[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.

       (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

[[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.

                          ____________________