there were safety or
reliability problems with our weapons--primarily safety problems. They
made recommendations to the Congress, which we have largely carried
out, and which the military has largely carried out, that caused us to
make some changes in the way that we handle our nuclear weapons. Some
weapons were removed from active alert status on strategic bombers.
Certain changes were made in the way that weapons were handled in their
loading and unloading.

Without getting into too much technicality, or classified material,
those recommendations demonstrated that we have to be constantly
vigilant of the potential for accidents, because the last thing in the
world that we want is an accident with a nuclear weapon. We know that
there have been some, and we do not want that to ever happen and cause
harm to anyone in the world. So safety has been a primary
consideration--at least in recent years--with respect to our nuclear
stockpile.
For the life of me, Mr. President, I cannot imagine that people who
are interested in consumer safety, who are interested in the health,
safety, and welfare of our citizens, who frequently support measures to
protect us from all sorts of things that might cause damage to us, who
are interested in reducing smoking by teenagers and adolescents, and I
cannot imagine why people who are interested in protecting the American
citizenry would say, however, when it comes to one of the most
potentially devastating threats of all--not a threat that is likely to
occur, but if it ever did occur, it would be very devastating--a
release of radioactive material as a result of an accident with a
nuclear weapon, and we are not going to do anything about that. We are
just going to trust that weapons that are 20 or 30 years old, and that
have not been tested for years, are going to continue to work all
right, behave all right, and not pose any safety threat. We are going
to close our eyes to the possibility that there could ever be a problem
there, and we are going to legally prohibit the President from testing
those weapons to see that they are safe--not to develop a new weapon;
we are not talking about testing for new weapons. We are going to bind
the President and say that, after September 30, he cannot test to
determine the safety of a nuclear weapon anymore. I just, for the life
of me, cannot understand how people would make that argument.
Now, Mr. President, there are Senators on the floor now who would
like to enlighten me as to why this perfectly innocent amendment is not
appropriate. I will conclude by simply reminding you of what it does.
It simply says the power that the President has to test, which will
expire on September 30, will continue until there is a CTBT. If the
Congress does not approve a test, the President cannot do it.
I hope people who want to debate the issue will do that so I know
what we are trying to respond to here because, right now, I cannot
think of any arguments against this amendment. I hope we can quickly
get a time agreement so that, as the distinguished chairman of the
Armed Services Committee said, we can get on with this bill. This is a
minor amendment in the overall scheme of things with this very
important defense authorization bill. The chairman is right that we
have to get on with it. I do not intend to take any time with this. If
we can reach a time agreement for 10 minutes, that is fine with me.
I thank the chairman of the committee for supporting my amendment.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to again compliment Senator Kyl
for his detailed explanation of his amendment. This is a sound
provision. It enhances the President's authority to ensure that the
Nation maintains the capability to maintain a ready and safe nuclear
stockpile. I do not understand the other side's reluctance to debate
this amendment and agree to a time limit.
Again, I urge Members to come to the floor and let us go forward and
make progress on this bill.
Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.

[[Page S6429]]

Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent that the pending committee
amendment be laid aside.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I inquire of
the Senator from Minnesota, about how much time does he wish? There has
been some talk about moving ahead on this matter. I prefer to move
ahead on this matter, and I simply inquire, before I withdraw my right
to object, about how much time the Senator from Minnesota feels he
needs, and on what subject, before we set aside the pending business of
the Senate.
Mr. GRAMS. I expect to take 10 minutes, and it relates to the closure
of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Mr. EXON. With that understanding, I withdraw my objection. Is the
Senator intending to propose an amendment?
Mr. GRAMS. It is a sense of the Senate.
Mr. EXON. Then, Mr. President, I object on the grounds that I am
prepared to move ahead on the amendment before us. Certainly, I would
like to accommodate the concerns of the Senator from Minnesota and his
sense-of-the-Senate amendment. But I suggest that in order to try and
move ahead on this matter, it would probably be best at this time to
proceed with debate on the amendment that is before us rather than
offering another amendment at this juncture. With that caveat, I
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Minnesota
has the floor, unless he chooses to yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMS. I ask the Chair, am I allowed to go ahead and offer my
sense-of-the-Senate amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There must be approval to set aside the
pending amendment and that has been objected to.
Mr. GRAMS. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I say to my friend from South Carolina, the
chairman of the committee, which I have observed now for 18 years, and
also my colleague from Georgia, the ranking member of the committee,
that I understand the difficult position they find themselves in with
regard to trying to move this bill along. I certainly am not here to
cause any problems in that effort because, certainly, the defense
authorization bill, which I voted for as it came out of the Armed
Services Committee, is an important piece of legislation, and I think
that we should move expeditiously ahead. Certainly, any Senator has a
right under the rules of the Senate to offer any amendment.
But I would simply say that I intend to make some remarks at this
time in strong opposition to the Kyl amendment, and then would plead to
the managers of the bill--since the Kyl amendment nor nothing like it
was included in the authorization bill that came out of the committee--
that it would probably be best, in the interest of moving ahead with
this bill, that the Kyl amendment be withdrawn and probably and
possibly considered at some later more appropriate date. Mr. President,
there could not possibly be a worse time, a more inopportune time, if
you will, to consider the amendment offered by the Senator from
Arizona.
Here we are, Mr. President, 9 days away from the self-imposed June 28
deadline by the multination negotiators now delicately moving toward
hopefully an agreement for a comprehensive test ban treaty. And the
deadline is June 28. That is 9 days from now. To be specific, that is a
week from this coming Friday.
These are extremely delicate negotiations. I have talked on numerous
occasions to our Ambassador who is involved in those detailed
negotiations. I have been in close touch with the Secretary that has
responsibility in this area, the Secretary of Energy. I have been in
close touch with the White House, and the National Security Council.
They all agree with myself, Senator Mark Hatfield, and many others who
will speak in opposition to this amendment, that there could not
possibly be a worse time for the U.S. Senate to begin meddling in
matters of this delicate nature 9 days ahead of the June 28 self-
imposed date by the negotiators to try to come up with a comprehensive
test ban treaty that in the opinion of this Senator, and in the opinion
of most people who understand the procedure, would be to the greatest
benefit of mankind for as far as we can see into the future.
What we are talking about here is whether or not we are going to have
less reliance on nuclear weapons in the future. Since the end of the
cold war we all have been working, and quite well, I might say, with
Russia and the former states of the former Soviet Union to the point
where we do not have nuclear warheads pointed at each other. Behind all
of this is the attempted emergence of new nations to nuclear power.
If we can put in place and keep in place the nuclear test ban treaty
that is now being delicately renegotiated in Geneva it would be the
greatest boon to mankind and the safety of mankind that one could
imagine. No. I suspect that none of us can see into future time when we
will have not have nuclear weapons. But certainly we should be able to
recognize and realize that the United States of America which is far
ahead on the ability to test, which is far ahead on the ability to make
tests with computers, which is far ahead in inventory of any other part
of the world, it would seem evident to me that it would be not only in
the national security interests of the United States of America but
also the right thing to do to recognize that we should continue to be a
leader in trying to end for all time, if we can, nations testing
nuclear devices.
So, Mr. President, I speak now not only for myself but other Members
of the U.S. Senate on both sides of the aisle in strong opposition to
the Kyl-Reid amendment. It is being sold here just to give the
President a little flexibility, and so forth and so on. If the U.S.
Senate would pass the Kyl-Reid amendment, which I think it will not--I
think I have been here long enough to have a pretty good understanding
of the Senate and its rules--I say to the managers of the amendment,
and I say to the managers of the bill that there could be long and
delayed debate on this amendment. I think it has little chance of
surviving the opposition that we will mount against it. I want to
unmask, if I can, Mr. President, the feeling that this is a harmless
amendment; that it is not going to hurt anything at all. I would simply
say that regardless of what the intentions of the authors of the
amendment are for the U.S. Senate to be even debating such a
proposition 9 days ahead of the final deadline, whether we pass it or
not, only gives the opposition around the world, wherever it is and for
whatever reason, more chances of disrupting and eliminating any chance
of a comprehensive test ban treaty based on negotiations--very delicate
negotiations, I might say, Mr. President--in Geneva today.

Why is it that 9 days ahead of the deadline we have some Senators
coming on the floor of the U.S. Senate trying to make changes in what
we are going to do in the future with regard to nuclear tests? No one
knows at this juncture.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. EXON. I have not interrupted the Senator from Arizona. I will not
yield. He will have ample time to make his points at a later time.
I simply say that this amendment is ill-timed. It is ill-advised. At
least the authors should recognize and realize, if they are so certain
that this amendment is all-important, that it would be more in line
with reality and reason to at least wait until follow-on bills after
the 28th day of June, a week from Friday, when we will know by that
time whether or not the hard work and the delicate balance to try to
reach an international comprehensive test ban treaty is successful.
I do not know what their motives are. It may well be that the authors
of this amendment are totally in support, as I hope they would be in
being behind our negotiators and our administration who fully recognize
and realize the dangers that we are working with here; that the authors
of this amendment would simply say, yes, this is probably not the best
time and this amendment should not be offered.
Mr. President, this amendment, or something like it, was discussed by
members of the Armed Services Committee before our markup and before

[[Page S6430]]

our hearings in the Armed Services Committee on the defense
authorization bill. It was agreed unanimously that this is a matter
that should not have been taken up at this time. And for that reason,
and principally for that reason, there was no move inside the Armed
Services Committee to make any such suggested changes. And I believe
that the chairman of the Armed Services Committee knows and understands
that full well. The chairman of the Armed Services Committee has every
right to support this amendment, if he wants to, on the floor of the
U.S. Senate. That was not the reasoning of his committee during those
deliberations.
Mr. President, later on today I will insert into the Record
statements by the White House, statements by the Secretary of Energy,
and others in strong unqualified opposition to this amendment
principally along the lines that I have outlined.
I cannot imagine anything I would oppose more than the Kyl-Reid
amendment authorizing the resumption of nuclear testing beginning on
October 1 this year under certain conditions. While proponents of the
amendment contend that this change to the 1992 Hatfield-Exon-Mitchell
law closes some sort of a loophole in the American nuclear testing
policy and should have no impact on the comprehensive test ban
negotiations now underway in Geneva, this simply is not--I emphasize,
Mr. President, is not--the case. The Kyl-Reid amendment is the
proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing, an innocent appearance cloaking a
more sinister inner nature. Whether intended or not, passage of this
meddlesome amendment would send a chilling ripple around the world that
the Senate has pulled the rug out from under our Nation's treaty
negotiators on the very eve of finalizing a landmark treaty designed to
halt the global spread of nuclear weapons.
After decades of failed efforts and ineffectual agreements, the
world's nuclear powers have finally made some progress in not only
curbing the increase in the number of nuclear weapons States but also
reducing the number of nuclear weapons systems targeted on population
centers around the world. The INF Treaty, START I Treaty, and now START
II are historic mileposts in the history of arms control in that they
compel for the first time the destruction of nuclear delivery systems
while still maintaining the geopolitical balance and the ability to
deter an attack by a potential aggressor.
Defense and foreign policy experts agree that the most significant
security challenge facing the United States and the rest of the world
is curbing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, most
dangerous of which is a nuclear warhead. Closing Pandora's box, as I
have referred to these nonproliferation efforts in the past, is a
formidable undertaking, but I believe history will judge the leaders of
our era in great measure on how successful we are in meeting this
challenge.
While the bipartisan Nunn-Lugar program has made remarkable progress
in addressing the secure transportation, storage, and destruction of
thousands of former Soviet nuclear weapons, another threat reduction
effort designed to enhance our national security is close to agreement.
That is the agreement I talked about that is hopefully scheduled to be
agreed to in 9 days.
What in the world, whatever are their intentions, is the
reasonableness of Members of the Senate coming in 9 days ahead of that
formidable undertaking with an amendment that could only cause great
mischief and possibly lead to further division of the nations that are
having enough trouble already in coming to agreement in Geneva on the
nuclear test ban treaty a week from this Friday--9 days away. I cannot
imagine any Member of the Senate, Mr. President, I cannot imagine any
Member of the Senate believing it would be wise, if they understood the
possible consequences, for any Member of the Senate to endorse this
amendment for the reasons that I have stated and very likely for other
reasons as well.
For the past 3 years, the 37-member nation conference on disarmament
has been meeting in Geneva to negotiate a verifiable comprehensive test
ban or CTB Treaty. A CTB Treaty is an important linchpin in our efforts
to prevent new nations from developing a nuclear weapons capability by
depriving them of the ability to test and verify the performance and
capability of the new weapons. In effect, the CTB Treaty, if realized,
would go a long way in cutting off membership to the nuclear weapons
club, depriving autocratic rulers and Third World rogue nations of the
means to develop such weapons with confidence in the future.

After 40 years of effort, the world community is now 10 days away,
hopefully, 10 days away, Mr. President, from its self-imposed
negotiating deadline of June 28--that is this June 28--to finalize a
CTB agreement. Not only are we in the last hours of the negotiations
end game in the context of the historical debate on the test ban
concept, we are in the final minute of this long and difficult
endeavor. For this reason, it is no surprise that some opponents of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and advocates of continued nuclear
testing would look for ways to undermine an agreement.
I am not saying that the authors of this amendment necessarily fall
into that category. I hope they do not. It might well be that some
people pushing this amendment were not here in 1992 when Senator
Mitchell, Senator Exon and Senator Hatfield came about with a
bipartisan agreement, stepped aside from political considerations and
worked out an agreement that passed the Senate and has been the
framework ever since and has been endorsed by the President of the
United States and indirectly endorsed by other nations of the world and
has resulted in the ongoing negotiations at Geneva.
In large part, the bipartisan Hatfield-Exon-Mitchell law of 1992 jump
started American interest in joining the world's other nuclear powers
in pushing for a comprehensive test ban treaty. By requiring that
future U.S. nuclear weapons testing be linked to the correction of
prospective safety and reliability problems, the Hatfield-Exon-Mitchell
provision confirms what most scientists, military leaders, and
policymakers understood: The United States has the safest, the most
reliable nuclear weapons arsenal in the world.
Furthermore, after conducting over 1,000 nuclear tests, with the data
resulting therefrom, at our test facility in Nevada, we have developed
more advanced simulation technology than any other power in the world.
The time was ripe for phasing out our testing program over 3 years and
start seriously negotiating a comprehensive test ban agreement.
Basically, Mitchell-Exon-Hatfield played a key role in that
development. And I am astonished at this amendment because, however
well intended, it is ill-advised as I have outlined.
Now, 4 years later, when we are on the verge of possibly reaching a
comprehensive test ban agreement, a mere 9 days away from lowering the
lid on the nuclear Pandora's box, it is in this context that the Kyl-
Reid amendment should be judged. The Kyl-Reid amendment would authorize
the President to seek authorization to resume nuclear testing after
October 1 up until the time when a comprehensive test ban treaty is
ratified by the Senate. Unlike the existing requirements of Hatfield-
Exon-Mitchell, these tests could be for any reason, not necessarily to
correct any safety or reliability problem. I should reiterate, there is
no known safety or reliability problem with our nuclear weapons. It is
worth noting that even if the President did seek to resume testing it
would take approximately 2 years--let me repeat that, Mr. President--
even if suddenly, today, the President of the United States should find
that we have a serious problem with our nuclear deterrent, it would
take approximately 2 years to reready the nuclear test site to conduct
tests to verify if there is a problem and to help identify what would
be necessary to correct it. If that should happen, I believe there is
no question but the U.S. Senate would join in, would recognize and
realize the serious threat, and take action as the President has
outlined.

But that is not the case, and we should not be using or relying on
that type of scare tactic to justify this ill-conceived and ill-timed
amendment here on this date, late in June 1996, 9 days away from the
final deadline in Geneva. According to the Department of Energy's best
estimate, we would

[[Page S6431]]

have to take 2 years, if we needed it, to reready the test site in
Nevada. In that context, the amendment before us is meaningless.
This reality raises the question of what is the true value of the
Kyl-Reid amendment if it professes to give the President the means by
which to resume testing up to a point of the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty ratifications? The President of the United States is firmly
against this. He does not need any additional authority at this time.
The Secretary of Energy, who has prime responsibility under the
President of the United States, and the National Security Council, are
firmly opposed to this amendment, primarily for the reasons I have
outlined. Even if there was a reason to test, and there is not, we
would have to wait 2 years at least before detonation could take place
and tests could be conducted even underground at the Nevada test site,
far more time than the anticipated delay between signing the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and its subsequent ratification by the
U.S. Senate.
In light of this, and the fact that there is no known safety or
reliability reason to test, the question that needs to be asked is, Why
is this amendment being proposed now, and what would the consequences
be if the amendment was agreed to?
As I have stated, I am very fearful that they would be devastating.
The prospects of a comprehensive test ban agreement by June 28 were
greatly enhanced just recently when China agreed to join the rest of
the world's declared nuclear weapons states in adhering to a testing
moratorium and forsaking the right to test, ending all testing once an
agreement is reached, which might be in the immediate future.
For the first time in history, all five permanent members of the
Security Council are in agreement to adhere to a true zero yield test
ban treaty. The Chinese decision clears the most difficult and
significant hurdle in reaching agreement on a comprehensive test ban
treaty text. What is more, the world's nonnuclear states, the potential
new admissions to the nuclear club, are poised to sign on to a treaty
relinquishing their right to develop or obtain these highly lethal and
destabilizing weapons of mass destruction. If the United States were to
approve the Kyl-Reid amendment on the eve of the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty agreement, changing U.S. policy so as to authorize tests for any
reason--for any reason, I emphasize, Mr. President, up until the time
of Senate treaty ratification--the effect on our Nation's
nonproliferation efforts in Geneva I am afraid would be devastating.

I am afraid, Mr. President, that under those circumstances the United
States would become the pariah of the international arms control
community and the reactions of condemnation from around the world would
undoubtedly be swift, not unlike what occurred following the French and
the Chinese weapons tests earlier this year.
My suggestion to Senator Kyl and Senator Reid is that this issue be
withdrawn and reconsidered at some later date this year or maybe next
year, or sometime after that when we will know whether or not the
comprehensive test-ban negotiations were successful. While we have
learned a great deal about all of these problems, with regard to
reliability and safety of our nuclear weapons arsenal, and we have a
lot to learn in the future, but there is no justifiable reason to
resume testing now or in the foreseeable future. There is, however, a
compelling reason to push hard in the final days of the comprehensive
test-ban negotiations in Geneva, without having to bother with the
uproar that is sure to follow if the Kyl-Reid amendment, regardless of
how well intended, would be passed by the U.S. Senate or even
considered and defeated under the rules that we have at our disposal in
the U.S. Senate.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to stay the course and work in a
positive way to halt the spread of nuclear weapons around the world.
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will do just that. Mr. President, the
Kyl-Reid amendment regrettably would work to the contrary. Approval of
this amendment by the Senate would be self-defeating and could very
well snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, scuttling the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty at a time 9 days--9 days away from
possible success. Such a happening would undermine our own collective
security and that of our allies by allowing nonnuclear states to
potentially join what has been, up to now, an exclusive group of
nations capable of killing millions with the push of a button.
Rejection or withdrawal of the Kyl amendment would give us a chance--
and I underline the word chance--of success at Geneva. I fear history
will not judge this Senate kindly if our actions, whether intended or
not, are instrumental in killing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as
it is prepared, hopefully, to be enacted and to join other landmark
arms control agreements which have brought greater peace to all
Americans and all people in the world, as we look not only just at
today, but at tomorrow as well.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to reject the Kyl-Reid amendment.
I will do everything that I can, within the powers that I and others
have in the U.S. Senate, to see that this amendment does not prevail.
There will be many other speakers who will follow me in opposition to
the Kyl-Reid amendment. I emphasize only, again, in closing that, while
this amendment may be well-intentioned, it is ill-conceived and the
timing could not be worse. Those are the essential elements that the
White House and the Secretary of Energy joined me on and, in my
conversations with them, asked me to relate along with their strong
opposition to this amendment.
I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Arizona.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Bob Perret,
a congressional fellow in Senator Reid's office, be provided privilege
of the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me simply respond to the argument of the
Senator from Nebraska with three quick points. I hope the Senator from
Nebraska does not misunderstand what the amendment would do. He said
there is no justifiable reason to test now. There is nothing in this
amendment that calls for testing now. Nothing whatsoever. It merely
continues the existing authority of the President to ask for a test. I
have no reason to believe that the President would do so. It has
nothing to do with engaging in any tests now.
Second. the Senator from Nebraska said, ``Why bring it up now?'' The
answer is very simple: Because the distinguished chairman of the Armed
Services Committee said if you have any amendments to the defense
authorization bill bring them to the floor now. I am following the
request of the distinguished chairman. And on the assumption that the
bill is going to be dealt with within the next few days, we need to
bring the amendment up now, not later.
But I offer to my colleague from Nebraska this good-faith offer: If
the Senator from Nebraska would agree with me that we could vote on
this amendment on June 29, the day after the 28th, which is the big
date in the Senator's mind, I would be happy to enter into such a UC
agreement. We have no reason to have a vote necessarily before or after
the 28th. We are simply proposing the amendment at the time it is
supposed to be proposed.
So if the Senator will agree to a unanimous-consent request to vote
on the 29th, I would be delighted to enter into such an agreement with
him.
The third point is that nowhere in the Senator's speech about how the
timing could not be worse because it comes only 9 days before the 28th
of June, which is the self-imposed deadline for the parties negotiating
the CTBT to reach an agreement, nowhere in his discussion was any
suggestion as to why this would somehow disrupt the agreement, why
anybody would consider this relevant in the least, why they would
object to it.
I understand that they have this self-imposed deadline to reach an
agreement by the 28th. What we are doing here is absolutely irrelevant
to that; it has no bearing on it. I cannot imagine somebody standing up
and saying, ``Well, U.S. Negotiator, we can agree with you on the CTBT,
but the U.S. Senate just considered this amendment

[[Page S6432]]

that allows the President to continue to test up to the time we have a
CTBT.''
Every other country in the world has that right. I suspect the United
States would be the only country in the world that as of September 30
will not have that right by law, because that is when the President's
authority expires. Other countries that we are negotiating with can
test right up to the time there is a CTBT. Why is that not disruptive?
There is no logic to the Senator's argument: ``We're going to have 9
more days to negotiate, so your amendment shouldn't be voted on.'' What
is the connection? Why should anybody object to our amendment being
voted on in these negotiations? Our amendment has absolutely nothing to
do with this CTBT. It, by definition, only deals with the period of
time up to the CTBT.

If we put the chart back up again, I will try to make it crystal
clear. Graphic: The law allowing the President to test expires
September 30. Up until the time that there is a CTBT, he would not be
able to test for stockpile safety and reliability. We simply extend his
ability to do so. That is all. How can anybody in the CTBT negotiations
object to that? All of the other states will already have that right.
So, Mr. President, I heard the Senator from Nebraska, but I do not
understand the logic of the argument.
Two final quick points. We are going to have to change the law at
some time, because when we enter into a CTBT, if we do, we are going to
have to legislatively give the President the authority to test in the
supreme national interest, as the President said he would need the
authority to do, and I quoted the President's safeguard section (f) in
that regard.
So if this law expires on September 30, that is not the end of it. We
are going to have to legislate.
Second, I note that the administration itself has said that until
three different countries--I think two of them were Pakistan and
India--agreed to sign up that we are not going to be entering into a
CTBT. I am just not at all sure this magic date of the 28th is all of
that magic. It may well be we are not able to reach an agreement by
that self-imposed deadline.
But it does not matter, because all my amendment does is to allow the
President the authority he has today, subject to Congress saying, ``No,
you can't test,'' allow him to call for a test up until the time the
CTBT goes into effect. It has no effect whatsoever on the CTBT. It does
not affect it in the least. Granted, the 28th date is out there, but I
do not know what relevance that is as to what we are doing here today.
I did want to clear those up since the Senator had raised the
question of our motives in bringing it up at this time. I know Senator
Reid and I both want to make it crystal clear--that was the point in my
seeking recognition a moment ago--to assure the Senator from my home
State of Nebraska that our motive was to simply comply with the
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee to get any
amendment we had to this bill presented before the bill was taken from
the floor.
That is why we brought it up today. We could have easily brought it
up tomorrow or the next day. I think we are happy to agree to any
unanimous consent request that the Senator would be agreeable to enter
into to have a vote after the date of the 28th, if there is a concern
doing it before then would be disruptive in Geneva.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I listened with great interest to my
colleague from the State of Arizona. I will simply say to him that
everything that I had just said in my statement in this regard is
totally accurate, to the best of my knowledge.
With regard to his counterarguments that this is going to help the
President of the United States, the President of the United States says
he does not need help. ``Thanks, but no thanks.''
The President of the United States is simply saying that the timing
of this amendment is so outlandish, regardless of how well-intentioned
it might be, that it has the chance of doing a great deal of harm and
little, if any, enhanced possibilities of success at Geneva.

I will certainly say to my friend from Arizona that I am very willing
to try and work with him in the future when the time might or might not
be right to do some of the things that he says his amendment is
designed to do. But I must tell him that the White House, the
negotiators at Geneva, most if not all of the experts in this area that
I know of and have worked with over the years, feel that his is an
especially ill-timed amendment, notwithstanding his intentions.
I, therefore, simply say to him that I am not in a position at this
time to agree to any time certain for a time limit or a time certain
for a vote on this matter on the defense authorization bill that is
before us, and certainly it is not possible for me to make any
commitments at this time as to some date certain in the future as to
when I might agree to allow that to happen, other than to say I think
the Senator from Arizona knows that this Senator is totally
approachable, intends to be reasonable, and understands the other
person's point of view.

I try very hard to walk in another's shoes, see both sides of the
debate. I will not walk in the shoes of those that are trying to push
ahead on this amendment that this Senator feels, and other Senators
like me on both sides of the aisle feel, that this amendment at this
time is a disaster from the standpoint of trying to reach a
comprehensive test ban treaty at Geneva that I think is essential for
the future of mankind. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the current
amendment and the pending committee amendments be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 4052

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the reopening of
Pennsylvania Avenue)

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

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams], for himself and Mr.
Robb, proposes amendment numbered 4052.

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

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE.

[[Page S6433]]

of the area surrounding the White House with barricades,
additional security checkpoints, and an atmosphere of fear
and distrust.
(8) In the year following the closure of Pennsylvania
Avenue, the taxpayers have borne a significant burden for
additional security measures along the Avenue near the White
House.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the President should direct the Department of the
Treasury and the Secret Service to work with the Government
of the District of Columbia to develop a plan for the
permanent reopening to vehicular traffic of Pennsylvania
Avenue in front of the White House in order to restore the
Avenue to its original state and return it to the people.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the legislation we debate today sets out
the broad defense policy for the Nation. It affords us an opportunity
to outline our defense priorities, and the opportunity to reflect on
what role this Nation is to play in the defense of freedom worldwide.
What I have come to the floor to address today is the defense of
freedom within our own borders, indeed, right here in the heart of our
Nation's Capital. I rise, along with Senator Robb, my colleague from
Virginia, to offer an amendment seeking the reopening of Pennsylvania
Avenue in front of the White House. Mr. President, the two-block
section of Pennsylvania Avenue fronting the White House was closed to
vehicular traffic on May 20, 1995, by order of the President.
I have been to the floor several times in the year since to voice my
concerns that the loss of this historic roadway--which travels across
one of the busiest sections of one of the busiest cities in the world--
has had a devastating impact on the District of Columbia. I have talked
about the damage the closing has done to Washington's business
community. There are well-founded concerns that it is scaring off new
jobs and prompting potential retail and commercial tenants to stay away
from the downtown area. I have discussed the hardships caused by the
closing for District residents, and anyone whose paycheck depends on
access to the avenue, people like cab drivers and tour bus operators.

I have outlined the numerous problems the closing has created for the
District itself, which had one of its major crosstown arteries
unilaterally severed by the Federal Government without any
consultation. At a time when this troubled city could least afford
another blow, this has hit especially hard. I have discussed the
inconvenience for the 15 million tourists who come to Washington each
year, especially the elderly and disabled, many of whom are being
deprived of a close look at the White House.
And I have talked about the cost for the taxpayers, which has already
reached into the millions of dollars, and, if the National Park Service
prevails, could rise by at least $40 million more.
Mr. President, I have raised each of those aspects of the closing
because each is important. But there is another side to this issue that
is easy to overlook amid all the other more obvious problems: the
question of what the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue says to the
American people, and what we give up as a free society when we give in
to fear.
Generations of visitors to Washington would hardly recognize the
stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue that has stood for nearly 200 years as
America's Main Street. Today, it is a vacant lot, empty of any traffic.
Gone is the thrill for visitors of driving by the White House for the
first time--the concrete barricades have put an end to that.
Gone, too, is the sense of openness that inspired Americans to feel
close to the Presidency and close to their Government when they visited
the Executive Mansion. And 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has become a
Federal fortress, and the effect is unnerving.
In a city that boasts of such inspiring symbols of freedom as the
marble of the Lincoln Memorial, the columns and porticos of the White
House, the massive stones that lift the Washington Monument into the
sky, and the great dome of the U.S. Capitol itself, the gray, concrete
barricades of Pennsylvania Avenue are a national embarrassment.
How do we explain the blockades to our visitors, whose first glimpse
of the home of their President is marred by the sight of a White House
seemingly under siege? What do we say when those visitors are children,
who have been taught how this Nation has fought for freedom and values
it above all else, and yet find a different message along the now-empty
stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue?
Mr. President, I must make this clear: in each conversation I have
had about the future of Pennsylvania Avenue, everyone has been emphatic
that the safety of the President must be our primary concern. So it
is--without question. And because the need to ensure the safety and
security of the President of the United States is paramount, there was
little argument when Pennsylvania Avenue was closed in the weeks
immediately following the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma
City. At the insistence of the Secret Service, temporary restrictions
on Pennsylvania Avenue seemed prudent, and because it was a temporary
move, people went along.
But months passed, and then a year, and now, the National Park
Service is moving ahead with plans to forever close ``America's Main
Street'' to traffic in front of the White House. Because they are
thorough and efficient and utterly dedicated to protecting the
President, the Secret Service can't be blamed for pushing for the
closing of Pennsylvania Avenue. They have been trying for 30 years to
shut it down, beginning with the Kennedy administration and every
President since. They have long seen Pennsylvania Avenue as a threat,
and used Oklahoma City as the justification to move ahead with a plan
they have been eager to put in place for more than three decades. If
the Secret Service had its way, we would build a protective bubble
around the President from which he'd never emerge. But that is not what
being President is all about, especially when you are an outgoing,
gregarious leader like President Clinton, who exposes himself to danger
a thousand times a day inside and outside Washington, because he
thrives on the public contact that comes with being President. Keep
this President away from the people? Well, you would have better luck
keeping Cal Ripkin away from the ballpark. And that is the way it
should be. That is what people need their President to be. We cannot
eliminate every risk, Mr. President, because that is the nature of a
democracy. When we resort to the temptation to try, we start down a
slippery slope. Turning these two blocks of Pennsylvania Avenue into a
$40 million park will not hide the fact that we're wrapping the White
House in another layer of protection and further insulating our leaders
from the public.

Mr. President, an entire year has come and gone since the closure of
Pennsylvania Avenue, and the circumstances have changed with time. A
decision that seemed prudent a year ago now demands to be reexamined,
and the sense-of-the-Senate amendment I introduce today offers us that
opportunity. It simply calls on the President to direct the Secret
Service--working alongside the Treasury Department and the District
government--to develop a plan for the permanent reopening of
Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. It puts this Senate on
record as saying we are not a nation that cowers to terrorists. My
amendment--based on Senate Resolution 254, which 46 of my Senate
colleagues agreed to cosponsor when I introduced it as stand-alone
legislation last month--enjoys widespread, bipartisan support here on
Capitol Hill, throughout the District of Columbia, and among the
American people themselves. I am proud to have Senator Robb join me as
an original cosponsor. Many of his constituents deal every day with the
closure of Pennsylvania Avenue. I am grateful our efforts have the
added support of Congressmen Davis and Moran and Congresswoman Norton
in the House, along with Senator Leahy, as well, here in the Senate,
and that we have been joined by Mayor Barry, the D.C. Council, and more
than two dozen of this city's most influential business, civic, and
historic organizations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list of supporters,
the original cosponsors of Senate Resolution 254, and a resolution of
support passed by the D.C. Council be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S6434]]

We Support the Senate Resolution Calling for the Reopening of
Pennsylvania Avenue in Front of the White House

District of Columbia Mayor Marion Barry.
DC Council Chairman David A. Clarke.
DC Councilmember Frank Smith.
DC Councilmember Jack Evans.
DC Councilmember Charlene Drew Jarvis.
AAA Potomac.
American Bus Association.
Apartment and Office Building Association of Metropolitan
Washington, Inc.
Association of Oldest Inhabitants of DC.
Chamber of Commerce of the United States.
Citizens Against Government Waste.
Citizens Planning Coalition.
Committee of 100 on the Federal City.
DC Chamber of Commerce.
District of Columbia Building Industry Association.
District of Columbia Preservation League.
DuPont Circle Advisory Neighborhood Commission 2B.
Federation of Citizens Association.
Frontiers of Freedom.
Georgetown Kiwanis Club.
Greater Washington Board of Trade.
Hotel Association of Washington DC.
Interactive Downtown Task Force.
International Downtown Association.
Arthur Cotton Moore Associates.
National Capital Area Chapter of the American Planning
Association.
Restaurant Association of Metropolitan Washington.
Washington Cab Association.
Washington DC Historical Society.
____

S. Res. 254

Reopening Pennsylvania Avenue to the People
Current cosponsors of S. Res. 254, which calls for the
President to order the Secret Service to develop a plan for
the permanent reopening of Pennsylvania Avenue to vehicular
traffic in front of the White House:
Spence Abraham, John Ashcroft, Bob Bennett, Hank Brown,
Richard Bryan, Conrad Burns, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, John
Chafee, Dan Coats, Bill Cohen, Paul Coverdell, Larry Craig.
Al D'Amato, Pete Domenici, Lauch Faircloth, Bill Frist,
Chuck Grassley, Judd Gregg, Orrin Hatch, Mark Hatfield, Jesse
Helms, Jim Inhofe, Jim Jeffords, J. Bennett Johnston.
Nancy Kassebaum, Jon Kyl, Patrick Leahy, Dick Lugar, Connie
Mack, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Barbara Mikulski, Frank
Murkowski, Don Nickles, Larry Pressler, Chuck Robb.
Bill Roth, Rick Santorum, Richard Shelby, Al Simpson, Bob
Smith, Arlen Specter, Ted Stevens, Craig Thomas, Fred
Thompson, Strom Thurmond.
____

Resolution 11-382 in the Council of the District of Columbia

Resolved, by the Council of the District of Columbia, That
this resolution may be cited as the ``Sense of the Council
Pennsylvania Avenue Reopening Emergency Resolution of 1996''.
Sec. 2. The Council finds that:
(1) One year ago the United States Department of the
Treasury closed Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White
House, the national symbol of an open democracy.
(2) The National Park Service has submitted a proposal to
permanently close that portion of Pennsylvania Avenue,
leaving the downtown disfigured and dysfunctional.
(3) Pennsylvania Avenue is the major east-west artery in
the District of Columbia.
(4) The temporary closure of Pennsylvania Avenue has
seriously affected the ability of District residents to
navigate city streets and has greatly disrupted traffic
patterns, commerce, and tourism.
(5) The permanent closure of Pennsylvania Avenue will
exacerbate the serious financial and traffic problems that
have been created by the temporary closure.
(6) Pennsylvania Avenue is not a park.
(7) The concern for heightened security is understandable.
Nevertheless, with the technological capability of the United
States, another solution can be found to address security
interests without permanently damaging the District of
Columbia.
(8) In this time of fiscal austerity at the local and
national levels, it is neither desirable nor justifiable to
spend the amounts proposed to permanently alter Pennsylvania
Avenue.
(9) The proposal submitted by the National Park Service
does not address the impact the closure will have on the
residents and businesses of the District of Columbia.
(10) The future of Pennsylvania Avenue should be decided
with the cooperation and approved of the elected officials
and citizens of the District of Columbia.
Sec. 3. It is the sense of the Council that the United
States Congress enact legislation requiring the reopening of
Pennsylvania Avenue.
Sec. 4. The Secretary of the Council of the District of
Columbia shall transmit copies of this resolution upon its
adoption to the President of the United States, the Mayor of
the District of Columbia, the District of Columbia Delegate
to the United States Congress, the chairpersons of the
committees of the United States Congress with oversight and
budgetary jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, the
Chair of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility
and Management Assistance Authority, the Secretary of the
United States Department of the Treasury, the Secretary of
the United States General Services Administration, the
Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation,
the Secretary of the United States Department of the
Interior, the Chairman of the National Capital Planning
Commission, the City of Administrator, the Assistant City
Administrator for Economic Development, the Director of the
District of Columbia Department of Public Works, and the
Director of the District of Columbia Office of Planning.
Sec. 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, we have come together--Republicans and
Democrats, without regard to party affiliation and without any
political agenda--to ask the President to reverse a decision that has
had widespread, unintended consequences. In the Capital City of a
nation built ``of the people, by the people, and for the people,''
there is no room for fear, roadblocks, or barricades.
The American people agree, and I am heartened by their support. By
mail and through the Internet, hundreds of them have urged me to
continue this campaign to restore Pennsylvania Avenue to its historic
use. I wish I could share each of their messages with you. I want to
tell you, though, I have heard from military experts who tell me the
present closure would do nothing to blunt a terrorist attack, former--
even current--White House employees who are ashamed of what
Pennsylvania Avenue has become, long-time residents and more recent
transplants to the District, and Americans from every corner of the
country. They have said it many different ways, but their message is
the same and that is: give us back Pennsylvania Avenue.
This month, two former residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue joined
in the national discussion by speaking out against the closing.
President Gerald Ford said, quote, ``There ought to be a better
solution.'' President Jimmy Carter labeled it, quote, ``unnecessary and
a mistake.''
There is one letter I keep coming back to, a letter that sums up more
eloquently than any other the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue because it
was written by a man who lived alongside the fear of terrorism for 444
days, yet still refuses to bow to it.
He urged me to continue my efforts, and sent me a copy of a letter he
had printed in the Washington Post just days after the avenue's
closure. It reads: ``By closing Pennsylvania Avenue, we have succumbed
to the atmosphere of fear that terrorists--domestic and foreign--seek
to foster among us.''
If there is any American who should fear the power of a terrorist, it
is Minnesota native Bruce Laingen, the senior diplomat among the U.S.
Embassy employees held hostage in Tehran beginning in 1979. If Bruce
Laingen is not willing to give in to terrorism, then neither should we.
Mr. President, through almost 200 years of this Nation's colorful
history, Pennsylvania Avenue survived, through assassinations, civil
and world wars, political unrest, and events that have often led us to
question what it means to live in a free society where risks are an
inescapable part of our everyday life.
The transformation of Pennsylvania Avenue from a national symbol of
freedom into a testament to terrorism is something average Americans
tell me they cannot understand. It is time to reopen Pennsylvania
Avenue, for our visitors, our business community, our commuters, our
residents--for every American who celebrates freedom and will defend it
at all costs. Kings live in castles, protected by moats. Dictators hide
themselves away in the safety of bunkers. Presidents live alongside
busy streets like Pennsylvania Avenue, close to the people who give
them their strength.
I ask my colleagues to support the Pennsylvania Avenue amendment.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to support the sense-of-the-
Senate resolution offered by the distinguished Senator from Minnesota,
Senator Grams. Judging from the number of cosponsors, this resolution
has broad bipartisan support.
I would also like to associate myself with the Senator's remarks,
particularly with his point that the White House has become a powerful
symbol of freedom, openness, and citizens' access to their Government.
This resolution informs the President that the Senate

[[Page S6435]]

believes the Department of the Treasury and the Secret Service should
develop a plan to reopen Pennsylvania Avenue. I commend the Senator for
his leadership in this matter.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is not a sufficient second.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am tempted to move the question here
because the Senator has presented his amendment, and he has presented
his argument. There is no one on the floor to either argue against the
Senator's amendment, to speak for the Senator's amendment, or to offer
an amendment to the bill that we are debating.
Here it is now 12:30 p.m., and we are in this typical nothing-
happens-during-daylight hours in the U.S. Senate. We have an important
bill on the floor. We have amendments that we are aware of, but no one
is here to offer those amendments.
I am not going to move for adoption of this amendment by voice vote
yet, in deference to those that may want to speak against it or for the
Senator's interest in getting a rollcall vote, but the bill before the
Senate, the defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1997, is not
being debated. The Senate is wasting a lot of time. Once again, we will
find ourselves here late into the evening doing work that we ought to
be doing during the day.
I urge colleagues who have an interest in this bill, who have
amendments that they wish to offer to this bill, to notify the managers
of their interest so that we can structure some time for them to do
this. Without that, we are going to, at some point, come to the
conclusion that no one is interested in amending the bill as it is
presented, other than the amendment, the two amendments that are
currently up, and we will have to move to some disposition.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment
I offered earlier, amendment No. 4052.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is not a sufficient second.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could direct a question to Senator
Grams, who offered the pending sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It is my
understanding--and I have not been on the floor--that this would be a
sense-of-the-Senate resolution that would indicate that Pennsylvania
Avenue should be reopened; is that true?
Mr. GRAMS. That is correct.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I believe that we should proceed with
caution on something as serious as this. I know my friend from
Minnesota has probably been inconvenienced, as has this Senator. I have
had to change one of my routes to my residence in Washington as a
result of the closure of Pennsylvania Avenue. It has been inconvenient
for me. I went to a meeting at the White House yesterday, however, and
pulled into Pennsylvania Avenue and the guards were there. I was very
impressed as to what was going on on Pennsylvania Avenue, the part of
it that has been closed. Vehicular traffic is stopped, but foot traffic
is heavier than ever. In fact, out in front of the White House on
Pennsylvania Avenue, they had a street hockey game going on--in fact,
several of them.
Now, every one of us here on the Senate floor, Members of the Senate,
have access to what goes on in the Intelligence Committee. I think it
would be constructive for every Member of the Senate to have a briefing
on why Pennsylvania Avenue was closed. When I came here 14 years ago,
all these entrances coming into the Capitol complex were open--those
that now have these big cement flower pillars there. They were open
when I came here. You could come in and out at your leisure. There was
no security of any consequence on those routes.
The first year that I was in the House of Representatives the Nevada
State Society had a meeting over here in the Rayburn Room. And it ended
sometime in the evening at 8 o'clock or so. Shortly after the Nevada
people left that room there was a huge explosion that took place that
did damage in here and did tremendous damage in the Rayburn Room, and
all out through there.
The security slowly but surely has tightened up, and it has not been
done just as a whim of the Capitol Police. They are short handed like
everyone else. They have had to beef up their security in an effort to
make the Capitol complex safer--safer for the Senators and Congressmen
but also for the millions of people who visit this building and the
office buildings surrounding the Capitol complex.
I think it would be bad policy for the U.S. Senate to start handling
security for the White House. I think it would be bad public policy for
the U.S. Senate to start handling security of the Capitol complex,
especially without congressional hearings.
Simply to walk in here and say, ``In 1791, George Washington
commissioned L'Enfant to draft a blueprint for America's new Capital
City; they envisioned Pennsylvania Avenue as a bold, ceremonial
boulevard physically linking the U.S. Capitol Building and the White
House, and symbolically the legislative and executive branches of
Government.''
In over 200 years things have changed. There were no automobiles, of
course, then.
The Senate resolution goes on to say:

An integral element of the District of Columbia,
Pennsylvania Avenue stood for 195 years as a vital, working,
unbroken roadway, elevating it into a place of national
importance as America's Main Street.

No one would dispute that.

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the White House, has become
America's most recognized address and a primary destination
of visitors to the Nations Capital; the People's House is
host to 5,000 tourists daily, and 1,500,000 annually.

It would be more than that. As we all know, they are limited to a
small facility to the numbers of people that can go there. Those people
we want to be safe also.

As home to the President, and given its prominent location
on Pennsylvania Avenue and its proximity to the people, the
White House has become a powerful symbol of freedom,
openness, and an individual's access to their Government.
On May 20, 1995, citing possible security risks from
vehicles transporting terrorists bombs, President Clinton
ordered the Secret Service, in conjunction with the
Department of the Treasury, to close Pennsylvania Avenue to
vehicular traffic for two blocks in front of the White House.
While the security of the President and visitors to the
White House is of grave concern and is not to be taken
lightly, the need to assure the President's safety must be
balanced with the expectation of freedom inherent in a
democracy; the present situation is tilted too heavily toward
security at freedom's expense.

Mr. President, I think that we are really lurching into an area here
that deserves a little caution. A year ago the Secretary of the
Treasury, Robert Rubin, directed the Secret Service to close a segment
of Pennsylvania Avenue--it is not all closed--to vehicular traffic
following the conclusion of the White House security review. The review
of security to the White House is the most extensive ever conducted.
Pennsylvania Avenue remains accessible to visitors, and the area will
be converted to a pedestrian park, which I think people coming to visit
Washington will certainly be well served by rather than the traffic
jams we have had there since I can remember.
This sense-of-the-Senate resolution says:

It is the sense of the Senate that the President should
direct the Department of the Treasury and the Secret Service
to work with the Government of the District of Columbia to
develop a plan for the permanent reopening to vehicular
traffic of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House
in order to restore the Avenue to its original state and
return it to the people.

I say with as much respect as I can that this is not a good sense-of-
the-Senate resolution. I think it should be defeated. I do not think it
prudent national security policy that, absent hearings, we take this
measure up on the floor of the Senate. This resolution

[[Page S6436]]

has no business in the Defense authorization bill. There have been no
hearings held on this. There are committees with jurisdiction to handle
matters dealing with intelligence.
I personally feel for my Government that it is better that it be
closed. I have not heard a single person from the State of Nevada--and
a lot of them come back here--complain because that area has been
blocked off. I have heard people who complain it is harder to get home
now. There is no question that it is. The Secretary of the Treasury has
the legal authority to restrict vehicular traffic on Pennsylvania
Avenue. As long as he, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the head of
the Secret Service continue to determine that as a factual matter--
doing so is necessary to protect the President--I am going to go along
with that.
Based on information from the Secret Service, the closure is
necessary to protect the President and all those who work at and visit
the White House every day. The Department of Treasury remains committed
to that decision. This, Mr. President, is not a decision to protect
President Clinton. It is a decision to protect the President of the
United States and those thousands of people that work in, and have
contact with, the White House on a daily basis.
Closure was necessary because the White House security review was not
able to identify any alternative to prohibiting vehicular traffic on
Pennsylvania Avenue that would ensure the protection of the President
and others in the White House complex from explosive devices carried in
vehicles near the perimeter.
Mr. President, an explosive device in the trunk of a car out on
Pennsylvania Avenue would do significant damage to the White House, its
property, and the people in the White House.
The Secretary of Treasury's review recommended a number of things,
and his recommendations were not done alone. They were not done by him
alone. He made the final decision. But the review recommendations were
fully endorsed by an independent, bipartisan advisory group which
included former Secretary of Transportation William Coleman and the
former Director of the CIA and the FBI, Judge William Webster. The
review consulted with numerous experts on public access, architecture,
and the history of the White House. He stated that a pedestrian park
had numerous advantages other than security.
Someone coming from the State of Nevada to look at the White House
would certainly be more impressed with an open park atmosphere rather
than honking cabs back-to-back with smoke puffing out of the cars. A
pedestrian mall concept is consistent with President Washington's
vision for the White House similar in identity, and which Mrs. Kennedy
endorsed more than a generation a ago.
At President Clinton's direction, the Department of Interior's
National Park Service has been working with a preexisting committee on
a comprehensive design plan for the White House; a design for a
pedestrian park.
On Wednesday, May 22 of this year, the Director of the National Park
Service was in the process of announcing the design plan for
Pennsylvania Avenue and, Mr. President, we are confident that when this
plan is completed the area will be much more inviting than it was when
that area was not blocked off. It will be an important public space. We
would look back with derision to an amendment like this to create and
maintain a roadway for vehicular traffic through the front of the White
House.
The Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration is
continuing its work with the District of Columbia Department of Public
Works on short- and long-term traffic plans to alleviate traffic
problems for the area.
Although closing Pennsylvania Avenue has had an impact on traffic, it
has not had a negative impact on the public's access to the White
House. People who were driving in front of the White House with rare
exception were people who were not coming to see the White House. They
were there because they were doing business in and about that area.
It has not prevented public access to the White House. Tours have
continued. They have continued uninterrupted. Visitors can now enjoy
walking, as I indicated, rollerblading, participating in street hockey,
and other games out in front of the White House, and they are biking
down Pennsylvania Avenue without the noise and danger of passing
motorists. The White House, Mr. President, does remain the people's
house.
Mr. President, I hope that we would not have to vote on this sense-
of-the-Senate resolution. I think that we are really stepping out of
where we are supposed to be by trying to micromanage security at the
White House. With all the problems we have had in this country and
around the world, with leaders being assassinated, bombs being placed
in cars, I just think that this is the wrong way to go, and I certainly
hope that this sense-of-the-Senate resolution would not have to be
voted on, and if we do I hope that we would not pass it. I think it
should be defeated.
Mr. President, I feel that there are a lot of things we should be
talking about on this defense bill but one of them is not how to
micromanage security at the White House. Should we pass a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution overriding what the Capitol Police do around the
Capitol complex? Should we amend this sense-of-the-Senate resolution--I
ask in the form of a question to my friend from Minnesota, would the
Senator be willing to modify his amendment to provide for the opening
of all the streets around the Senate Office Buildings and the Capitol?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). Under the previous order, at
the hour of 1 p.m., the majority leader was to be recognized.
Mr. REID. I certainly cannot interfere with a unanimous-consent
request that has previously been entered, but I hope that I would not
lose the floor.

Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield at this time, we
did have a commitment to notify the Members of the progress that was
being made at 1 o'clock and get a unanimous-consent agreement as to how
we would continue to proceed. And then, of course, we would go right
back to where the Senator is, and we would have an opportunity to work
together on that, so I will be very brief.
Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Democratic
leader and I have just concluded another meeting to further discuss the
possibility of an agreement with regard to the minimum wage and the
small business tax package. Both leaders will now be contacting various
Members to continue to clear the agreement, and I thank all Members at
this time for their cooperation. I hope to be able to resolve this
matter by the close of business today. We are being very careful
because we want to make sure all Members know exactly what is involved,
and before we agree to any further step we both go back to our Members
to discuss it with them further. In the meantime, I urge Members who
have amendments to the DOD authorization bill to come to the floor and
be willing to accept reasonable time agreements with respect to their
amendments.
I ask unanimous consent now that no minimum wage amendment or
legislation be in order for the remainder of today's session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. We want to certainly cooperate with the majority leader
and our minority leader as well on the issue of the minimum wage and to
try to work out an adequate procedure by which the Senate will have an
opportunity to address this issue. I had understood at a previous time
that that negotiation had been in process and that they in effect were
in agreement with the exception of the notification on the particular
language that was going to be offered, one by the Republicans, one by
the Democrats, on the minimum wage, and then one by Republicans and
Democrats on the various tax provisions; and that there would be then a
conclusion of the results on it and we would go to the conference.
That was I thought pretty well understood or announced on Sunday. I
heard my friend and colleague from

[[Page S6437]]

Mississippi talking on a national program about the desire to work that
out. It is Wednesday now at 1 o'clock.
The way it had been initially outlined seemed to me to be a way that
made the most sense in proceeding, to try to do the defense
authorization and then to move off the dime.
Could the Senator give us some idea as to where these negotiations
are, because I think I am one of many who believe that we have been
back and forth on this issue of the minimum wage for some period of
time. It does not seem to be an enormously complicated question to try
to work out and a process and procedure which should be satisfactory to
the majority and the minority. But I am wondering if he could give us
some idea about where we are at this time. We are all being asked about
this by the press. I think the public ought to have at least some
understanding. I know that the leaders have to work these measures
through in terms of a variety of considerations, but I should like to
inquire as to where we are because we are giving up the opportunity to
address this. We are only in 1 more week prior to the Fourth of July
recess and, as the Senator knows, one of the factors of the Fourth of
July was that was to be the time when the minimum wage was supposedly
increased. That was to be the triggering year for the increase of the
40 cents. So it is of interest, I imagine, to millions of Americans who
wonder whether we are going to do this before the Fourth and to try and
get some action so that they might be able to participate in an
increase or whether they are not and what the circumstances are about
it.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could respond----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. LOTT. To the comments of the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts, I want to emphasize that this involves a lot more than
the minimum wage. It does involve a package of small business tax
amendments that could be very helpful to small businesses in America,
where most of the jobs are created in America anyway, or the majority
of them and particularly where most of the entry-level people are
working. And so that is a part of this package. The gas tax issue,
whereby there would be a repeal of the 4.3-cent-a-gallon gas tax, has
been involved in all of this. The issue of the taxpayer bill of rights
is involved, as well as the TEAM issue which had been offered earlier,
so that we could have cooperation between employees and employers.
As our colleagues know, this issue took on more and more issues as it
languished for 1 month or 6 weeks and every time it came up there was
another angle to it. So that is point No. 1. Second, I think we were
very close to having an agreement between Senator Daschle and myself
last night, or late yesterday afternoon, one that was not universally
appealing on our side of the aisle or on the other side of the aisle,
but then I believe Senator Daschle found there were some concerns on
your side of the aisle with what we were trying to get an agreement on.
We have met subsequently, and we have discussed other ways that maybe
that can be dealt with. But we are being extra careful because we want
to develop a relationship that is one of trust and respect. We are
making sure that when we talk about something, I understand what he is
saying and he understands what I am saying. We are trying to reduce it
to writing with our staff working on both sides. We have just come
through a meeting which I pointed out in which we came up with some
suggestions as to how amendments, for instance, on gas tax provisions,
would be allowed, how many, because there are some Senators on that
side who want to have more than one and there are some Senators on our
side who would like to have more than one on the small business tax
provision. I am sorry; I misspoke myself--on the small business portion
of it. So, we are being extra careful to make sure that we understand
each other and that colleagues on both sides can live with it. But what
we are trying to do is to deal with this matter in absolutely a fair
way, an open way, so that we can deal with other business that is very
important for our country--Department of Defense authorization,
campaign finance reform next Monday, we have the Federal Reserve Board
nominees. We are going to vote on those Thursday.

So this Gordian knot that has been tied up here, we are trying to
take it one string at a time, and we are making progress. But we ask--I
ask our colleagues here, give us a little more time. We are working in
good faith and we are very close to something, I think, that would be
fair, understandable, and we could all agree with. I think we are going
to try very hard to have that done by the close of this session.
Mr. KENNEDY. Just further reserving the right to object, just to make
a brief comment, Mr. President, I am unpersuaded by the Senator's
position that this is a Gordian knot and that it has been languishing
here. The reason it has been languishing is those who for over a year
and a half have denied this body the opportunity to vote when we have
been able to demonstrate in previous votes a majority of the body will
vote for an increase in the minimum wage.
I reject, also, the suggestion that it is our side of the aisle that
has somehow complicated these negotiations. I have privity to those,
and when the Senator talked about what was going to happen or not
happen with regards to the TEAM Act on Sunday and said that was not
going to be called up this year and then had a change of mind, trying
to add other things to these negotiations which had been tentatively
agreed to, it was not this side of the aisle that was complicating the
negotiations. It was his side of the aisle.
Now, the American people are enormously interested in these
provisions on small business. As I understand it, it is 12 or 13
billion dollars' worth. They are interested, the taxpayers, in the gas
tax; I am sure in the TEAM Act. But I think it is a very simple issue.
We are asking an up-or-down vote on minimum wage, which we have
historically voted on seven different times at other times in our
history. That is something we are being denied, even though the time
has been moving on and the triggering time for the increase in the
minimum wage is July 4.
So, I must say to my friend and colleague, I will not object at this
time. But I, quite frankly, am enormously troubled by the failure to
make it very clear whether we are going to have the opportunity to vote
on this measure in a way the Members can know when it will be called up
and to vote on it, and just have this continuously dragged through. We
have a right to offer this on different measures. The reason that we do
is because we are denied the opportunity to vote on it as a separate
bill. As long as the majority refuses to give us that opportunity to
vote on a separate bill, then we are going to be required to use any
particular device.
I do not object at this time, but I certainly hope we would conclude
these negotiations through the afternoon and all Members will have a
chance to look at what is actually going to be proposed on a unanimous
consent. Because otherwise this minimum wage is going to be right on
the defense authorization before this week ends.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I renew my request for the unanimous
consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LOTT. If I could just claim some leader time, perhaps, to comment
further on that. First of all, I might just say that in the proposal we
have, the Senator will have an opportunity to have a clear vote on his
amendment the way he wants to do it. So the opportunity is there. I
think it is only fair that we have an opportunity to have our version
of that issue.
As far as the time that you have been delayed, you had 2 years when
you were in the majority when you did not offer a minimum wage
increase. To now say you are being blocked from that, I just wonder why
you did not offer it in those earlier 2 years. But having said that----
Mr. KENNEDY. Do you want an answer?
Mr. LOTT. We are trying to find a way to get the job done, and I am
working at that diligently.
I want to say this. As far as the TEAM Act, saying I was not going to
call it up this year, I did not say that. I said we were trying to work
up an agreement that would not have the TEAM Act in as a part of the
minimum wage and small business tax relief.

[[Page S6438]]

That is the direction we are working in. But I did not mean to imply
and I did not say we were not going to call it up this year. That is an
issue a lot of people feel very strongly about. The American people, I
think, would agree with it. So I want to make that clear.
The other thing I must say, the problem is not on the Democratic side
of the aisle alone. We have people over here who do not like this very
much either. So there is an equal grumbling about it. But as leaders
here, we are trying to find a way to get everybody just unhappy enough
that they do not like it but they will not object to it. And we are
about to get there. So give us that latitude, and I think we will get
an agreement that will work.

I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] is
recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I had the floor. I wanted----
Mr. KERRY. Does the Senator from Nevada yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] is
recognized.
Mr. KERRY. I wanted to ask my colleague how long he might be
proceeding and whether he thinks there might be time, since Senator
McCain and Senator Smith are here, for a quick interlude to act on an
amendment that has been agreed upon and restore the floor to the
Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. We should not be long. I have a few questions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] is
recognized.

Amendment No. 4052

Mr. REID. The first question I ask my friend from Minnesota is: Would
the Senator think it would be appropriate to modify this sense-of-the-
Senate resolution to provide for the opening of streets around the
Capitol, the House office buildings and Senate office buildings and the
arteries in and out of the Capitol?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams].
Mr. GRAMS. I wanted to remind the Senator from Nevada, last year I
did make that recommendation, talking about removing barriers as well
around the Senate office buildings that have been enclosed at the same
time as Pennsylvania Avenue, so I would have no objection to so move
and make those modifications to this amendment.
Mr. REID. So the Senator from Minnesota feels that the proper way to
determine security of the Capitol complex and the White House is on the
floor, without congressional hearings of any kind? Any kind of
hearings?
Mr. KYL. We do have hearings that are planned for the Government
Affairs Committee. The amendment has been cleared with Senator Stevens
and also the chairman of the D.C. Subcommittee, Senator Cohen. Both
have assured me that this amendment complements their efforts regarding
the reopening of Pennsylvania Avenue, and they plan to hold hearings
regarding this.
But I would also remind the Senator from Nevada that there were no
hearings, there were no consultations with anybody, when Pennsylvania
Avenue was closed because it was an imposed closure, only temporary,
and then that has evolved into a permanent closure. Now the only option
being offered is to keep it closed. We do not think that is correct
either. So we have asked this. Again, I remind the Senator from Nevada,
this is only a sense of the Senate to move ahead with this.
Mr. REID. I hope the American public, on this interchange between the
distinguished Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Nevada, would
not think this is how we do business all the time; that is, take
legislative action and then hold hearings later. It seems to me we
should reverse that order, hold the hearings and determine the
legislative action necessary.
I also hope there is no one of the opinion that, regarding the
security of the President and the visitors who come to the White House,
the people who work there, and this Capitol complex, any time the
Capitol police or Secret Service want to make a decision, they would
have to have congressional approval to do so. Knowing how slowly we
have moved on most things around here, there would not be much action
taken, especially if it involved the security of the President or
people around the Capitol complex.
I ask my friend from Minnesota another question, through the Chair to
the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. Would the Senator consider an
amendment to the resolution that, after the word ``people,'' which is
the last word in the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, we add the words,
``provided that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secret Service
certify that such a plan protects the security of those who live in and
work in the White House''?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. GRAMS. I have to apologize to the Senator from Nevada, I could
not hear him very well.
Mr. REID. I am sorry. After the word ``people'' there would be a
comma or semicolon and we would say ``provided that the Secretary of
the Treasury and the Secret Service certify that such a plan protects
the security of those who live in and work in the White House.''
Mr. GRAMS. No, I would not accept that as a substitute for the
amendment.
Mr. REID. The Senator would not.
Mr. GRAMS. No.
Mr. REID. Can this Senator direct another question to the Senator
from Minnesota and ask why?
Mr. GRAMS. Because, again, this is the same situation we are in now.
This decision was made arbitrarily by these individuals, and we feel
there should have been an open process.
In fact, there are laws on the books, I believe, that say before the
Federal Government can permanently close any street in the District of
Columbia, it has to have full consultation with the District and open
hearings for the public. That was never done as well.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I hope that the decisions that were made for
the President's security, whether that President be a Democrat or
Republican, or people who work in the White House, people who visit the
White House, people who are elected officials to serve in the Capitol
complex, in the House and the Senate, people who work here and visit
here, I hope that when there is something involving security as a
result of terrorist threats that are picked up through intelligence
efforts, that we certainly will not have to go through a congressional
review process as to whether or not they could close a road or walkway.
Mr. President, I move to table the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table the amendment.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this vote be
delayed until the hour of 2:15.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered. The vote will be delayed until the hour of 2:15.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain].
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Massachusetts is on
the floor. I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] is
recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote on the Grams amendment has been
postponed until 2:15, so the Senator may offer an amendment.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 4055

(Purpose: To provide for the Secretary of Defense to make payment to
Vietnamese personnel who infiltrated into North Vietnam to perform
covert operations as part of OPLAN 34A or its predecessor)

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of myself, Senator McCain, Bob Kerrey, Bob Smith, Larry Pressler, Chuck
Robb, Tom Daschle, and Pat Leahy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself,
Mr. McCain, Mr.

[[Page S6439]]

Kerrey, Mr. Smith, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Robb, Mr. Daschle, and
Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 4055.

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

At the end of subtitle E of title VI add the following:

SEC. 643. PAYMENT TO VIETNAMESE COMMANDOS CAPTURED AND
INTERNED BY NORTH VIETNAM.

(a) Payment Authorized.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
make a payment to any person who demonstrates that he or she
was captured and incarcerated by the Democratic Republic of
Vietnam after having entered into the territory of the
Democratic Republic of Vietnam pursuant to operations
conducted under OPLAN 34A or its predecessor.
(2) No payment may be made under this Section to any
individual who the Secretary of Defense determines, based on
the available evidence, served in the Peoples Army of Vietnam
or who provided active assistance to the Government of the
Democratic Republic of Vietnam during the period 1958 through
1975.
(3) In the case of a decedent who would have been eligible
for a payment under this section if the decedent had lived,
the payment shall be made to survivors of the decedent in the
order in which the survivors are listed, as follows:
(A) To the surviving spouse.
(B) If there is no surviving spouse, to the surviving
children (including natural children and adopted children) of
the decedent, in equal shares.
(b) Amount Payable.--The amount payable to or with respect
to a person under this section is $40,000.
(c) Time Limitations.--(1) In order to be eligible for
payment under this section, the claimant must file his or her
claim with the Secretary of Defense within 18 months of the
effective date of the regulations implementing this Section.
(2) Not later than 18 months after the Secretary receives a
claim for payment under this section----
(A) the claimant's eligibility for payment of the claim
under subsection (a) shall be determined; and
(B) if the claimant is determined eligible, the claim shall
be paid.
(d) Determination and Payment of Claims.--(1) Submission
and Determination of Claims. The Secretary of Defense shall
establish by regulation procedures whereby individuals may
submit claims for payment under this Section. Such
regulations shall be issued within 6 months of the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Payment of Claims. The Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the other affected agencies, may establish
guidelines for determining what constitutes adequate
documentation that an individual was captured and
incarcerated by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam after
having entered the territory of the Democratic Republic of
Vietnam pursuant to operations conducted under OPLAN 34A or
its predecessor.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the total amount
authorized to be appropriated under section 301, $20,000,000
is available for payments under this section. Notwithstanding
Sec. 301, that amount is authorized to be appropriated so as
to remain available until expended.
(f) Payment in Full Satisfaction of Claims Against United
States.--The acceptance of payment by an individual under
this section shall be in full satisfaction of all claims by
or on behalf of that individual against the United States
arising from operations under OPLAN 34A or its predecessor.
(g) Attorney Fees.--Notwithstanding any contract, the
representative of an individual may not receive, for services
rendered in connection with the claim of an individual under
this Section, more than 10 percent of a payment made under
this Section on such claim.
(h) No Right to Judicial Review.--All determinations by the
Secretary of Defense pursuant to this Section are final and
conclusive, notwithstanding any other provision of law.
Claimants under this program have no right to judicial
review, and such review is specifically precluded.
(i) Reports.--(1) No later than 24 months after the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
a report to the Congress on the payment of claims pursuant to
this section.
(2) No later than 42 months after the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit a final report to
the Congress on the payment of claims pursuant to this
section.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is an amendment that seeks to address
yet another painful chapter in the long legacy of painful chapters with
respect to Vietnam, and it specifically addresses what some might
characterize as our own form of a bureaucratic Phoenix Program that
sought to eliminate from existence a group of commandos who served
faithfully during the war under our organizational effort and command
effort.
This amendment would reimburse this group of commandos for their
years of incarceration in North Vietnamese prisons while they served in
the mutual cause with us in the war in Vietnam.
What the amendment seeks to do is to authorize $20 million for
payment to Vietnamese personnel who infiltrated into North Vietnam to
perform covert operations during the Vietnam era and who were captured
and incarcerated by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.
Under the amendment, a lump-sum payment of $40,000 would be provided
to each claimant determined eligible by the Secretary of Defense, and I
am pleased to say that the administration has worked very closely in
designing this amendment and in signing off on it and now fully
supports it, as do, I believe, the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.
Those of us who offer this amendment recognize that the United States
worked with many Southeast Asian forces during the Vietnam war, but our
intent here is to only single out for recognition the Vietnamese
commandos who participated in a specific program, in OPLAN 34A and its
predecessor, and who sought under that program to infiltrate into North
Vietnam, who were captured and who were incarcerated in the process.
In designing guidelines for proof of eligibility for payments under
this amendment, the Secretary of Defense is to take into account that
these claimants, because of the war and the incarceration, may not have
complete documentation proving eligibility. But it is our intent that
the standard of proof here be set low enough to do justice in this
situation.
Mr. President, 30 years ago, Vietnam presented us with a host of
questions and difficult contradictions, and now in this situation, we
find a new chapter that is a surprise for all of us. In many ways, this
chapter is old because we have always known through the centuries that
war is cruel. On the other hand, it is new because, as Americans, none
of us have ever expected that we would allow something to happen that
purposefully or inadvertently attacks or diminishes our own sense of
honor.
The truth is that we sent heroic Vietnamese commandos into North
Vietnam to do our bidding, risking their lives and even their families'
lives, and then we left them there, denied their existence, and walked
away leaving them to be imprisoned, tortured or killed.
So we are here today simply to right a wrong, to pay for an injustice
and to seek fairness and put this still another disturbing chapter
about Vietnam behind us.
These are the quick facts, and I will just run through them very,
very quickly.
In the early days of the war, the United States and South Vietnamese
Governments initiated a joint covert intelligence-gathering operation
against North Vietnam, and recruited were commandos from among
Vietnamese civilians and the Armed Forces of the Army of the Republic
of Vietnam.

The United States, through the CIA and later through the Defense
Department, provided training and funding, including salaries,
allowances, bonuses, and death benefits. Together, the United States
and South Vietnamese officials determined where and when the commandos,
who were organized into teams, would be infiltrated into North Vietnam.
Many were dropped by parachute, but some were inserted by land or sea.
Some also conducted counterintelligence activities against North
Vietnam and against Laos.
ARES, the first team, was inserted in early 1961. By the early
1970's, there were 52 teams comprising nearly 500 commandos who had
been inserted behind enemy lines. Initially, the mission was confined
to intelligence gathering, but subsequently it grew to include sabotage
and psychological warfare.
From the very beginning, Mr. President, it was clear that this
operation was a failure. Recently, declassified Defense Department
documents show that the teams were killed or captured very shortly
after landing and that the CIA and the Defense Department, which took
over the operation in early 1964, knew it at that time.
It is now apparent that the missions were compromised and that Hanoi
ran

[[Page S6440]]

a counterespionage operation against us and our South Vietnamese ally
by forcing our commandos to radio back the information that they,
Hanoi, wanted us to hear.
The preponderance of the evidence that has come to light in the last
year leaves little doubt that the United States Government at that time
continued to insert Vietnamese commandos behind enemy lines, knowing
full well that it was sending them on near impossible missions with
little chance of success.
The Defense Department then compounded this tragedy by writing off
the lost commandos as dead, apparently in order to avoid paying their
monthly salaries.
An example: A six-man team, called Attila, was dropped into Nghe An
province on April 25, 1964. The team was immediately captured. Two
months later on July 16, Radio Hanoi announced the names and addresses
of the six team members, the dates they were captured, and the start of
their trials.
Declassified Defense Department documents indicate that we knew the
team had been captured, but, nevertheless, by the beginning of 1965,
only months later, the Defense Department had declared the entire team
dead and paid small death benefits to their next of kin. The process of
declaring the commandos dead on paper was reaffirmed in 1969 by the
colonel in charge of the operations for MACSOG, the Military Assistance
Command Studies and Observations Group. He said:

We reduced the number of dead gradually by declaring so
many of them dead each month until we had written them all
off and removed them from the monthly payrolls.

So, Mr. President, after sending these men on these extraordinary
missions, after cutting off their pay, we then committed the most
egregious act of all. We made no effort to obtain their release, along
with the American POW's, during the peace negotiations in Paris. As a
result, many of these brave men, who fought alongside us for the same
cause, spent years in prison, more than 20 years in some cases.
After their release from prison in the 1970's or 1980's, a number of
the commandos made their way to the United States. They are now seeking
acknowledgement from our country for their service and payment from the
U.S. Government for their period of incarceration.
In a lawsuit, they have asked for $2,000 a year for an average of 20
years spent in captivity. We believe, those of us supporting this
amendment, that the United States owes these men a debt that can never
be repaid. We can at least give them the recognition that they deserve
and the small amount of compensation that they were promised three
decades ago.
Speaking for myself, I am not here, nor do I think any of us are
here, to try to point fingers at people individually, nor even to find
scapegoats or scalps. I do not think any purpose is served by that. But
we do want people to understand what happened 25, 30 years ago so that
it will not happen again. We are here also to do the right thing. It is
clearly important not to compound judgments that were wrong 25 and 30
years ago with judgments that are wrong today. It would be wrong to
avoid executing our responsibility today.
So, Mr. President, we can honor their service and make it clear to
those who might join us again at any time, now or in the future, in the
struggle for freedom and democracy, that we are big enough in our
country to admit mistakes when they are made and to move to rectify
them, and that while sometimes people may make mistakes, a great
country will always honor and thank those who fight with us in a common
cause.
Mr. President, I believe the amendment that we are offering today
will help to provide that recognition, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment requires the Secretary of
Defense to make payments to Vietnamese nationals who were trained and
commanded by the United States Government to fight behind enemy lines
during the war.
The amendment purposely creates a low standard of proof to be met by
the commandos, and it is our intention and hope that it be interpreted
liberally. All that those men must prove in order to receive payment
for their services is that: First, they entered North Vietnam during
the war under an operation called OPLAN 34A or its predecessor; and
second, they were captured and incarcerated by the Democratic Republic
of Vietnam as a result.

For approximately 7 years, beginning in 1961, the United States
apparently contracted with South Vietnamese nationals to conduct covert
military operations in North Vietnam. At first under the authority of
the CIA and later under the authority of the Defense Department,
hundreds of commandos were sent into North Vietnam, and more than 450
were killed or captured.
Those captured were convicted of treason and remained in captivity
until 1979, when they began to be released. At a minimum, each served
15 years at hard labor. Many of them suffered through more than 20
years of imprisonment.
A recently declassified study done in 1970 by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, which oversaw the commando program, indicates that the commandos
were funded by DOD and that the majority of them were captured alive
and taken prisoner by North Vietnam.
More recently, only weeks ago, 80 boxes of documents were discovered
in the National Archives related to the employment of these brave men.
These documents, 240,000 in total, include DOD payroll rosters for the
commandos and records of death gratuities.
To address this injustice, the amendment provides the commandos with
$20 million in back pay, approximately $40,000 each. As the Senator
from Massachusetts pointed out, this amounts to about $2,000 for each
year each commando spent in prison. We have chosen as the number of
commandos the outside estimate of 500. The cost may ultimately be as
low as $11 million, but because the number of eligible Vietnamese
veterans may increase as time goes by, we thought it important to give
the Secretary the spending authority to meet the contingency of more
claims.
The administration, until very recently, citing an 1875 Supreme Court
case, maintained that it had no obligation to these men because they
were employed under a secret contract. I am pleased to report, however,
the commandos now have the support of the administration. Senator Kerry
and I and Senator Smith, Senator Robb, and other Senators have worked
very closely with the administration in formulating this amendment.
The CIA began the program, but later turned it over to the Department
of Defense, at which time the numbers of teams and individuals sent
into North Vietnam approximately doubled. The late former CIA Director,
William Colby, who in 1961, as the chief of the Agency's Far Eastern
Division, was tasked with directing the commando program, indicated his
support for the commandos' claims and specifically endorsed a
legislative solution.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a letter from the current acting CIA Director, George Tenet, also
supporting a legislative solution to the problem, and in addition, a
letter to me from John F. Sommer, Jr., Executive Director of the
American Legion, and a letter to me from Paul A. Spera, Commander in
Chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Central Intelligence Agency,

Washington, DC, June 18, 1996.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the Director, I welcome the
opportunity to provide our views with respect to an amendment
to provide relief to those who have come to be called the
``Lost Commandos.''
This Administration supports an amendment recognizing the
hardships endured by those of the Lost Commandos who were
captured and incarcerated during the Vietnam War. Although
many of our Vietnamese allies suffered during and after the
war, the mission of these Commandos and the suffering they
have endured set them apart and make them uniquely deserving
of recognition. Whether or not the mission of these Commandos
was a mistake is not relevant to our moral obligations to
them now. The creed of the Central Intelligence Agency, then
as now, is to protect, defend, and compensate its assets for
the sometimes mortal risks they take on our behalf. That is
the

[[Page S6441]]

only credible position for a secret intelligence service to
take if it is to win and hold the loyalty of its assets. We
strongly believe that, in the case of these commandos, the
United States Government has a similar, morally based
obligation.
Congress, not the courts, is the proper forum for the
recognition of such an obligation. I must note that the
United States Government is currently the defendant in a
lawsuit brought by 281 persons claiming to be among these
Lost Commandos. Our position is that their claims are not
justiciable and in fact are in the wrong forum. Accordingly,
the Government has filed a Motion to Dismiss. Our Motion is
based in major part upon the principle, first enunciated in
Totten v. United States, that an intelligence service cannot
exist if its secret assets--actual or imagined--can sue it
publicly for money or benefits. That principle was upheld in
1988 in Vu Duc Guong v. United States, an earlier suit by an
individual claiming to be a Lost Commando.
The Totten principle is vital to the ability of this Agency
to obtain secrets, run assets, and conduct operations without
the threat of blackmail of public exposure through lawsuits
for money. Underlying that principle is the necessity that
CIA administer its assets fairly and fulfill its obligations
meticulously. This we do. I would be pleased to provide any
appropriate level of detail on this point in closed session.
Underlying the Totten principle as well is the recognition
that Congress, not the courts, has oversight responsibility
for the conduct of our operations.
I regret that I am unable to provide factual information in
an open session to assist in the preparing of an amendment.
Doing so, I am advised, could jeopardize the Totten principle
and impede the transfer of this issue from the courts to the
Congress, where it belongs. Let me repeat, however, that I am
pleased to support legislative relief for these brave,
deserving men. That relief will be more than a measure of
their suffering: It will be a measure as well of our
commitment to our former allies.
Sincerely,
George J. Tenet,
Acting Director.
____

The American Legion,

Washington, DC, June 19, 1996.
Hon. John McCain,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: The American Legion most certainly
supports the amendment to provide payments to former South
Vietnamese Commandos or their survivors. America's obligation
to the commandos, who were written off by our government,
must be fulfilled to recognize their honorable service, their
commitment to the principles of freedom and their personal
sacrifices.
History has shown that the wages of war go on long after
the guns are silenced, the treaties are signed and the
parades are over. This issue warrants serious reexamination
of America's national policy on service personnel who are
prisoners-of-war and missing-in-action. If our government
places young men and woman in harms way, it has a moral and
ethical obligation for the repatriation of each and every one
of them. Equally as important is the fact the families of
these military personnel must be cared for by a grateful
Nation.
The American Legion applauds the purpose of this amendment,
as it reflects a good-faith effort to recognize the
sacrifices of our former allies. However, nothing can erase
this terrible chapter of the Vietnam War. We trust there are
lessons learned from this travesty of justice.
Sincerely,
John F. Sommer, Jr.,
Executive Director.
____

Veterans of Foreign Wars

of the United States,

Washington, DC, June 19, 1996.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: I am writing in support of your
amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act seeking
back pay for Vietnamese commandos captured and interned by
the Vietnamese.
We believe, as you do, that these Vietnamese who performed
dangerous and covert operations as part of our secret war in
Indochina and who suffered as a consequence of these
operations should be recompensed for their service and
sacrifice.
For too long, these brave men, once declared dead by our
Government, lived in limbo, unrecognized for their
achievements and their hardships.
Now we find out that our own Government, knowing they were
in captivity, systematically wrote them off as dead in order
to avoid paying them their salaries. In good conscience, we
believe this was wrong and strongly support your amendment to
provide back pay to these brave men.
Please advise your colleagues in the Senate of our strong
support for the Kerry-McCain Amendment.
Sincerely,
Paul A. Spera,
Commander-in-Chief.

Mr. McCAIN. I point out, Mr. President, the amendment has the support
of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion.
All of the details and legalities aside, one thing is clear; these
men sacrificed for a cause, the same cause for which all veterans of
the Vietnam war sacrificed--a free Vietnam. And they suffered horribly
for their commitment. For many years United States immigration policy
has provided programs which ease the process for those Vietnamese
associated with the United States war effort. We do so because it is
our obligation to our wartime allies. All that the cosponsors of this
amendment are asking is that we similarly honor the full extent of our
obligations to the commandos and correct this gross injustice.
One of the commandos is quoted in Saturday's New York Times as
saying, ``They didn't want to remember us because we represent the
failure of the United States in Vietnam.'' I have always made the case
that as a nation, and as individuals, we must put the Vietnam war
behind us. To continue to deny the service of these men is not the way
to do it.
I also strongly subscribe to the words of President Reagan who said
it as succinctly and coherently as possible when he stated that: ``The
Vietnam veterans who served, served in a noble cause.'' I repeat, ``a
noble cause,'' as did these South Vietnamese commandos.
Mr. President, we send a bright signal by passing this legislation
today: The United States of America lives up to its agreements with its
friends because it is a nation of honor and a nation of laws.
Mr. President, I strongly urge the adoption of this amendment. I
yield the floor.
Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my colleagues
in cosponsoring this particular amendment. The case for support has
been eloquently stated by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts,
the distinguished Senator from Arizona, and could be made by others. I
will not repeat it.
I will simply say that what was done in the name of the United States
in the instance of these particular commandos is appalling and
unconscionable. This is clearly the right thing to do to atone for the
actions that were taken some time ago and without the knowledge of
apparently very many people in the Government at that particular time.
In any event, I applaud my colleagues for taking this particular
action.

Amendment No. 4052

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, while I have the floor for just one moment,
the last amendment that was debated, and on which the yeas and nays
have been ordered, and which was temporarily set aside for a vote at
2:15, I would like to just say--as I was prepared to say at that time,
but could not--that I am a cosponsor of that particular amendment. I
reiterate for my colleagues, particularly on this side of the aisle who
may not have heard the arguments, this is simply a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution which is attempting to deal with a very difficult problem
here in the Nation's Capital.
It does not direct the President or the Secretary of the Treasury or
the Secret Service to do anything. It is a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution that asks them, in effect, to work together to try to solve
the problem. I hope my colleagues will join in this case in opposing
the motion to table when we vote on it at 2:15.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, would the Senator from Virginia yield for a
question?
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, it is a sense of the
Senate that the President should direct, and lists a number of people.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I respond to my friend that it is a sense of
the Senate. We are simply expressing the sense of the Senate that that
is what we hope the President will do in that particular instance. It
is not statutory. It does not require that particular action.
I might also say, Mr. President, when the distinguished Senator from
Minnesota initially drafted the particular piece of legislation and
sent it to my

[[Page S6442]]

office, there was some language I felt could easily be interpreted as
partisan in nature. I did not think it was appropriate. I asked him if
he would be willing to make some concessions in that regard, which he
was kind enough to do, so we would approach it on a bipartisan basis
and attempt to deal with the problem in a way that involved the various
agencies of Government that have some responsibility for this
particular action.
Again, I agree wholeheartedly with my distinguished friend from
Nevada that the floor of the U.S. Senate is not the place to debate or
make a decision. This is simply a request to go through the kinds of
procedures that I think will lead to a proper decision.
More importantly, this is the best solution to this particular
problem. No one wants to place either the First Family of the United
States or others in particular jeopardy. I agree with the Senator from
Minnesota that any inclusion of some of the additional street closings
would also be appropriate for study and consideration.
I ask unanimous consent a letter from the president of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce be printed in the Record as part of that debate.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Chamber of Commerce of the

United States of America,

Washington, DC, June 19, 1996.
Members of the U.S. Senate: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce--
the world's largest business federation, representing 215,000
businesses, 3,000 state and local chambers of commerce, 1,200
trade and professional associations, and 76 American chambers
of commerce abroad--urges your support for Senator Rod Grams'
resolution calling for the reopening of Pennsylvania Avenue,
which will appear as an amendment to the Defense
Appropriations Bill for FY97.
A little over a year ago, Pennsylvania Avenue was closed
between 15th and 17th Streets. The U.S. Secret Service
requested this action be taken following the bombing of the
Murah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. At the time, it was
said to be a temporary measure. Interestingly, two former
presidents--Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter--have said the
closure was requested during their presidencies as well, but
was rejected. The National Park Service has since released a
plan to turn the ``temporarily'' closed portion of
Pennsylvania Avenue into part of Lafayette Park at a cost of
$45 million. The U.S. Chamber does not feel this is an
expense that should be spent on a ``temporary solution.''
Furthermore, an unfair burden of economic loss and traffic
congestion has been placed on the local residents of the park
and this city without appropriate consultation.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been a resident of
historic Lafayette Park since 1924. Now with H Street a main
east/west thoroughfare, the northern boundary of the park has
been damaged. This boundary is represented by historic
buildings such as the Decatur House, St Johns Church, the
Madison House, and the Hay-Adams Hotel.
The closure of Pennsylvania Avenue has taken away one of
the main symbols of democracy and American freedom. While the
President's safety is of the utmost importance, according to
security experts the closure of Pennsylvania Avenue does not
make the White House complex significantly more secure. It
will, however, result in having one of our symbols of freedom
and democracy become more distant from the people. We have
allowed fear to dictate our actions. Returning Pennsylvania
Avenue to the people will restore the freedom for which it
stands.
Now, with the June 28th deadline approaching for public
comment on the proposed closure, we must work together to
give Pennsylvania Avenue back to the people. We urge you to
support this amendment.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Lesher.

Amendment No. 4055

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, it is my understanding with respect to the
amendment before the Senate, there is no objection from either side.
The Senator from New Hampshire may wish to comment. If he does not, I
ask that the Senate proceed to take action on that amendment by voice
vote at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, is
recognized.
Mr. SMITH. There is no objection on this side, and we have no
objection to voice voting. I do have a few remarks I will make.
Subsequent to that, we can proceed to do that.
Prior to that, Mr. President, in regard to the previous unanimous
consent for a vote at 2:15, there are some Members who apparently are
tied up at a White House meeting. I ask unanimous consent that the vote
which was previously scheduled for 2:15 now occur at 2:30 today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Senator from
Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, the Senator from Nebraska, Senator
Kerrey, and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, in offering this
amendment. It is an amendment that needs to be offered. It is one of
those very painful chapters in American history that occasionally we
have to deal with. It is a great tribute, I think, to America that when
we find a wrong, that we do have the capacity to admit that wrong and
to right it.
Over 35 years ago, the United States Government asked the Republic of
Vietnam to provide some South Vietnamese military personnel for special
commando missions into North Vietnam. The best figures that we have,
and there is some variation here, but approximately 350 of these
commandos were trained by U.S. Government agencies.
They were inserted into North Vietnam by our military forces, and, as
has already been said, they were captured by the Communist forces and
forced to spend the next 20 to 30 years in reeducation camps. The term
``reeducation camp'' does not really, Mr. President, accurately define
what exactly these men went through. We know they were tortured. So
reeducation is hardly the correct word.
For the record, Mr. President, it is clear that these commandos knew
what they were doing. They knew they were taking great risks. Indeed,
many of their fellow comrades died during these very operations, and
some died after the missions while they were in North Vietnam. They
also knew what was at stake with the Communist aggression if we did not
contain the Communist aggression in Southeast Asia.
More importantly, the United States certainly was aware of the
dangers involved with these missions. That is why I believe a solemn
commitment was made to these commandos and their families that they
would be compensated for the sacrifices they made.

It is interesting, these Vietnamese worked for the CIA and the United
States military in, basically, a doomed effort to infiltrate North
Vietnam between 1961 and 1969. They were dropped behind enemy lines by
parachute. Some secretly swam ashore after being taken there in
speedboats, and then they were captured.
It is clear that as we stand here now, the United States has yet to
live up to that commitment that was made to these South Vietnamese
commandos in the 1960's. In point of fact, a cold and uncaring
bureaucracy was allowed to write these men off, literally, as dead
three decades ago, even though there was convincing evidence that many
had been captured. To put it bluntly, their families were told they
were dead when, in fact, they were alive.
It is a documented historical fact that in 1969, in then secret
testimony before the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a DOD official stated: ``We
reduced the number of commandos on the payroll gradually by declaring
so many of them dead each month until we had written them all off and
removed them from the monthly payroll.''
It is really bizarre to think these kinds of things do happen in our
Government, but, as I said earlier, the fact that we right these wrongs
is perhaps a better comment about what America is like. The families
were paid a very small token of death gratuity, and that was it.
Knowing these men were alive, the DOD official told the Joint Chiefs of
Staff that we were writing them off as dead, and the widows and
surviving family members were paid a small stipend and then informed
that these people were dead when, in fact, we knew they were not.

The majority of those men had put their lives on the line for the
United States' national interests. They were not Americans, but they
put their lives on the line for America, and they were shackled in
North Vietnamese prisons, and our Government knew it and our Government
never told the families.
The amendment that my colleagues are offering today, along with me,
will authorize back pay, very simply, for the men who participated in
these daring missions. It is a bit late, for sure, but it comes out to
about $2,000 per commando for each year spent in North Vietnamese
prisons. It is the least we can do.
I note as a comparison that our distinguished colleague from Arizona
and

[[Page S6443]]

many others who were captured by the North Vietnamese and imprisoned
and tortured, they received full pay, as they should have, during the
time they were in Communist activity. So there is certainly a well-
established precedent for this amendment. There is nothing dramatic
about it. It is just the right thing to do.
Let me also point out after a year of fighting this case in U.S.
claims court, the administration has decided that granting this back
pay to these commandos is the right thing to do. I think we should give
credit to National Security Adviser Tony Lake, because he has been very
supportive and very helpful in getting this done.
I think that the tragedy which befell these commandos was only made
worse by the initial attitude of the Justice Department and DOD and the
CIA in the claims court. Again, we had to drag them kicking and
screaming in to right the wrong, but the wrong is righted. I commend,
again, Tony Lake for reversing this attitude and coming out in support
of the amendment.
Finally, Mr. President, as we continue to seek answers about the fate
of our own missing American servicemen from the Vietnam war, I think it
is imperative for the administration to assure that each of these South
Vietnamese commandos has been interviewed for any information they
might possess on any missing American, dead or alive. This is very
important. Some of these men have been in prison in North Vietnam for
20 years. Who knows what they might know. They all should be debriefed
thoroughly. This would include making arrangements to speak to all of
them who are reportedly still in Vietnam awaiting approval for
departure to the United States.

Let me commend my colleagues, again, who served with me on the Senate
committee in 1992, including the Senator from Virginia, who is here on
the floor, for working with me on this amendment. We were all concerned
when we saw the news accounts, and we were all committed to doing
something about it. We reacted quickly. I am proud to be an original
cosponsor, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
Mr. President, I might say that there is no one on our side that I
know of who wishes to speak on the amendment. I yield to the Senator
from Virginia to move the amendment.
Mr. ROBB. I know of no one else who has requested an opportunity to
speak on this amendment. I, therefore, urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4055) was agreed to.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. ROBB. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, is
recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the order of business now before the
Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Grams amendment
has been postponed until 2:30.

Amendment No. 4052

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will give some general statements. We have
been called upon to vote on a motion to table at 2:30 today. There
being no other business here on the Senate floor, I will talk a little
bit about that amendment and the motion to table that sense-of-the-
Senate resolution.
Mr. President, it seems unusual to me that, with all the many
problems we have in America today--and there are significant problems--
such as minimum wage, problems dealing with health care reform,
significant problems dealing with the environment, we are here today
talking about a block of Pennsylvania Avenue.
The loudest complaints we hear about Pennsylvania Avenue being
blocked off for the security of the people that live in, work in, and
visit the White House, come from lobbyists. Most of the lobbyist
offices are downtown, on the 18th Street corridor, down that way. It
makes it difficult for them to travel back and forth. It is very
difficult for many of them to maneuver their limousines through some of
the small, closely packed District of Columbia streets with the big pot
holes. But that is not what we should be debating here.
We should be talking about whether or not, if someone has health
insurance and they leave a job, they can take it with them, or whether
or not someone who has a son or a daughter with a preexisting
condition, when they graduate from college, can they still get
insurance someplace, or someone is injured on a job and, for whatever
reason, loses that job and now wants to get insurance for them and
their family. Under present conditions, most times they cannot do that
because of preexisting condition restrictions that insurance companies
place on obtaining insurance. I have spoken to people in the insurance
industry. They are hoping that this is debated to a finality and that
there is a decision made.
So I hope the motion to table is agreed to. If it is not, there is
going to be a series of amendments offered to improve the amendment
that is now before the body.
Mr. President, in the break that we have had, I went back to the
cloakroom and received a call from the Secretary of the Treasury. The
Secretary of the Treasury, who is head of the Secret Service, wanted me
to inform the U.S. Senate--and these are his words, not mine--that ``It
is imperative that that street remain blocked off.''
We cannot be sending a message to terrorists around the world, or to
anyone else, that we are going to ease up on our security. I served for
several terms as chairman of the Legislative Branch Appropriations
Committee, where we funded the Capitol Police force. We had hearings on
their important duties and how they have changed as a result of
international terrorism.
Mr. President, we all know how weaponry has changed. No one now needs
to drive a tank next to the White House to blow it up, or on
Pennsylvania Avenue. You can have a vehicle loaded with plastic
explosives that would blow up the White House. This is an issue that we
should not be involved in.

It is difficult for me to understand, with all of the priorities we
have, how we can be debating for the people of Nevada whether or not a
block of Pennsylvania Avenue should be closed. What I would like to be
talking about is minimum wage, as an example. Minimum wage, as you
know, is not just for teenagers flipping hamburgers at McDonald's. The
fact of the matter is that 60 percent of the people who draw minimum
wage are women, and for 40 percent of those women, that is the only
money they get for their families. That is one of the issues we should
be talking about.
There is talk that the Treasury Department decision to close
Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House was nothing more than a
knee-jerk reaction to fear. Well, the fact is, it was done under very
strong consultation. And, also, Mr. President, what we have to
appreciate is that the Treasury Department came to Capitol Hill and
briefed the leadership of both the Senate and the House, the Republican
and Democratic leadership, and told them what they were going to do.
There was no objection from any of the leadership.
I also say that we have to understand that any Member of the U.S.
Senate can have a briefing. If they had a briefing, I am sure they
would be enlightened as to how little it takes to do a lot of damage.
For us to stand on the Senate floor and say, well, this resolution
really is only a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, it does not mean
anything, I respectfully suggest that it does mean something. The U.S.
Senate is going on record and saying it is the sense of the Senate that
the President should direct the Secret Service to develop a plan for
the permanent reopening of vehicular traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue in
front of the White House. That is about as direct as you can get and
about as assertive as you can get. I think it is wrong that we would
even consider doing something like that.
Mr. President, in fact, earlier this month, the directors of the U.S.
Secret Service stated, the Secret Service ``remains steadfast in its
belief that the threat to the White House complex by explosive-laden
vehicles is genuine, and that given an opportunity, an attack will
occur.''

[[Page S6444]]

That is about as direct as you can get, Mr. President. The Secret
Service ``remains steadfast in its belief that the threat to the White
House complex by explosive-laden vehicles is genuine, and that given
the opportunity, an attack will occur.'' That is not some kind of
bureaucratic jargon where you have to read between the lines. It is
direct and to the point.
The avenue in front of the White House should be closed to vehicular
traffic. The decision to close Pennsylvania Avenue was, in part, based
on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee of the White House
Security and Review, a nonpartisan distinguished panel of experts. The
committee was impaneled following several security incidents at the
White House, most notable being the air crash on the south grounds.
Do not forget, also, colleagues and Mr. President, that the White
House was sprayed with gunfire within the past year. Someone came to
the front of the White House and Pennsylvania Avenue and simply sprayed
the White House with gunfire. This was not a knee-jerk reaction. The
recommendation was based on a thorough technical analysis. Concerns
about the vulnerability of the White House were heightened by the truck
bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut--we all remember that--
and confirmed by the bombings of the World Trade Center in New York and
the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. It was only about 2 weeks
after the White House was closed and Pennsylvania Avenue was closed to
vehicular traffic that the Federal building in Oklahoma City was
destroyed and 140 people were killed.

So we have heard it from the head of the Secret Service. We have
heard it from the Secretary of the Treasury, and his words I repeat.
``It is imperative that the area be closed.''
On this defense bill we are dealing with billions and billions of
dollars of taxpayers' money that will be spent during this next year
for the security of this Nation, and hopefully the peace and security
of the rest of the world--very important, weighty issues. I personally,
respectfully suggest that our talking about a block of Pennsylvania
Avenue closed to vehicular traffic that has caused some inconvenience
to lobbyists and some of the people trying to get home at night should
not be what we are spending our time about here. I believe we should be
talking about doing a better job of balancing the budget. I think we
should be talking about doing something about the delivery of health
care to the people across America. I think we should be talking about
doing something to make sure that we have clean air and clean water,
and that our cities are areas where there is job growth rather than job
drought. We talk about the drought happening all across the United
States. We have had a drought of jobs. We need to get involved.
I do not think we should be worrying about Pennsylvania Avenue. I
think we should leave that to the experts. I do not believe we should
be micromanaging what the Secret Service says.
The general scheme of things, it seems to me, is that we should not
be concerned about a block of sidewalk when we should be talking about
minimum wage, welfare reform, and health care reform. We could come on
the Senate floor and talk about some of the good things that are
happening. There are good things happening, too. It is not all bleak.
It will be the fourth year in a row where we have had declining
deficits--not declining enough in my mind and in the minds of others.
But for the fourth year in a row, we have had declining deficits.
For the first time since the Civil War years, we have had 4 years in
a row of declining deficits, and the lowest unemployment and the lowest
inflation in some 40 years. Job creation: Over 9 million jobs, and 60
percent of them are high-wage jobs. We are doing some good things. We
should be talking about that rather than the sidewalk in front of the
White House that is the travel route for the lobbyists in their
limousines.
If I thought in good faith that we are going to have a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution directing the President to open Pennsylvania Avenue
to vehicular traffic, should we not at least say that we should be
letting the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secret Service tell us
that it protects the people who live in the White House and who work in
the White House?
We have problems with welfare. If there is an issue that the people
in Nevada would like to hear some conversation about here on the Senate
floor, it should be welfare reform. I cannot guarantee the viewing
audience much, but I can guarantee that the viewing audience would
rather we were talking about welfare reform than whether or not the
street in front of the White House is closed.

What about Medicare? We know that Medicare is something that we
should be talking about here. And Medicaid we need to talk about.
So I hope that my colleagues will see this sense-of-the-Senate
resolution for what I respectfully suggest it is. It is something that
we should not be involved in. Whether or not the White House is secure
or not cannot be decided here on the Senate floor.
I heard an astounding remark from the question I asked of my
colleague. ``Well, we are going to hold hearings later.'' Well, I have
served in legislative bodies for many years in my life. I believe we
should hold the hearings first and then do our voting later. There are
ways we can determine if, in fact, the vehicular traffic in front of
the White House should be cut out.
On this east front of the Capitol of the United States, when the
Presiding Officer and I came to Washington, as you will remember, this
was a parking lot. Hundreds and hundreds of cars were parked out here.
Because of security threats, those cars were eliminated.
What are we going to do out here? We are going to build a beautiful
mall. We are going to have a visitors center where people who come and
want to visit the Capitol do not have to do it in the blaring sun with
the humidity of the summertime in Washington or the terrible winters we
have here on occasion. But we will have a visitors center where people
can come in out of the elements and come in order into the Capitol, one
of the most sought after places in America. That is the same thing they
are basically going to do at the White House. As indicated, there are
institutions which are now studying the best way to do that.
Mr. President, I hope when this matter is voted on at 2:30 that my
colleagues will support the motion to table. This should not be a
partisan issue. The security of the White House and the Capitol complex
should not be a part of this issue. We should, on a bipartisan basis,
vote to table this sense-of-the-Senate resolution, which I think is
ill-placed, ill-timed, and really something that we should not be
debating here. I believe this is something that should be done in the
security offices throughout this Government. I think the two
intelligence committees of the House and Senate can give us all the
vision as to why it is important that we have security.
I think on this defense bill we should get to the many issues that
are now going to take up days of our time. The ranking member of the
full committee indicated in the meetings that we had yesterday that we
are going to have a very hard time with the schedule that is now before
us to complete this bill next week. I am paraphrasing what he said. But
it is going to be almost impossible to finish this bill within the next
day or two.
So, Mr. President, I hope that we will join together, join hands and
table this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. If we do not, then the
Senator from Nevada--and I am sure others--will offer amendments to, in
effect, not let the U.S. Senate micromanage what the Secret Service and
the Capitol Police do, and put us back in the business we should be
in--and that is legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I just want to take a couple minutes to
talk a little bit about the pending vote coming up and that is on the
question of Pennsylvania Avenue. I know and I agree with my colleague
from Nevada that there are many, many important issues before the
Senate and that we could debate them if we had the opportunity. Many of
those issues have been brought to the floor, and we have never had the
opportunity to debate those. But that does not take away from the
question that we have at hand, or the issue that we are facing.

[[Page S6445]]

I know there is a concern about whether there has been hearings held
or whether we should wait for hearings. I should like to remind my
colleague from Nevada and others that the House has already held an
entire day of hearings, having witnesses from all sides of this issue.
And what came out of those hearings already was an overwhelming support
for this amendment, and that is just to ask the President to reopen
Pennsylvania Avenue.
Now, the committee chairman in the Senate has also said that he plans
on holding hearings, and he has told me that this sense-of-the-Senate
resolution is complementary to what he plans to do in holding these
hearings. So this sense-of-the-Senate by no means is going to interfere
with gathering more information and being able to listen to the public
and get an idea of their feelings.
By the way, we have a web page on the Worldwide Web asking the people
from around the country. The Senator from Nevada says the people in
Nevada are not that concerned about this, but they should be. On our
Worldwide Web, over 3,100 people have contacted our web page in just
over 2 weeks, and the overwhelming number, nearly 85 percent--this is
people from around the country, not just the nearly 100 percent of the
residents in this area--want this street reopened but for many reasons.
The people around the country see the same concern, that you cannot put
a wall around freedom; you cannot give in to the terrorists by erecting
walls in front of the White House.
Now, the question was raised about whether we should or not. I do not
think alternatives have been fully explored. And we talk about closing
off Pennsylvania Avenue, that it would eliminate some of the problems
that have already happened, such as snipers and a plane crashing into
the south lawn of the White House. Closing Pennsylvania Avenue would
have done nothing to prevent that type of activity.
When you talk about whose opinion is this, this is not only my
opinion or the opinion of many others as well, but two former residents
of the White House have come out in support of reopening Pennsylvania
Avenue. Former President Jimmy Carter said closing the avenue was a
mistake. Every President since John F. Kennedy has been given the same
briefings by the Secret Service with their same reasoning for closing
off Pennsylvania Avenue, to provide more protection to the President,
but each one of those Presidents--John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson,
Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush--
has said no, after hearing those same briefings from the same Secret
Service with those same reasons. They have all said not on my watch, we
are not closing what Thomas Jefferson called America's Main Street.

Now, this is not Tiananmen Square. Is not Red Square. We cannot wait
for the Park Service to put in $40 million worth of mall before we make
some kind of a decision, or at least ask the President to reconsider.
Are we going to spend $40 million, are we going to allow the Park
Service to railroad this through, to impose this edict as they have not
only on the District of Columbia but the entire country as well and we
are going to stand back and say, well, go ahead, spend $40 million and
make a park out of this and then what, tear it up? There are a lot of
things that are done when you have a bureaucracy with a right hand that
does not know what the left hand is doing.
I just think this is not out of order. I think this is complementary
to the process that is going forward, that we should at least ask the
President and the Secret Service and the Treasury to open hearings on
this to the public. Let the public voice their concerns. They have not
done that. The only comments they are taking now are, what kind of park
do you want? That is not a very good alternative.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GRAMS. Yes.
Mr. FORD. On the Worldwide Web the Senator is talking about, that you
got 1,300 responses, and so forth, did they respond to your explanation
of Pennsylvania Avenue or were they responding to the Secret Service's
explanation of closing it?
Mr. GRAMS. We have posed the question of what has happened and what
can be done, and their response has been by 83.9 percent to reopen
Pennsylvania Avenue.
Mr. FORD. So, Mr. President it has been the response of what you put
on the web not what the Secret Service put on the web and therefore is
a political grandstand.
Mr. GRAMS. No, Mr. President, it is not. The only response that the
Park Service is taking is something they believe is their grandstand,
and that is to say, what kind of park do you want? They are not opening
their web page. They are not opening their comment period to any
individual to voice their opinion, only to comment on the Park Service
opinion.
Now, I do not think that is very democratic. I do not think that is
an open process. In other words, I think the decision has been made on
their part and they are going to drive it no matter what it takes. They
are not asking people whether it should be opened or reopened. They are
just saying, well, we are going to do this and what color do you want
it.
I do not think that is fair either. All we are asking is to give this
some open air. Let the people decide. Have some public input. In fact,
that is the way the process should have worked. And the only reason
people allowed the street to be closed to begin with without raising an
uproar is because it was posed to them as a temporary closure of
Pennsylvania Avenue in the wake of Oklahoma City, and then they were
going to determine what would be the best course of action in the
future.
Well, there have been no talks. There has been no discussion, no
public hearings or anything. So I am not trying to say that the Secret
Service is not well intended, and they are taking this job of theirs
very seriously. But again, they have used the same arguments for the
last 35 years and not one President in that period of time has taken
those arguments and said, yes, I need this additional security to
protect myself.

I think they provide adequate security for the President. I think
they have done a great job. I think right now this President decided
that he would listen to the arguments, and that is fine--on a temporary
basis. But we should have an opportunity, before it is permanently
closed and before this is done, for the people to have a chance to make
that decision. Again, the decision to close it a year ago might have
been prudent, on a temporary basis, until we could stand back, look at
it, look at the alternatives to see how we can, first and foremost,
keep the avenue open and then provide absolute security.
Closing Pennsylvania Avenue is not going to remove 100 percent of the
risks. This is a democracy. We have risks every day. And there are
many, many other opportunities. This is a President who likes to jog up
and down The Mall. He wants to be near the public. I do not know why
closing Pennsylvania Avenue is the only alternative.
So I urge my colleagues when they come to the floor to at least
consider that. Give democracy a chance to work a little bit. Get some
input and have hearings. And I think if you listened to the hearings
that were held in the House just last week, all the comments that were
made, the vast, vast majority of the people who were there supported
reopening Pennsylvania Avenue.
Now, you might say, well, it does not matter much here, and the
people in Nevada might not care, but I would pose it, in my city of
Minneapolis-St. Paul, if we would close one of our major streets such
as Hennepin Avenue, what would that do to the downtown. I think you
would have a lot of complaints. And in Las Vegas, if you closed off the
strip because of possible dangers to some of the people there, I do not
think you would be able to go for a couple minutes without hearing an
outcry from the businesses and public in general.
So to impose this on a main street, America's main street, and a
vital artery in one of the major cities in the world and to say it will
have no impact, I do not think is logical.
Again, I urge my colleagues when they come to the floor to take that
into consideration, and I hope they vote to override the motion to
table and give us a chance to have a vote on this.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

[[Page S6446]]

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Las Vegas Strip, as important as it is,
is not the center of Government of this country. The White House and
the Capitol complex is. I would also say to people within the sound of
my voice, in the statement of Director Bowron of the U.S. Secret
Service, about a week ago, June 7, in a House committee he testified:

The Secret Service also identified a need to quantify the
vulnerability of the complex to explosive detonations outside
the perimeter. Southwest Research Institute, one of the
oldest and largest independent, nonprofit research
organizations in the United States, was selected to conduct
this classified study. Their methodology involved obtaining
structural data on the White House and selecting likely
explosive detonation points on the streets surrounding the
complex.

The Director went on to explain how you can use fertilizer to blow up
huge buildings, like they did the building in Oklahoma City. He went on
to say:

The Secret Service is committed to the use of technology in
furtherance of our protective and investigative missions.
Alternatives to closing Pennsylvania Avenue were examined
without success.

It is not that they walked in and said, ``We are going to close
Pennsylvania Avenue.'' The President did not want Pennsylvania Avenue
closed. He told me and told many others that. The advisory committee
required full explanations of all the possible options and why the
options would not work before they concurred that the avenue should be
closed. The panel had concluded that the closing was justified, even
before the bombing in Oklahoma City. Their decision was made before
that bombing. It was not a knee-jerk reaction to Oklahoma City. The
bombing occurred after Pennsylvania Avenue was closed--I should say a
portion of it. The Director went on to say:

Although specific intelligence information cannot be
discussed in an open forum, it is known that members of
certain foreign and domestic terrorist groups operate within
the United States. Those terrorist and extremist groups have
demonstrated a propensity for mounting their attacks to
coincide with symbolic dates or at symbolic targets. The
White House is one of the most symbolic targets in the United
States. There is every reason to believe that given the
opportunity, these groups will strike. This matter does not
only concern the protection of the President and other
government officials and a national landmark--it is a
tremendous public safety issue with respect to individuals in
and around the complex. Devices similar to those used at the
World Trade Center and in Oklahoma City can cause destruction
as much as five blocks away from the target. The fact of the
matter is--the people who would undertake that type of act
are present in this country. The means and ability to carry
out this type of act are available. The only thing that is
preventing the terrorist or extremist from mounting an attack
is the lack of access. If you open Pennsylvania Avenue--they
can, and at some point, they will destroy the White House.

If we have people around the country who are burning churches, do you
think there is not someone going to try to blow up the White House?
They have already tried to blow up the White House. We know that. We
talk about our Government being open and free. You still have access to
the White House. You just do not have the traffic jam in front of it,
mostly taxicabs and lobbyists. That is all you eliminate. And you make
it inconvenient because some of the other streets are a little more
crowded.
But this is going to make the White House, in the opinion of most,
better. It is going to be a nice mall, park out there. The Park Service
is working on it now. Just the same as we are going to do out here at
the east front of the Capitol. We are going to remove the asphalt. We
are trying to raise the money. It is a private-public partnership.
I just have to say access to the White House is not harmed in any
way. I spoke to Secretary Rubin within the past hour. These are his
words, not mine: ``It is an imperative that that short piece of
Pennsylvania Avenue be closed.'' What are we doing here today? We are
being asked to vote to open Pennsylvania Avenue without a congressional
hearing. Remember, the Secret Service, the Treasury Department came up
here and briefed us all, they briefed all the leadership, Republican
and Democrat, House, Senate, said they were going to close it. There
was not a single objection.
Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Kentucky is
recognized.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this amendment bothers me and many of my
colleagues very much. As my friend from Nevada has said, we were
briefed. After that briefing, there was no objection whatsoever. Now we
want, without any other consideration--many of us not having had the
opportunity to hear the briefing--to vote to open up Pennsylvania
Avenue. I think it has been important that, in the years that I have
been here and when we have had to make hard decisions, we err on the
side of safety. I do not want any of those living or working in the
White House to be exposed.
There are a lot of things the Secret Service has told us that cannot
be public. The Senator from Minnesota knows that. He will not reveal
that because he cannot. One of the reasons that Pennsylvania Avenue was
closed was because of that unavailable information.
If you want to take the blood on your hands and say, ``We want to
open up that 800 feet of pavement up there,'' and something occurs
after that, then you are not going to do it with my vote. I want the
safety of the First Family. I want the lives of those people who work
there day and night to be as safe as possible.
I do not understand what is going on here. I really do not understand
it. Oh, I can go back in history. I can quote Henry Clay. I can do lots
of things. But today is today, not history. Today we have the problems.
Today we have terrorists operating in this country. They will tell you
that much. I have been there when we had to put out agents in many of
the ports, waterways, and airways to check on people departing other
parts of the world.
To say we want to take an opportunity here this afternoon to possibly
eliminate the safety of the First Family? If President Bush had been
reelected and he made this decision, the Senator from Minnesota would
not be standing. He would not be standing making this effort today. It
is because another President is in the White House he is making this
decision. This is grandstanding.

I read the articles in Minnesota. They say he is more interested in
800 feet of pavement in Washington, DC, than he is the big issues of
Minnesota. That is in his papers. I just paraphrase it. But why do we
want to possibly jeopardize the lives of the people that are running
this country? That is No. 1. I suspect, if those people who had
answered him on the web had the ability to listen to the Secret Service
and their briefing of the leadership of this Senate, they would change
their minds. So I encourage my colleagues not to vote for this. Let us
have another briefing. Let us try to do the right thing. Let us not
expose people, particularly the President and his family and those who
have the responsibility of leading this country.
So, Mr. President, I am hopeful the Senator will be kind enough to
withdraw this amendment and let us sit down and try to understand the
problems that are there. You cannot tell the American people all the
problems that were given to us by the Secret Service. There are a lot
of things you just do not do. And the decision was made based on that.
I am one who believes, after you weigh the facts, you err on the side
of safety. So I believe the right vote here today is to table the
amendment of the Senator from Minnesota and let us have an opportunity,
if there is a need for it, to have more scrutiny, more input, and do
the right thing.
I was there yesterday afternoon, along with leadership from both
sides.
I did not see anybody protesting. I did not see anybody walking up
and down Pennsylvania Avenue with signs saying, ``Open this street.'' I
saw people enjoying it, walking back and forth across the street,
looking at the White House, not being interfered with at all, did not
have to worry about the traffic, were enjoying the park. I thought it
was a right congenial group. There was no one there protesting the
closing of Pennsylvania Avenue, and they were there from all across
this great land of ours and foreign countries.
So, Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to table this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of 2:30 p.m. having arrived, by
previous agreement, the motion to table the Grams amendment is subject
to a vote. The yeas and nays have been ordered.

[[Page S6447]]

The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the
Grams amendment. Those in favor of tabling the Grams amendment will
vote ``aye; those opposed will vote ``no.'' The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato]
is necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 59, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 161 Leg.]

YEAS--39

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Daschle
DeWine
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Kassebaum
Kennedy
Kohl
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--59

Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Coverdell
Craig
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Faircloth
Frahm
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnston
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kerry
Kyl
Leahy
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Pressler
Robb
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond

NOT VOTING--2

Bumpers
D'Amato

The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 4052) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Grams amendment is still the pending
business before the Senate.

Amendment No. 4056 to Amendment No. 4052

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

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], proposes an amendment
numbered 4056 to amendment 4052.
At the end of the amendment add the following: ``Provided,
That the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secret Service
certify that the plan protects the security of the people who
live and work in the White House.''

Mr. REID. Mr. President, this amendment to the sense-of-the-Senate
resolution now pending would state simply that prior to opening the
street to vehicular traffic, the Secretary of the Treasury and the
Secret Service would certify that the plan protects the security of the
people who live and work in the White House.
It seems to me if we are not willing to adopt this amendment, then
this body will go on record saying that there should be vehicular
traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House, whether the
people who live and work there are safe or not. I do not think we
should go on record stating that.
As I indicated, Mr. President, the record is clear that the Secret
Service is very concerned about opening this avenue in front of the
White House. The Secret Service has said closing the avenue was not a
unilateral Secret Service decision, but rather was the recommendation
of the Advisory Committee to the White House Security Review, a
nonpartisan distinguished panel of experts. This committee included
former directors of both the FBI and the CIA, former chairmen of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and others. The proposal to close the avenue was
made before the Oklahoma City bombing. The panel had concluded, prior
to Oklahoma City, that closing of the avenue was, indeed, justified.
Historically, people focus on security features after significant
events. For example, ValuJet Airlines. Now we hear a lot about oxygen
canisters in cargo holds. It is better we do something before. That is,
in effect, what we did at the White House. The Treasury Department
said, as previously stated on the record here, that there are
terrorists who simply are waiting around for an opportunity to blow up
the symbol of the American people.
Mr. President, during the last vote, some people told me, ``Well,
people can walk in and blow up the White House.'' Not true. We are told
that you need the trunk of a car to put the explosives in. You cannot
put enough explosives on a bicycle or on the back of a skateboard or
whatever gets in there now. You need a vehicle. You need access to a
large area to blow up the White House. But if you did have the trunk
full of explosives, and they simply pulled up in front on Pennsylvania
Avenue, you would damage and destroy the White House.
What this amendment does is ask the Secret Service to certify that
the plan protects the security of the people who live in and work in
the White House. That does not seem like that is too outlandish. There
have been many alternatives considered and suggested, but the options
have simply been deemed unworkable. The panel required full explanation
of all possible alternatives and why these would not work before
concurring to close the avenue. Closing the avenue was something that
was done as a last resort. In addition, physical barriers such as walls
and berms were not viable for a number of obvious reasons.
Mr. President, in the last 4 years, studies have revealed that 45
percent of terrorist incidents have included the use of explosives.
What greater symbol is there in the United States than the White House?
I guess the second greatest symbol would be the Capitol complex here.
For terrorists, vengeance is a motive, and the White House is a
symbolic target.
The means are available to attack the White House if the avenue
remains open. It does not have to be a sophisticated apparatus. An
abundance of explosive materials is available to the public with an
ease of delivery and destruction of a target. You need a vehicle to do
it. In fact, the World Trade Center conspirators were convicted of
conspiracy to blow up symbolic targets. Not only the World Trade
Center, which they blew up, but the Holland Tunnel and the FBI office
in New York.
To illustrate the effect of an incident to the American people, 33
years after President Kennedy was assassinated, this country continues
to deal with the ramifications from that incident. It is impossible to
have a public debate on the issues prior to the closure of the avenue.
This would have created a window of opportunity. Therefore, the
information was held to a small group of people. In fact, since closure
of Pennsylvania Avenue, more information is available than the Secret
Service would like with respect to the vulnerability of the White
House.
In recent years, other official residences of heads of State have
closed off vehicular traffic in proximity to their facilities. We know
that canines remain the best source of explosive detection. We are not
talking about a perceived threat, Mr. President. The threat is a real
threat. I repeat again, the Secretary of the Treasury said within the
last hour and a half that it is imperative that area remain blocked
off.
There are terrorists here in this country, and it is everyone's
responsibility to limit the opportunity for them to carry out their
evil acts. The closing of Pennsylvania Avenue contains a real public
safety issue. If you provide access to the target, then you are
endangering the public and both those who work in and around the White
House.
Mr. President, I do not think we should consider this giving in to
terrorists because we blocked off Pennsylvania Avenue.
I do not think we should consider it a victory for terrorists because
we have closed off Pennsylvania Avenue. Rolling up the White House
would be a victory for the terrorists, not limiting their access to it.
If this is perceived as giving in to terrorism, then what about people
at night when they lock their doors before they go to sleep? Are they
giving into the unlawful elements of our society? When you leave your
home to go shopping or go to work and you lock your door, are you
giving in to the unlawful elements of your community?
I think, Mr. President, that we should not allow the sense-of-the-
Senate resolution to be adopted, unless we put this simple amendment on
it, saying let us at least have the Secret Service certify that it is
safe, whatever

[[Page S6448]]

plan we come up with, whether it is vehicular traffic or otherwise.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I want to back the statement of the Senator
from Nevada. There has been no committee hearing on this. This bill is
pending before the Governmental Affairs Committee. We have not had the
hearing, we have not had the Secret Service people up, and we have not
had testimony on what the danger is. Much of it, as I understand it, is
classified. So we can have closed hearings, and everybody would know
then what we are doing.
If we want to be this cavalier about how we are treating people at
the White House, let us take all the flower pots out that protect the
Capitol here, which prevent vehicular traffic here; let us take them
out. I was amazed to find out that L'Enfant and George Washington did
not somehow think it was nice to have a Capitol like this. But George
Washington and L'Enfant did not have to deal with things like the
Oklahoma bombing, the Unabomber, and everything else.
We have not had the first hearing on this, and here we are voting to
take this off from in front of the White House after danger has been
assessed, and it is done by a bipartisan group--Coleman and Webster
were both on that. We are so cavalier about the White House, why do we
not include this and have a second-degree amendment and take off all
the protection all over the Nation's Capital, including at the Capitol
right here--if we are so brave about this. Let people pull their vans
up beside the Russell Building, which is blocked off, and behind the
Hart Building, where my office happens to be.
We have very good reasons for thinking some of these protections are
necessary and so does the White House. I think this vote was
ridiculous. If we are going to take it off at the White House, take it
off here and let us face the same danger together. Otherwise, let us
agree with the people that have made this assessment, who were on this
review committee, and say, yes, we need to assess this very carefully.
We are about to do, with legislation, here what we should not be doing
unless we have a very thorough hearing and understanding of the White
House personnel.
Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the measure of the
Senator from Nevada. I would like to put it in a certain context. The
first thing to know, if we are talking about our original plans, is
that the L'Enfant plan connects what was termed the ``Congress' House''
with the ``President's House,'' at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
It is the center of the plan. It is in a sense a diagram of the
Constitution--the separation of powers in a unified Government.
Pennsylvania Avenue, in that original plan, comes to the Capitol
Grounds, stops at the west end, and then resumes at the east end. That
is the present arrangement on Capitol Hill. The identical arrangement
was to be found at the west end of the avenue. The avenue moved up to
the Presidential grounds, then stopped and resumed further west. That
was before the Treasury Building was built, and before any roads were
built. The city, at that point, was still very much a marshland, with
this magnificent plan still to be realized.
I have been working for 35 years on the redevelopment of Pennsylvania
Avenue, from the time President Kennedy, in his inaugural parade,
looked to his left and to his right, south and north, at the avenue and
found it was being abandoned. The center of the city, as the center of
many cities, was just falling down. The city was moving out Wisconsin
Avenue, out Connecticut Avenue. The Federal triangle was unfinished on
the south side, which had begun under Andrew Mellon and President
Hoover, following the McMillan plan of 1900, which gave us Union
Station. It got the railroads off The Mall, for example. To the north,
the Avenue was all but abandoned--two- and three-story buildings were
empty, except for the occasional storefront selling firecrackers.
President Kennedy proposed redevelopment of the avenue. A commission
was established. Nathaniel Owings was Chairman. Presidents Johnson,
Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and now President Clinton, have
worked on it with great care. We are just about completed. The Ronald
Reagan Building, now three-quarters completed, will finish the Federal
triangle. That site, sir, was cleared in 1928. So you cannot say we
have been in any great rush to do this. And now just as we finish the
route to the White House, we have this security problem.
I say to my friend from Nevada that President Clinton did a fine
thing in establishing a committee headed by Roger Kennedy, who is the
Director of the Park Service, an architectural historian of great
talent. His works are incomparably intelligent. Orders From France, is
but one example.
The committee has come up with a plan, which would extend the park
northward in the manner envisioned by L'Enfant. But it need not be a
barrier to the movement of people and vehicles along the avenue. An
underpass could be completed that would serve this purpose. It is just
so important that we not define ourselves as a beleaguered, besieged
nation. Suggestion has been made by the ranking member of the
Governmental Affairs Committee, the distinguished Senator from Ohio,
that we get rid of the pots and barriers around the Capitol. Fine. We
could extend the Capitol park down the western side of the Russell
Office Building, add to that whole park complex, do everything that is
desired, without putting up what look like emergency barriers.

That is not the message we want to send to ourselves and to the
world. We can also do what is necessary for security at the White House
without declaring us to be a nation under siege. We are not, and we
should not say so. We are the most powerful nation on Earth. With
equanimity and care we can take care of these difficulties. I hope we
do.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Before the Senator leaves the floor, Mr. President, through
you to the distinguished Senator from New York, I want the Record to be
spread with the fact that because of his diligent work--I do not know
of anyone who is more responsible for driving down Pennsylvania Avenue
today and seeing beautiful buildings and structures. The Pennsylvania
Avenue Development Corporation in itself was a work of art.
One of the first things I did upon coming here on the Appropriations
Committee was sit in on occasion for the distinguished senior Senator
from West Virginia and conduct those hearings on the Pennsylvania
Avenue Development Corporation and listen to the enthusiasm of the
people on that corporation and what they were going to do. Now you
drive down the street, and it has been done.
I further want the Record to be spread with the fact that I serve on
the Public Works Committee with the distinguished senior Senator from
New York. I can remember when we legislated a building on that ugly
Federal triangle, a blank piece of dirt that was there. Now you drive
by there and you see the thriving work that is there and that building
which will add to the beauty of our Nation's Capital.
So I appreciate the Senator and what the Senator from New York said.
But I also want to make sure to say some things that the Senator could
not say for himself. But for him, we may still be where we were when
President Kennedy had his inaugural parade. It is a beautiful parkway.
I also will read something that I think the Senator from New York
would agree with. This is from a tour magazine which people get when
they come to the Nation's Capital. L'Enfant had hoped that the grass
``* * * would serve as an extension of the White House grounds.''
So the original vision of L'Enfant was to have that whole area as an
additional containment of the White House. Jefferson decided that was
not the thing to do at the time.
But I just want to make sure that the Senator from New York knows and
appreciates that the people will know, when the history books are
written, about the work which he has done to make this city beautiful
as the Nation's Capital.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am very grateful to the Senator from
Nevada.

[[Page S6449]]

Might I close with just one line? In President Kennedy's proposal for
the redevelopment of Pennsylvania Avenue, which we are talking about,
he said the avenue ``should be lively, friendly, and inviting, as well
as dignified and impressive.''
I think we can achieve that in the immediate environs of the White
House. It is just the next challenge. Let us go forward and do it in
good spirit and unity.
I thank again the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator from
Nevada has a second-degree amendment now pending. Is that correct?
Mr. REID. Yes. I received word, I say to my friend, the ranking
member, from one of the managers of this bill. I understand from what
the note said that they will accept the amendment.
Mr. NUNN. I believe we are willing to accept the amendment on both
sides who favor the original amendment. So I would suggest that the
Senator might call the question on this amendment, and we can move on.
I hope on Senator Bingaman's amendment on ASAT, we can get a time
agreement, if that is satisfactory to the Senator from South Carolina.
Then it is my understanding that Senator Murray has an amendment on
abortion in overseas hospitals. If we can get a time agreement on both
of those, I believe we can move both of those along in the next couple
of hours. I would like Senator Bingaman to be notified that we are
prepared to take up his amendment on ASAT and also enter into a time
agreement that is satisfactory to him.
Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, as the Senator from Georgia just indicated,
those of us who are cosponsoring the amendment are entirely prepared to
accept the language proposed by the distinguished Senator from Nevada.
Indeed, the language is entirely consistent with the intent of the
sponsors of this particular amendment. At the conclusion of the
consideration of this amendment, I am going to propose a motion to
change one word in the amendment, and then I hope we will be able to
take up the matter on final passage. But the language that the Senator
from Nevada has suggested is not only consistent but entirely
appropriate. I fully support it. I believe the distinguished Senator
from Minnesota shares that same opinion.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I wanted to concur with what the Senator
from Virginia said. Without objection, we are willing to accept the
second-degree amendment of the Senator from Nevada. We would like to go
ahead with a voice vote on that.
Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am willing to lend my encouragement
to end this debate. But I do not want to close it without a brief
statement. I have an amendment that I was about to send to the desk
that said, if we think that we can expose the White House with the
infrastructure and the President of the United States and the people
who work in the facility to passersby, then I think we should do the
same thing out here on the Capitol Grounds. I think we ought to say
that no life here is worth more than a life there and nothing that goes
on here is more important than what goes on in the White House in the
executive offices of this country. I am willing to forgo it. But, Mr.
President, I want to make the point, before we close the debate as far
as this Senator is concerned, that ``do unto others'' is not an
admonition that ought to pass by here. I think we ought to treat this
facility no differently than we treat the White House.
If we are going to open up that street, I assure you that I will be
here with an amendment that says open up the whole plaza here. Let of
the traffic come through. Let them park cars, vans, whatever they
choose. Let them park at the Hart, Dirksen and the Russell Buildings. I
love this picture that says for the American people we are going to
protect the Capitol, protect the Senators, and protect the Congressmen,
but the President, let him beware.
That is the conclusion of my remarks. Mr. President, I congratulate
the Senator from Nevada for his amendment to this proposition. Thank
you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the second-degree amendment
of the Senator from Nevada.
The amendment (No. 4056) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. ROBB. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

Amendment No. 4052, As Amended, As Modified

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, the amendment was never designed to be
partisan nor to attack, certainly, the President. I would never have
been a part of it. It was designed to try to clarify something that has
been very troubling to many of the people who are directly involved,
both for symbolic reasons as well as for practical reasons, in terms of
the traffic flow of the Nation's Capital. I have lived in and around
this area for 40 of my 57 years, or most of the last 40 of my 57 years.
I am quite familiar with the traffic patterns and the inconvenience to
those who have to traffic the area every day. I am very conscious of
the symbolism of our Nation's Capital, and particularly the President's
house.
I have discussed with the chief sponsor of the amendment the changing
of one word that I think might make our intention even clearer. That
would be to substitute the word ``request'' for the word ``direct''
which is contained on page 3, line 18. It would then read that it is
the sense of the Senate that the President should request the
Department of the Treasury and the Secret Service to work with the
government of the District of Columbia to develop, et cetera.
I think there have been connotations that this is attempting to
micromanage, or to take action that would be inappropriate. I fully
respect those who have spoken and those who have concerns. It ought to
be considered appropriately by the committees of jurisdiction. But we
need to have a resolution of this question.
I applaud the Senator from Minnesota for bringing the question to our
attention.
I move, Mr. President, to strike the word ``direct'' and insert the
word ``request'' on line 18, page 3.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to modifying the amendment?
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall
not object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I shall not object. I would like to make an observation.
I would like to wait until other Senators have spoken.
What is the parliamentary situation at the moment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A unanimous-consent request is pending to
modify the existing amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. Let me just make a very brief remark reserving my right
to object, if I might, which is this: I am going to support this
amendment. I am glad there is agreement. But I really wonder sometimes
where I am around here, if this is the city council or if this is the
Senate of the United States of America.
I think it is very important that we address the issue of security
for the President. We are in this amendment. And that we look at how we
can make Pennsylvania Avenue work. But I have to say, Mr. President,
and the reason I reserve my right to object, it is awfully frustrating
to someone who would like to see us raise the minimum wage and to
someone who would like to see us get to the issue of health care that
we are on the defense bill and we are talking about Pennsylvania
Avenue. With all due respect, I would not object at this time, but I do
hope we can move forward and get on with this bill and others to make
life better for people.
I yield the floor.

[[Page S6450]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the modification is made.
The amendment, as amended, as modified, is as follows:

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) In 1791, President George Washington commissioned
Pierre Charles L'Enfant to draft a blueprint for America's
new capital city; they envisioned Pennsylvania Avenue as a
bold, ceremonial boulevard physically linking the U.S.
Capitol building and the White House, and symbolically the
Legislative and Executive branches of government.
(2) An integral element of the District of Columbia,
Pennsylvania Avenue stood for 195 years as a vital, working,
unbroken roadway, elevating it into a place of national
importance as ``America's Main Street''.
(3) 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the White House, has become
America's most recognized address and a primary destination
of visitors to the Nation's Capital; ``the People's House''
is host to 5,000 tourists daily, and 15,000,000 annually.
(4) As home to the President, and given its prominent
location on Pennsylvania Avenue and its proximity to the
People, the White House has become a powerful symbol of
freedom, openness, and an individual's access to their
government.
(5) On May 20, 1995, citing possible security risks from
vehicles transporting terrorist bombs, President Clinton
ordered the Secret Service, in conjunction with the
Department of the Treasury, to close Pennsylvania Avenue to
vehicular traffic for two blocks in front of the White House.
(6) While the security of the President and visitors to the
White House is of grave concern and is not to be taken
lightly, the need to assure the President's safety must be
balanced with the expectation of freedom inherent in a
democracy; the present situation is tilted too heavily toward
security at freedom's expense.
(7) By impeding access and imposing undue hardships upon
tourists, residents of the District, commuters, and local
business owners and their customers, the closure of
Pennsylvania Avenue, undertaken without the counsel of the
government of the District of Columbia, has replaced the
former openness of the area surrounding the White House with
barricades, additional security checkpoints, and an
atmosphere of fear and distrust.
(8) In the year following the closure of Pennsylvania
Avenue, the taxpayers have borne a significant burden for
additional security measures along the Avenue near the White
House.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the President should request the Department of the
Treasury and the Secret Service to work with the Government
of the District of Columbia to develop a plan for the
permanent reopening to vehicular traffic of Pennsylvania
Avenue in front of the White House in order to restore the
Avenue to its original state and return it to the people.
At the end of the amendment add the following: Provided,
That the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secret Service
certify that the plan protects the security of the people who
live and work in the White House.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Virginia.
The amendment (No. 4052), as amended, as modified, was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4057

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the United States-
Japan Semiconductor Trade Agreement should be renegotiated)

Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kyl
amendment and the pending committee amendments be laid aside for the
purpose of offering an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], for himself, Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Burns, Mr. Dorgan,
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Levin, Ms. Snowe, Mr.
Murkowski, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Cohen, proposes an amendment
numbered 4057.

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

At the end of subtitle F of title X, add the following:

SEC. . SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING THE UNITED STATES-JAPAN
SEMICONDUCTOR TRADE AGREEMENT.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The United States and Japan share a long and important
bilateral relationship which serves as an anchor of peace and
stability in the Asia Pacific region, an alliance which was
reaffirmed at the recent summit meeting between President
Clinton and Prime Minister Hashimoto in Tokyo.
(2) The Japanese economy has experienced difficulty over
the past few years, demonstrating that it is no longer
possible for Japan, the world's second largest economy, to
use exports as the sole engine of economic growth, but that
the Government of Japan must promote deregulation of its
domestic economy in order to increase economic growth.
(3) Deregulation of the Japanese economy requires
government attention to the removal of barriers to imports of
manufactured goods.
(4) The United States-Japan Semiconductor Trade Agreement
has begun the process of deregulation in the semiconductor
sector and is opening the Japanese market to competitive
foreign products.
(5) The United States-Japan Semiconductor Trade Agreement
has put in place both government-to-government and industry-
to-industry mechanisms which have played a vital role in
allowing cooperation to replace conflict in this important
high technology sector.
(6) The mechanisms include joint calculation of foreign
market share, deterrence of dumping, and promotion of
industrial cooperation in the design of foreign semiconductor
devices.
(7) Because of these actions under the United States-Japan
Semiconductor Trade Agreement, the United States and Japan
today enjoy trade in semiconductors which is mutually
beneficial, harmonious, and free from the friction that once
characterized the semiconductor industry.
(8) Because of structural barriers in Japan, a gap still
remains between the share of the world market for
semiconductor products outside Japan that the United States
and other foreign semiconductor sources are able to capture
through competitiveness and the share of the Japanese
semiconductor market that the United States and those other
sources are able to capture through competitiveness, and that
gap is consistent across the full range of semiconductor
products as well as a full range of end-use applications.
(9) The competitiveness and health of the United States
semiconductor industry is of critical importance to the
overall economic well-being and high technology defense
capabilities of the United States.
(10) The economic interests of both the United States and
Japan are best served by well functioning, open markets,
deterrence of dumping, and continuing good cooperative
relationships in all sectors, including semiconductors.
(11) A strong and healthy and military and political
alliance between the United States and Japan requires
continuation of the industrial and economic cooperation
promoted by the United States-Japan Semiconductor Trade
Agreement.
(12) President Clinton has called on the Government of
Japan to agree to a continuation of a United States-Japan
Semiconductor Trade Agreement beyond the current agreement's
expiration on July 31, 1996.
(13) The Government of Japan has opposed any continuation
of a government-to-government agreement to promote
cooperation in United States-Japan semiconductor trade.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) it is regrettable that the Government of Japan has
refused to consider continuation of a government-to-
government agreement to ensure that cooperation continues in
the semiconductor sector beyond the expiration of the
Semiconductor Trade Agreement on July 31, 1996; and
(2) the President should take all necessary and appropriate
actions to ensure the continuation of a government-to-
government United States-Japan Semiconductor Trade Agreement
before the current agreement expires on that date.
(c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term ``United
States-Japan Semiconductor Trade Agreement'' refers to the
agreement between the United States and Japan concerning
trade in semiconductor products, with arrangement, done by
exchange of letters at Washington on June 11, 1991.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will keep my remarks brief because it is
my understanding that the amendment I have just sent to the desk has,
in fact, been cleared by both sides.
Mr. President, as we surf the Net, drive our car to work, or complete
a training mission in our F-16 fighter, we do not ask ``How is this
possible?'' We simply go about the task at hand.
However, there is a common thread that drives technology in our
lives, the everpresent semiconductor. Semiconductors are an
increasingly pervasive aspect of everyday life, enabling the creation
of the information superhighway and the functioning of everything from
automobiles to advanced medical equipment.
Semiconductors are also the linchpin of our national defense
capabilities. For example, the current design of the F-16 fighter
includes 17,000 electronics components.

[[Page S6451]]

Mr. President, that is why I am offering an amendment today, with
Senator Bingaman and 11 of our colleagues, that express the sense of
the Senate that the United States-Japan Semiconductor Trade Agreement
should be renegotiated.
The United States-Japan Semiconductor Trade Agreement is due to
expire in July of this year. This trade agreement has a successful
track record in opening Japanese markets and discouraging the dumping
of semiconductor products by Japanese companies in the United States.
Mr. President, the United States and Japan have had a long history of
difficulty in this area of trade relations. In 1986, when the first
United States-Japan Semiconductor Agreement was signed, foreign share
in the Japanese semiconductor market averaged only 8.4 percent
annually. In the mid-1980's, the International Trade Commission
determined that Japanese companies had dumped DRAM's, a commodity
memory chip, into the United States market in an attempt to gain market
share through predatory pricing. As a result, 9 of 11 American DRAM
manufacturers were driven out of the market.
The United States-Japan Semiconductor Trade Agreement has made
significant progress in countering these unfair trade practices. The
agreement has opened the Japanese semiconductor market to foreign
producers, with foreign market share growing to 25 percent in 1995.
The agreement has also discouraged dumping practices by requiring
Japanese firms to have appropriate data regarding costs available on a
standby basis. This allows the Department of Commerce to conduct a fast
track investigation, so that there is a swift imposition of a remedy if
dumping is found, or ends the possibility of litigation if there is no
evidence of dumping.
Mr. President, the agreement has been very effective in easing the
problems associated with this area of United States-Japan trade
relations.
Earlier this week, the United States Trade Representative's office
announced that the foreign share of Japan's semiconductor market
increased during the first quarter of 1996 to a record high of 30.6
percent.
Acting USTR Charlene Barshefsky responded in a written statement,
that this improvement ``demonstrates the progress that can be achieved
when the United States and Japan work together in a cooperative spirit
and is a tribute to strenuous efforts that both sides have made to
improve market access and strengthen industry cooperation under the
United States-Japan Semiconductor Agreement. It is essential that we
preserve and continue this effort.''
Mr. President, this, and other recent developments are positive news.
However, they provide added incentive to ensure that this important
trade agreement be renewed. Given the range of trade issues currently
being addressed between the United States and Japan, it would not be in
our interest for another area of contention in trade to develop.
There is some evidence that the worldwide semiconductor industry may
now be entering into a period when supply will exceed demand. Renewal
of the United States-Japan Semiconductor Agreement has become even more
important because of the recent drop in DRAM memory semiconductors.
Prices, which have fallen by over 70 percent since the beginning of the
year, are now at levels which are below many producers' costs.
This kind of dumping has thrown the market into uncertainty and has
injured U.S. producers. This type of injury and uncertainty is what the
agreement is designed to address, and has done so successfully for
years.
If current trends continue, the United States-Japan agreement becomes
even more vital to our national interest, since the protection it
provides is doubly necessary to discourage dumping in a period of
oversupply.
American semiconductor manufacturers are among the most efficient in
the world, but they cannot be expected to compete against unfair trade
practices.
More important, it is vital to our defense interests, because we
cannot afford to lose this important industry as a result of predatory
dumping, similar to what existed prior to the agreement.
In his speech at the Semiconductor Industry Association's annual
awards dinner, Secretary of Defense William Perry noted the importance
of this industry in meeting our defense and security needs.
In short, the competitiveness and health of the U.S. semiconductor
industry is of critical importance to the overall economic well-being
and high technology defense capabilities of the United States.

the case for renewal of the agreement

The purpose of both the 1986 and the 1991 United States-Japan
Semiconductor Agreements is to allow foreign manufacturers equitable
access to the Japanese semiconductor market, and to discourage Japanese
dumping in the United States market. In short, the goal of the
agreement is to open the Japanese market to the point where sales
generally occur without respect to the nationality of the supplier.
U.S. semiconductor manufacturers are extremely competitive in all
open markets across a wide range of applications and a wide range of
products. However, there remains a sharp disparity, between the market
share United States manufacturers account for outside the United States
and Japan, and the share they account for inside Japan.
In the world market, excluding the United States and Japan, American
manufacturers accounted for 40 percent of all semiconductor sales in
1995. United States semiconductor makers accounted for only 18 percent
of sales in the Japanese market that same year.
The significant disparity between United States sales outside Japan
and sales inside Japan indicates that sales in that country are not
always made solely on the basis of market forces such as technology,
price, quality, service, and delivery.
It is important to note that the disparity is not explained by the
argument that the United States industry does better in the United
States and the Japanese industry does better in Japan.
A comparison of the 40-percent share United States firms earn in
world markets outside both the United States and Japan with the 18-
percent share United States firms have in Japan demonstrates that a
significant gap remains. But there is only a small difference between
the 23-percent share Japanese firms have in the United States market
and the 27-percent share they have in world markets outside both the
United States and Japan.

key points for a renewed agreement

Mr. President, as I already mentioned, the current semiconductor
agreement expires July 31, 1996. It is essential that a new government-
to-government agreement be negotiated with Japan before that time.
The Japanese electronic industry has proposed an industry-to-industry
agreement with no government involvement as a replacement for the
current agreement. An industry-level agreement is completely
unacceptable. It would not ensure continued progress in increasing
foreign market access in Japan, nor would it provide the necessary
guarantee against Japanese dumping in our market.
Important features of a new government-to-government semiconductor
agreement are:
It should provide for joint United States-Japanese Government
calculation and publication of foreign market share in Japan;
And, it should provide for regular government-to-government
consultations to assess progress in increasing foreign market access.
These provisions regarding the governments' oversight roles are
critical to ensuring continued progress.
Market access in Japan is critical for the continued growth and
strength of the United States semiconductor industry. In 1995, the
Japanese semiconductor market was $39.6 billion. It is expected to grow
to $57.1 billion by 1999. Every percentage point increase in United
States market access in Japan is therefore worth hundreds of millions
of dollars in increased United States exports, thousands of additional
jobs in the United States, and a stronger domestic industry to meet our
growing national security and defense needs.

status of negotiations

Mr. President, bilateral talks are expected to begin this week. There
is reason to be cautiously optimistic about

[[Page S6452]]

this development; however, it is imperative that the Japanese
Government be prepared to discuss in good faith the role that
government must continue to play in deregulating the Japanese
semiconductor market and continuing the process of opening that market.
Mr. President, the deadline for the expiration of the United States-
Japanese Semiconductor Agreement is fast approaching. No new progress
toward renegotiation of this important trade agreement has been made.
Meetings have now occurred, which is certainly a step in the right
direction. However, Japanese and American officials just ended 12 days
of unofficial semiconductor trade talks yesterday in Tokyo that yielded
little progress. The next step will be a sub-Cabinet-level meeting held
here in Washington tomorrow and Friday between MITI Vice Minister of
International Affairs Yashihiro Sakamoto and Ira Shapiro, Ambassador in
Charge of Japan and Canada at the Office of the United States Trade
Representative.
Mr. President, these current events emphasize the importance of the
message being sent today by the Senate, and that is that the United
States-Japanese Semiconductor Agreement should be--and, most
importantly, must be--renegotiated. Given the range of trade issues
currently being addressed between our two nations, it would not be in
either of our interests for another area of contention in trade to
develop. Therefore, it is essential that a new government-to-government
agreement be negotiated with Japan before the current agreement expires
on July 31.
Mr. President, I have no further comments on this amendment.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to add my support to the amendment
regarding the United States-Japan Semiconductor Agreement.
The United States-Japan Semiconductor Agreement, first concluded in
1986, and renewed in 1991, has led to tremendous progress in opening
the Japanese market. It has provided the framework for discussing trade
issues before they became problematic and has been the catalyst for
increasing cooperation between United States semiconductor makers and
Japanese semiconductor-consuming industries. It has also promoted fair
trade in the marketplace and, at least until recently, has helped to
avoid situations of injurious dumping.
The current agreement expires at the end of July. It must be renewed.
Moreover, both governments must play a significant role in any renewed
agreement. Government-to-government involvement provides essential
support and encouragement to all industry efforts, and permits the
collection of relevant data regarding the calculation of market share.
The agreement will not work unless this data can form the basis of the
accountability in product pricing that can avoid antidumping actions.
Renewal of the United States-Japan Semiconductor Agreement has become
even more important because of the recent dramatic price declines for
memory chips. Average sales prices have fallen by over 70 percent in
recent months. These prices are so low, in fact, that the specter of
significant injurious dumping is again a reality. Dumping throws
markets into a panic. This type of uncertainty and disruption must not
take place again. I urge the President to use all the means at his
disposal to conclude a renewed agreement before the current one expires
on July 31.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an
amendment to express the sense of the Senate that the United States-
Japan Semiconductor Trade Agreement be renegotiated. The current
semiconductor agreement expires July 31, and it is essential that a new
government-to-government agreement be negotiated with Japan prior to
the expiration date.
The importance of semiconductors should not be underestimated. They
are an increasingly pervasive aspect of everyday life, enabling the
creation of the information superhighway and the functioning of
everything from automobiles to advanced medical equipment.
Semiconductors are also the fulcrum of our national defense
capabilities. U.S. semiconductor manufacturers employ 260,000 people
nationwide. Their products are the driving force behind the nearly $400
billion U.S. electronics industry, which provides employment for 2.5
million Americans. Our semiconductor industry is the world's largest
and it has habitually been the market leader. U.S. sales, last year,
totaled $59 billion, representing almost 41 percent of the $144 billion
global market.
It is anticipated that the world semiconductor market will double by
the year 2000, with projected sales of over $300 billion. Market access
in Japan is critical for the continued growth and strength of the
United States semiconductor industry. In 1995, the Japanese
semiconductor market was $39.6 billion. It is expected to grow to $57.1
billion by 1999. It is well accepted that every percentage point
increase in United States market access in Japan is worth hundreds of
millions of dollars in increased United States exports and
approximately thousands of additional jobs in the United States.
In 1986, President Reagan vigorously sought and concluded a 5-year
agreement with the Government of Japan to grant foreign access to its
semiconductor market. The primary purpose of the 1991 United States-
Japan semiconductor agreement, like the 1986 agreement which preceded
it, is to allow foreign manufacturers equitable access to the Japanese
semiconductor market. The objective of the agreement is to level the
playing field and open the Japanese market to the point where sales
generally occur without respect to the nationality or origin of the
supplier. The semiconductor agreement has led to tremendous progress in
opening the Japanese market. Foreign share increased from 8.5 percent
in 1985 to 25.4 percent in 1995. Of this 25.4 percent foreign share,
the U.S. industry has 18 percent market share.
It is quite apparent that U.S. semiconductor manufacturers are
extremely competitive in all open markets across a wide range of
applications and a wide range of products. There remains a sharp
disparity, however, between the share United States manufacturers
account for in the neutral world markets outside the United States and
Japan and the share they account for inside Japan. In the world market,
excluding the United States and Japan, American manufacturers accounted
for 40 percent of all semiconductor sales in 1995. United States
semiconductor makers accounted for only 18 percent of sales in the
Japanese market that same year. This huge difference in United States
sales outside Japan and sales inside Japan is further evidence that
sales in that country are, unfortunately, still not always made solely
on the basis of market forces such as technology, price, quality,
service, and delivery.
Statements that attempt to rationalize the inability of American
manufacturers to gain adequate access to the Japanese semiconductor
market tend to focus on the belief that it is purely natural that the
United States industry does better in the United States and the
Japanese industry does better in Japan--this is simply not true. A
comparison of the 40 percent share United States firms earn in world
markets outside both the United States and Japan with the 18 percent
share United States firms have in Japan demonstrates that significant
gap remains. But there is only a small difference between the 23
percent share Japanese firms have in the United States market and the
27 percent share they have in world markets outside both the United
States and Japan.
This week, acting-U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefshy is in
Tokyo to hold inform bilateral talks. Although, I am cautiously
optimistic about this development, it is imperative that the Government
of Japan understand and be prepared to discuss in good faith the role
that government must continue to play in deregulating the Japanese
semiconductor market and continuing the process of opening that market.
The Government of Japan must also resist efforts by its electronics
industry to install an industry-to-industry agreement with no
government involvement as a replacement for the current agreement. Such
an industry-to-industry agreement would not ensure continued progress
in increasing foreign market access in Japan and is totally
unacceptable.
A government-to-government semiconductor agreement will provide for
joint United States-Japan Government calculation and publication of
foreign

[[Page S6453]]

market share in Japan and that it provide for regular government-to-
government consultations to assess progress in increasing foreign
market access. These provisions regarding the governments' oversight
roles are critical to ensuring continued progress and are totally
within the true spirit of competition.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Craig-
Bingaman amendment, urging the renewal of our semiconductor agreement.
The agreement has reduced trade friction and promotes private sector
cooperation. It is essential that a new government-to-government
agreement is negotiated with Japan before the current agreement is
allowed to expire on July 31.
The United States and Japan have a significant stake in trade harmony
in this important economic sector. The current $100 billion world
market for semiconductors is expected to grow to $300 billion by the
year 2000. The semiconductor industry is the basis of our electronics
industry and an increasingly pervasive part of our everyday life.
This agreement, first signed in 1986, creates a regular framework for
business and government leaders to meet and review trade issues and
business trends. This framework has helped build smooth, steady growth
in the industry, defused potential disputes, and promoted trade
harmony, rather than the hostility that has characterized other trade
sectors.
As a replacement, the Japanese electronics industry proposes an
industry-to-industry agreement with no government involvement. This
industry agreement is unacceptable.
It would take no action to ensure continued progress to increase
foreign market share in Japan. Without an agreement, in a market
downturn, United States producers could be cut out of segments of the
Japanese market.
A strong government oversight role is fundamental to enforcing the
integrity of the semiconductor market under the agreement. The
government-to-government semiconductor agreement must be renewed in
order to provide for the gathering and publication of market share data
and provide for the regular meetings of industry leaders to review
market and industry issues.
Market access in Japan is critical for the continued growth and
strength of the United States semiconductor industry. The $39 billion
Japanese semiconductor market is expected to grow to $57.1 billion by
1999. Each percentage point increase in United States market access in
Japan represents hundreds of millions of dollars in increased sales and
United States jobs.
Representatives of the United States semiconductor industry recently
met in Hawaii with their Japanese counterparts to try to reach
agreement on future United States-Japan cooperation on semiconductor
issues. During the meetings, the Japanese company executives submitted
a confidential proposal to continue cooperation in semiconductors, but
refused to discuss the role of the Government in ensuring the
agreement.
At the same time, the Japanese Government insisted it could not
discuss the agreement with the United States Government unless and
until an industry level agreement is reached. This rigid insistence
appears deliberately designed to deadlock discussions until the current
agreement expires in July.
The United States industry--in close consultation with USTR--has
decided that it cannot and will not continue to meet with Japanese
company leaders under these circumstances, but will respond to
proposals put forth by the Japanese companies.
Mr. President, the purpose of the 1991 agreement, like the 1986
agreement which preceded it, is to allow foreign manufacturers
equitable access to the Japanese semiconductor market. The agreement
seeks to open the Japanese market to the point where sales generally
occur without respect to the nationality of the supplier.
The semiconductor agreement has been a tremendous success and must be
continued. Under the agreement, the foreign share of the Japanese
increased from 8.5 percent in 1985 to 25.4 percent in 1995. Of this 25-
percent share, the U.S. firms have an 18-percent market share.
The United States semiconductor manufacturers, many of them based in
my State of California, make the best product in the world and are
extremely competitive in all open markets across the full range of
applications and products.
However, United States manufacturers have been less successful in the
Japanese market than in the neutral world markets outside of the United
States and Japan.
In neutral markets, American manufacturers represent 40 percent of
all semiconductor sales last year.
In Japan, United States semiconductor makers accounted for only 18
percent of 1995 sales, a gap consistent across the full range of
semiconductor products and applications.
By contrast, there is only a small difference between the 23-percent
share Japanese firms have in the United States market and the 27-
percent share they have in neutral markets.
The disparity between United States sales outside and inside the
Japanese market suggests semiconductor sales in that country are,
unfortunately, still not always made solely on the basis of market
forces such as technology, price, quality, service, and delivery.
Current market conditions require the continuation of the United
States-Japan agreement.
Mr. President, the United States-Japan semiconductor agreement
reduces trade friction and promotes private sector cooperation, rather
than Government enforcement. For both countries, the extension would
represent an opportunity to continue the current, mutually beneficial
relationship and should not to be allowed to slip by.
The Clinton administration deserves credit for endorsing renewal and
raising this issue during bilateral meetings. However, the Japanese
Government should understand very clearly that the desire to extend the
agreement is shared by Congress as well. I am pleased to support the
amendment.
Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, we favor the Craig amendment on this side,
and I recommend it be accepted.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we favor the Craig amendment and
recommend it be accepted.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I urge adoption of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the
Craig amendment.
The amendment (No. 4057) was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. THURMOND. I ask unanimous consent that the time on the Bingaman
amendment be limited to 40 minutes equally divided in the usual form,
that no amendments be in order, and that following the use or yielding
back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 4058

(Purpose: To strike out provisions that predetermine the outcome of an
ongoing Department of Defense study on space control and to provide a
framework for space control decisions to be made)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments will
be laid aside. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an
amendment numbered 4058.

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

Beginning on page 32, strike out line 22 and all that
follows through page 33, line 21, and insert in lieu thereof
the following:

SEC. 212. SPACE CONTROL ARCHITECTURE STUDY.

(a) Required Consideration of Kinetic Energy Tactical
Antisatellite Program.--

[[Page S6454]]

The Department of Defense Space Architect shall evaluate the
potential cost and effectiveness of the inclusion of the
kinetic energy tactical antisatellite program of the
Department of Defense as a specific element of the space
control architecture which the Space Architect is developing
for the Secretary of Defense.
(b) Congressional Notification of Any Determination of
Inappropriateness of Program for Architecture.--(1) If at any
point in the development of the space control architecture
the Space Architect determines that the kinetic energy
tactical antisatellite program is not appropriate for
incorporation into the space control architecture under
development, the Space Architect shall immediately notify the
congressional defense committees of such determination.
(2) Within 60 days after submitting a notification of a
determination under paragraph (1), the Space Architect shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a detailed
report setting forth the specific reasons for, and analytical
findings supporting, the determination.
(c) Report on Approved Architecture.--Not later than March
31, 1997, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on the space
control architecture approved by the Secretary. The report
shall include the following:
(1) An assessment of the potential threats posed to
deployed United States military forces by the proliferation
of foreign military and commercial space assets.
(2) The Secretary's recommendations for development and
deployment of space control capabilities to counter such
threats.
(d) Funding.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall release to
the kinetic energy tactical antisatellite program manager the
funds appropriated in fiscal year 1996 for the kinetic energy
tactical antisatellite program. The Secretary may withdraw
unobligated balances of such funds from the program manager
only if--
(A) the Space Architect makes a determination described in
subsection (b)(1); or
(B) a report submitted by the Secretary pursuant to
subsection (c) includes a recommendation not to pursue such a
program.
(2) Not later than April 1, 1997, the Secretary of Defense
shall release to the kinetic energy tactical antisatellite
program manager any funds appropriated for fiscal year 1997
for a kinetic energy tactical antisatellite program pursuant
to section 221(a) unless--
(A) the Space Architect has by such date submitted a
notification pursuant to subsection (b); or
(B) a report submitted by the Secretary pursuant to
subsection (c) includes a recommendation not to pursue such a
program.
Beginning on page 42, strike out line 15 and all that
follows through page 43, line 9.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. It
proposes to delete two provisions that have been included in the bill.
The effect of the provisions that are in the bill is that they would
prejudge an ongoing study that the Pentagon is doing on space control
and antisatellite weapons. These provisions that I am proposing to
delete would impose on the Pentagon a kinetic energy antisatellite
weapon which is generally referred to as KE-ASAT, which may well be one
of the least attractive options available to the Pentagon for space
control.
My amendment instead sets up a process whereby the Pentagon can
complete its analysis of the ongoing space control architecture study
and fund the KE-ASAT, the kinetic energy ASAT, only if the Secretary of
Defense decides that it is a desirable option.
My amendment was defeated in the committee when I offered it by an
11-to-10 vote. I hope that we can succeed on the floor because we
simply should not be imposing a technical solution to a complex problem
on the Pentagon before they have told us what their space control
architecture will be.
Mr. President, this is a fairly esoteric subject. There is no doubt
that our military forces deployed overseas will be made more vulnerable
by the proliferation of foreign military commercial satellite imaging
capabilities in the coming years. I have been among several here in
Washington and around the country pointing to that threat and urging
the administration to develop diplomatic and military options to deal
with the threat.
The Pentagon's own April 1996 report, ``Proliferation Threat and
Responsibilities,'' pointed to the growing availability of satellite
imaging and noted--and here is a quote from that report:

Iraq, for example, might have used such capability to
discover that coalition forces had shifted their positions
prior to ground operations in Operation Desert Storm.
Obviously, such a discovery by Iraq could have cost many
allied lives. A future General Schwarzkopf may not have
absolute dominance of the space above the battle area that
the real General Schwarzkopf enjoyed during Desert Storm as a
result of the U.N. sanctions on Iraq.

To deal with this threat, a threat that the Pentagon does take
seriously, the Pentagon has launched a space control architecture
development effort under the Pentagon's space architect, Maj. Gen.
Robert Dickman. The results of the study may be available as early as
this fall, according to the testimony that was received in the Armed
Services Committee. Unfortunately, instead of waiting for this study,
section 212 of this bill, this defense authorization bill that we are
considering today--section 212 of the bill takes all funding away from
the space architect unless the Secretary of Defense includes the
kinetic energy ASAT in the space control architecture being developed.
Section 221(c) denies all funding for technical analysis, that is $35
million, denies all that funding to the Under Secretary for Acquisition
and Technology unless the kinetic energy ASAT Program is pursued.
Mr. President, this is, I believe, the first example I have seen of a
sort of double mandate being put into law, where we are saying not only
will we deny all funds to the space architect in the Department of
Defense if they do not come to the conclusion we want in this study,
but we will also deny this $35 million to the Under Secretary for
Acquisition and Technology unless they decide to pursue this particular
option.
In my view we should not be using such a mandate to influence the
outcome of an ongoing Pentagon study. The real reason for this
mandatory language, I am afraid, is that many are concerned that the
kinetic energy ASAT option will prove to be a very poor alternative in
this ongoing study. Most previous studies of antisatellite capabilities
have pointed toward directed energy options as preferable to the
kinetic energy ASAT mandated by the bill. For example, the Air Force
Science Board, in its ``New World Vistas'' study in air and space power
for the 21st century earlier this year recommended both ground-based
lasers and high-powered microwave systems over the kinetic energy ASAT
systems. Here is a quote from that ``New World Vistas'' study. It says:

Kinetic energy systems . . . are expensive. The vehicles
are complex, and tracking and guidance must be precise. Most
of the cost, however, is the result of maintaining readiness
to launch within an acceptable time.

Mr. President, I am not opposed to the Pentagon's developing
antisatellite capabilities to deal with the proliferation of foreign
high-resolution imaging satellites. But we have to understand that
these capabilities will be in the hands of a limited number of nations
for the next 10 to 15 years, nations such as France, Russia, Israel,
China, possibly India, and Japan. Would we really use a kill
capability--which is what the kinetic energy ASAT is? This kinetic
energy ASAT capability would collide with the satellite which it is
directed against at very high speed. Would we really use this ability
against one of those nations which I just listed, simply because they
were making imagery available to a potential foe, such as Saddam
Hussein, during a regional confrontation? Would our national leadership
not prefer a capability that would disable or jam such a satellite when
it was over our deployed forces but which would not permanently damage
it?

The Air Force Science Board study to which I referred earlier points
out that high power ``microwave systems could be attractive because
they have the potential to produce electronic upset without damaging
the structure of a threat satellite.'' Similarly, a mobile ground-based
laser system might be developed that can only damage a threat satellite
if its shutters were open, not if it were in a shutdown mode. Such
systems would provide our military commanders a military option to
ensure the dominance of space by this country above the battle area,
which General Schwarzkopf enjoyed during Desert Storm, without
resulting in the escalation of a regional conflict.
The ideal space control capability is not one that destroys a foreign
imaging satellite by colliding with it at high velocity and creating a
diplomatic crisis that broadens a conflict as well as a cloud of space
debris that will have adverse effects on peaceful space activities.
Mr. President, if there are more cost effective and more
diplomatically effective approaches to space control,

[[Page S6455]]

should we not allow the Pentagon to pursue those? The amendment I am
offering leaves the $75 million in the bill which is presently there
for tactical ASAT technology, without specifying what technologies we
might be using it for. It eliminates the mandate forcing the use of the
kinetic energy ASAT by the Pentagon. The amendment instead directs that
the kinetic energy ASAT option be explicitly evaluated by General
Dickman for the space control architecture, but it leaves the choice of
whether to fund that option to the Pentagon. The Pentagon must also
give Congress the results of its space control study by March 31, 1997.
This is the way in which we normally proceed when the Pentagon
defines a threat, as they have in this case, and launches an effort to
deal with that threat. We do not impose our solution to a highly
complex problem before we have heard the Pentagon's own recommended
solution.
Mr. President, the only testimony which the Senate received this year
on this whole issue was from Gil Decker, the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Research and Acquisition, who told the Armed Services
Committee that this is not an Army priority. This funding did not
appear on any service wish list. This is hardly the basis for imposing
this kinetic energy ASAT system on the Pentagon.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. That concludes my
statement in support of it and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from New
Hampshire will be seeking some time to respond to the Senator from New
Mexico and will be available to speak shortly. Let me just state we
appear, now, to be making some progress on the bill. Relevant
amendments are being debated and discussed and time limits are being
sought. To the extent Members with amendments can notify us of their
amendments and we can work out a time agreement, that would be
preferable to keep us working late into the night.

____________________